That part is incredibly disturbing. If all hunters were like you two, I’d have less to grapple with intellectually and emotionally, even if I’m still not that keen on hunting. But when you see what can only be described as target practice — on birds, tree squirrels, non-protected, non-native species — it just turns the stomach.

It would be one thing if young (and new) hunters were forced into guided hunting situations before they ever took a shot at anything. Particularly, since in many modern cultures, hunting is not an imperative — it’s often undertaken voluntarily for reasons beyond subsistence. But I’m a frustrated idealistic mixed with despondent pragmatist, so I know that’s not going to happen. Still, when you consider that suffering is at stake, wouldn’t a civil society at least push for more consensus on that idea?

This is, I realize, where we non-hunters and hunters run into complex discussions and arguments because those lines are incredibly difficult to draw. Maybe that’s why we tend to revert to our absolutist corners: hunting, in all its forms, in this corner — no hunting in this corner. Gray areas are a bear to navigate in this world but I believe they ought to be hashed out to greater compromise.

The fact is, the crux of this discussion actually lies in a super-ideology that transcends hunting. Holly touched on it earlier, too — the disparity in how we view and treat different species in this world. That’s really the heart of the matter. In the U.S., anyway, a dog has a lot more protection than a deer does. But a deer has more protection than a coyote, who resembles very, very closely, a dog. For my money, it’s an outdated and utilitarian framework that simply doesn’t match what we’ve come to know in recent times.

Though I think you and I would both strongly support Eric’s suggestion: “the best thing we could do would be to have people understand their limits in delivering a fatal shot, then offer training to improve their shooting. If you never have shot at a moving target, how can you ethically take a shot at a running deer? You can’t – yet it happens all the time.”

As it is, you can hunt birds without ever having gotten even the most rudimentary sense of your own limits by shooting at clay pigeons—or hunt deer without ever having shot at and hit a standing target, let alone a moving one.

Unfortunately, judgment, experience and skill come with practice on the real thing, not just practice on targets. There are some things you can learn from books and classes, but a paper target doesn’t get your heart pounding, and a clay flies far more predictably than a duck or a dove.

I know you’re thinking about the people who NEVER seem to practice or get better or care about bad shots. I’m sure there out there. But given the human propensity and hunger for learning, I think most of us do improve.

You and I both want a world where humans inflict far less unnecessary pain on animals, whether in the woods, in the laboratory, on the farm, or in the house. I think a lot of people—including both hunters and non-hunters—would agree on the basic point that animal welfare and suffering matter, even if they find it hard to talk about the issues, let alone agree on what to do about them.

Our common ground here brings another thought to mind, planting seeds for a future post. Thanks for that!

On a related note, I had a conversation the other day with a bird rehab specialist who had taken in two domestic birds for injuries. One bird had swallowed a sharp, foreign object, another, a pigeon, had a dart shot through its leg. Immediately upon arrival at the avian vet’s office, the birds were supplemented with extra painkillers, even though they’d been given painkillers at the shelter where they were received. The specialist asked the vet about this, and he said they were now administering more painkiller than previously thought necessary — since recent studies had shown birds feel even more pain than previously thought. (You don’t even want to know what those “studies” entailed.)

Anyway, I make that point to suggest that our scientific understanding of animals is ever-evolving . . . and I think our cultural practices toward them should change with our growing consciousness of these issues.

Okay, and after all this, I do recognize that all you wanted to do is write about why you hunt. Thank you for hosting this discussion, and my counterpoints, in your comments section.

There are studies out there. The numbers aren’t reassuring, in my view. In one 2008 study in Maryland, 104 “bowhunters using modern (compound bow and crossbow) archery equipment…were required to pass the International Bowhunter Education Program and an annual pre-season shooting proficiency test” and they still only recovered 82% of the deer they shot from 1989-2006. For bowhunters whose skills aren’t tested in that way, the rates may be worse.

I’m also not a good source for video footage; in general I’m not fond of hunting videos, for a bunch of reasons. I have seen a few where the deer leaps at the moment of the shot, calmly walks a few yards, then drops dead. In a case like that, I imagine that (just like a human who is shot or stabbed or, presumably, hit with an arrow) the deer hasn’t had time to feel “pain,” only shock. The deer may jump because of the shock, because of the sound of bow string, or both. But it clearly isn’t running in agony. How often does that happen? I don’t know.

The bullet versus arrow question. I don’t know how graphic we want to get here. In theory, they kill differently—the bullet by shock, transferring its kinetic energy to the body of the animal and shutting the nervous system down, and the arrow by cutting vital organs (heart and/or lungs). In practice, if a bullet doesn’t hit a major bone or result in hydrostatic shock, it can travel right through a deer—acting not exactly like, but a bit more like, an arrow.

My sense (again, not an expert opinion) is that a bad hit with either weapon is going to lead to either a slow death (e.g. a gut shot) or a wound (more or less serious) which the deer survives. And a good hit with either weapon is going to kill swiftly, even if the deer runs 75 yards in those seconds.

Undoubtedly, the bow requires much greater patience and judgment: to get close and to pass on all kinds of shots (especially where the angle puts bone between arrow and heart/lungs) that would be appropriate for a firearm.

Nowadays, I think back to the lead we left behind which, when you see a lead-poisoned raptor, probably distresses me even more.

Of course, the “why can’t you be a big man/woman and use a knife” argument is a self-made rhetorical trap. I guess, ultimately, animal-loving non-hunters would prefer hunters didn’t hunt.That’s no secret. Often times, it does seem unfair, no matter how you slice it. So, advocating for primitive weapons would, indeed, level the playing field — if humans were left to tooth and claw like other predators. But the end result, as you say, isn’t pretty.

I’m going on a bit of a limb saying this — other anti-hunters would probably have words with me. But honestly, I could live with hunting back in the day when I had a more idealized version of it. I didn’t like it. I could never do it. And I would have preferred it didn’t exist, sure. Particularly when I had the misfortune of witnessing the outcomes. But when I thought most hunters were like the hunters I personally knew, I had less issue with it.

I guess that’s why I tend to advocate not so much for a middle ground, but for a stronger push toward SOMETHING — anything — that would make the sport a bit more respectable as a whole. I respect you, from what I’ve learned about you. And I respect Tovar. Individual hunters, absolutely. But as a whole, there is just too much variation from what I would deem humane and conscientious, that I can’t condone it. I actually wish that I could say, in all earnestness, yes, I respect hunters because I know how much care they take to do the right thing — and would be about the best I could ask. But my reality just hasn’t been that. And in the absence of that faith, many of us turn to a rather despondent and possibly more vehement point of view than we would otherwise have. I think change has to come from within hunting. But there’s so much resistance to any suggested limits. I understand why. But I envision stasis on this issue.

I don’t have any statistics or personal experience on wounding with rifle vs. archery. I have wounded only one of the four big game animals I’ve shot with a rifle, and we found him and ended it within five minutes. And of course, I don’t do archery yet.

It might be a mistake to read too much into my comments about why people take up bowhunting – you might be able to extrapolate, but I don’t know that. I do know there are a lot of people who genuinely prefer archery because it forces you to get much closer and feels like a more honest way to hunt – firearms have so much power. (And ironically, I’ve come across a lot of anti-hunters/animal rights activists who sneer at hunters for hiding behind “high-powered rifles” and make snotty little statements like, “Why don’t you try doing that with a knife, Big Man?” Well, yeah, we could, but it’d be a lot uglier.)

And deep down, I really like the idea of hunting with a tool that I could theoretically make from natural items around me – wood, sinew, bone, stone. But I harbor no illusions about what that hunting would be like. When it comes down to it, I hunt for two reasons: 1) I love the deep connection to what we used to be before we made things so much better with civilization, and 2) it puts meat in my freezer. A gun is the most efficient way to do that, so that’s what I use. If I had the luxury of unlimited time, I’d bowhunt.

How’s that for a rambling, non-helpful reply?