howell_jd
Adventurer
It's getting off topic again to compare a contemporary hunter (not necessarily outfitted with modern weapons) with a historic hunter. The latter was providing sustenance where few alternatives were available while the former (a solo hunter no less), who may very well be consuming the quarry afterwards but has abundant alternatives, carries implements in today's hunts valued sufficiently capable of providing more than just meat for a family for one month or more. Also the number of hunters involved when equipped with primitive weapons such as sticks, stones, longbow and flint tipped arrows were a work force not a hunt party...their success meant eating, low-percentage shots to demonstrate skill follow from sufficient supply.
There are enough skilled hunters, and novice hunters to be clear, who use blackpowder rifles, and pistols with ethical hunting practices. I would expect regardless of the method employed that a hunter has a responsibility to the environment and even the quarry - again not unlike "Tread Lightly."
Survival situations change everything I agree. No argument here. Animals first...I'll eat my vegetables later.
Jonathan
There are enough skilled hunters, and novice hunters to be clear, who use blackpowder rifles, and pistols with ethical hunting practices. I would expect regardless of the method employed that a hunter has a responsibility to the environment and even the quarry - again not unlike "Tread Lightly."
Survival situations change everything I agree. No argument here. Animals first...I'll eat my vegetables later.
Jonathan