Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 26 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Hunting made ethical
Published Sunday, July 20, 2008
Photo by Steve VanGunda
Hewitt’s Archery owner Homer Hewitt demonstrates a proper bow draw Friday afternoon. The store hosts ethical bow hunting classes which are free to the public.
NATCHEZ — Is there really a way to make hunting more ethical and humane?
Homer Hewitt, owner of Hewitt’s Archery, seems to think so — and he’s trying to convince others as well.
Every two weeks Hewitt’s Archery provides free classes to try and teach hunters the ethics involved with bow hunting.
Upon completion of the eight-hour course, hunters are internationally certified.
“We teach ethical bow hunting and the history of bow hunting,” Hewitt said. “We show why we as hunters are fitting in today — because you can go to the grocery store and get any kind of meat you want.”
Hewitt’s quest to help hunters become more ethical and precise began in the 60s.
Hewitt said fifty years ago hunters would walk into a shop bragging about how they had nearly killed a deer, but because they had misfired, they had only wounded the animal.
Hewitt preaches in his classes how to shoot a deer so you can kill it without putting the animal through an extra amount of pain.
“Some guys think if you shoot a deer anywhere, it’ll kill them,” Hewitt said. “You have to hit a deer in a precise manner to harvest the deer.”
Hewitt said bow hunting is the most humane way to kill a deer because where a bullet shot shocks the deer; an arrow in the right area will kill a deer without it realizing it.
He said he has seen deer get shot with an arrow, walk around and then curl up as if they’re going to sleep.
Hewitt also said deer hunting is one the safest sports available, comparable with badminton and ping pong “until you get off the ground, 15 to 20 feet up in the air (in a tree stand.)”
“Sometimes people get so excited they walk right off the platform,” Hewitt said. “Or they go to sleep and fall out of the platform.”
Because these accidents can be avoided if hunters are prepared, Hewitt’s class also informs hunters how to protect themselves.
Why bow hunt?
There are several reasons people choose to bow hunt.
Some hunters like the challenge.
“You think that you’re a hunter because you sit there with a gun at 100 or 200 yards? You’ve really got a big advantage,” Hewitt said. “To me it’s like shooting a man’s cow with a gun. With a bow, you’d be amazed how hard it is to draw your bow and shoot.
“You can hunt for years and then when you pick that bow up, you learn how to hunt again because with a gun you can harvest a deer from 200 to 250 yards. With a bow, 20 yards is about the average (distance for a) kill.”
Another reason people choose to bow hunt is because the bow hunting season is longer.
According to Hewitt, the Bow Hunters Association lobbied for them to get into the woods earlier, starting in October and going through January.
Comments
Posted by DavidKveragas (anonymous) on July 20, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole article is a crock.
There is nothing ethical, by any stretch of the words definition, with sport hunting, let alone using an arcahic and inefficient method such as a bow.
Of course all these Robin Hood wannabes will say thye are proficient. And many will point to abilities on closed range, preferably indoors to support their delusion. However, in real life, with a live target in an outdoor setting it's totally different.
Study after study, by various hunting based agencies prove that the actual kill and recovery ratio is one to one. In other words, for every two deer hit by an archer only one is actually recovered. The others suffer and die needlessly.
As for hiting a deer with an arrow and it not knowing it. That's patently absurd. It goes to the myth that game animals cannot feel pain, which I have had both hunters and game officials try and convince me. having worked with animals all my life I know all creatures feel pain.
Archery is not as, let alone more efficient than rifle. Rifle are bad enough when in the hands of a "sportsman" shaking with adreneline, let alone a bow.
The odds of hitting a deer and it going down immedietly are in the Powerball winner range. Almost every archery related piece I have ever read, in major hunting magzines agrees on this point.
Bottom line is archery seasons need to be abolished, not promoted.
Posted by GopherBaroque (anonymous) on July 20, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Take away all the modern advantages of the hunter. No rifles, no atvs, no camoflage dress, no stands, no nothing except maybe a knife. Make the playing ground level for man and beast alike. Then may the best beast win.
Posted by Harmony (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with DavidKveragas 100%.
Also, how ridiculous to compare the sports "badminton and ping pong" to an activity that involves the use of a weapon that is used for the sole purpose of killing an animal! Hunters seem to have a sly way of trying to make light of what they do. For instance they often say "harvest" rather than kill (I do believe that the term "murder" actually applies well). The term "humane kill" is also used often amongst hunters. When someone is killing a perfectly healthy animal, there is absolutely nothing humane about it.
Isn't it odd how the general public has been led to believe that hunting is supposed to be a means of "controlling" the deer population and yet after several decades of hunting, it doesn't ever improve? I don't recall this article mentioning the need for the hunters "services" to keep the population under control----did they forget to mention this little deception that has been used to pacify the non hunting citizens for all these years of needless bloodshed of beautiful healthy wildlife?? It appears that hunting does nothing more than assure that the killers will have an ample number of moving targets year after year, and it's time that the 93%+ of the non hunting citizens are informed of the truth behind the sick blood lust sport.
Don't be fooled by the lies and myths. Deer do suffer and regardless of what hunters will say, deer still starve to death. Hunters do not seek the weak deer but rather they seek the strongest and likely the healthiest of the herd. The myth of "deer will starve and die if we don't hunt" is a crock. If they cared about starving deer, then why do they not have the hunting season take place during the time of year that this is most likely going to occur and they can seek the weak starving deer and "harvest" them while also ending their suffering?
Hunting is nothing more than a sick "sport" for those who derive pleasure in killing beautiful healthy animals. It needs to be abolished!
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love animals...they're delicious.
Posted by GopherBaroque (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We eat deer but we frown on people who eat dog. We eat cow but we frown on people who eat horse. Humans have been eating other animals since the first time pre-historic man managed to kill one. Thing is, we don't need to kill them anymore because we have other people who do it for us and bring it right over to the grocery store. There really isn't much difference where we get the meat because something has to die for us to get it. I guess I'm a hipocritter because I'm against hunting but I still eat meat from the grocery.
Posted by st8player37 (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DavidKveragas said:
"Study after study, by various hunting based agencies prove that the actual kill and recovery ratio is one to one. In other words, for every two deer hit by an archer only one is actually recovered."
One to one ratio actually means that for every one deer hit, one deer is found. Pretty good if you ask me.
Posted by Shorts (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad you said it GopherBaroque, because that was going to be my point exactly. You ask the people who complain about hunting if they eat any kind of meat, and I'll bet most of them do. You can't argue that hunting is so bad, and then not say a word about how cows, chickens, pigs, etc are slaughtered for us to fill our guts. You want to call hunting inhumane? All of the animals that lead no sort of "life" sitting in cages, only to have another machine kill them is no less graphic or inhumane. With that being said, I am a hunter. To me, it's all about respecting the animal you "kill" or "harvest." Sure you have those out there who could care less. But you do have hunters who absolutely, 100% respect the animal they are hunting, and consider it a blessing. So before you go bashing everyone that hunts an animal, check yourself and the food you eat and think about how it was put on your plate.
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
harmony, maybe you should tell the people that total out their vehicles by hitting deer that you do not want hunters harvesting deer. There are people killed and injured everyday from collisions with deer. Don't believe me ask your insurance agent. There is a difference between a hunter and an outlaw. Hunters only shoot what they are going to eat and they pay for hunting licenses and for hunting permits. This is the money that pays for wildlife management and conservation.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dog meat is pretty good. It is a delicacy in Asia. Very delicious.
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you do not like hunting that's fine, but do not take my right away. Harmony I did not like your post, but I do not think anyone should keep you from writing or make it illegal. More deer are killed by cars than guns. Does that mean that we should not be allowed to drive?
Posted by DVM (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
st8player37 wrote: "One to one ratio actually means that for every one deer hit, one deer is found. Pretty good if you ask me."
Am I to understand that st8player37 actually believes that a 50 % wounding rate in archery deer hunting is acceptable? WOW! He is in fact admitting that bowhunters are lousy shots! That anyone would find such atrocious statistic acceptable is beyond comprehension when one considers the consequences: For every deer that is tracked, found and dragged out of the woods, there is another one stumbling around, bleeding, dying an agonizing death somewhere that will take anywhere between hours, days, weeks, months and even a year – depending on where it was shot – dying due to loss of blood, infection, starvation, and never mind the never-ending pain.
That should say it all about bowhunters and their so-called ethics.
guy2co wrote: "More deer are killed by cars than guns." That is absolutely untrue; perhaps doing some research
might put the killing rate by gun/arrow in perspective.
There is absolutely no guarantee that killing deer will stop deer/car collisions with the remaining deer. In fact, studies have shown that when deer doubled/tripled.
How would Mr. Genius explain that one?
Posted by DVM (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Correction in next to last sentence: Studies have shown that when deer numbers were reduced, deer/car collisions still doubled/tripled in some areas.
Posted by st8player37 (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DVM, 50% wounding rate is unacceptable. If you only hit your target 50% of the time, you don't need to shoot, better yet, you don't even need to own a weapon. I was pointing out the fact that DavidKveragas' follow-up sentence attempting to explain a one-to-one ratio was incorrect. A one-to-one hit to find ratio, which the study he references suggests, is exceptional, DavidKveragas said it was 50% which is both incorrect and unacceptable. I'm a hunter and a conservationist who believes in only harvesting what you will eat. There are hunters and there are outlaws. You seem to be stereotyping all hunters as outlaws which couldn't be further from the truth!
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm saying that there are hunters that respect the animals,help with conservation, plant food for the animals,and then there are outlaws who are poachers.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage, about 150 human fatalities, and over 10,000 personal injuries.
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DVM I don't know where you get your studies from, but the deer population has increased consistantly since the 1900's. There was no time when the number of deer decreased.The deer population has increased from 300,000 in 1900 to 20,000,000 in 2001. The reason the numbers of collisions increased is because more and more people are driving in the suburban and outer areas. If you drive by more deer there is a greater chance of hitting one. I just totaled my truck on Palestine Rd. this year, but I live in the country and thats the chance I take. When I lived in town I never hit a deer.
Posted by DVM (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
st8player37 - I believe you didn't quite understand David's comments - it is indeed a fact, according to studies done by many hunting groups, that the wounding rate IS 50% - that means exactly that - for every deer that is tracked and taken out of the woods or wherever one is hunting, another deer gets away with an arrow protruding, dying as I explained.
Therefore, it is irrelevant that a hunter shoots only what he can eat when he misses and the deer gets away, then he may shoot again and be more successful in tracking it (or not) - what does that have to do with the price of oranges?
That deer is out there regardless....
guy2co - I wionder if you know why the deer population has increased?
Statistics in one town in Fairfield County, CT - have shown that deer numbers have decreased from 60 per sq. mile to 47 per sq. mile in 2005/06, and that year, deer/car collisions doubled/tripled - what a strange phenomenon!
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it amazing that people so against hunting even READ this article.
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the deer population has increased because 10 percent of the money used to buy hunting and fishing licenses and gear is used to support wildlife refuges and national wetlands. Its called the Pittman - Robertson Act. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Sept. 2, 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, or the Pittman-Robertson Act, created a 10% excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. Revenue is deposited in a special trust fund under the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be used for state wildlife restoration projects. In the 1970s the excise tax was extended to archery equipment and handguns.
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DVM the numbers decreased because the people in Fairfield keep running over them! As people move into the country they are closer to nature, urban sprawl is more than likely the real reason there is a decrease in Fairfield Ct. When I said the numbers had increased for deer population, I was talking about the US, not one town in Ct.
Posted by st8player37 (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DVM, just so we can be on the same page here...emphasis added by me
DavidKveragas said:
"Study after study, by various hunting based agencies prove that the actual kill and recovery ratio is ONE TO ONE. In other words, for every TWO deer hit by an archer only ONE is actually recovered."
He is describing a two to one ratio not a one to one ratio. Again, a one to one ratio means that for every ONE deer shot, ONE deer is found. If 1000 deer are shot, 1000 deer are found as the study suggests. David's discussion of TWO deer hit only ONE is recovered is not what the study says and is not what a one to one ratio is.
BTW, great post guy2co!
Posted by Harmony (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guy2co~It appears that hunting does not eliminate DVA's according to your very own words. If anything, hunting only encourages deer to reproduce and therefore assures more moving "targets" for the likes of you and your animal murdering ilk. If in fact hunting did actually minimize the population, it would not be necessary year after year---seems as though you hunters are not doing a very good "job" aye?
Here's a fact that hunters do not want the non hunting public to know~ if an impregnated doe can not find enough food sources to sustain herself and future offspring, she has the ability to actually re absorb the embryo and therefore not give birth in the spring. What a great and truly natural form of birth/population control huh? Unfortunately, with no thanks to the mass murder that takes place in a short period of time every year and wipes out large numbers of the herd, the deer instinctively reproduce to replace their herd---therefore making more animals for you and your ilk to murder year after year.
You are apparently just another bloodthirsty killer who enjoys snuffing out the life from beautiful HEALTHY animals and you will use any excuse to try and condone what you do.
BTW, I obviously do not care whether you like what I write or not---there's a tremendous difference in my writing words on a blog and you going out and murdering beautiful healthy animals for "sport".
Posted by st8player37 (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow...Harmony...stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel...haha!
You sure are throwing out a bunch of stereotypes there....Here's a stereotype for you: you are a female, Democrat who cries when trees are cut down; however, you will support a woman's right to choose which destroys a human life. You will cry over a deer, a tree, a piece of endangered pond scum, but think it ok to murder a baby and have the audacity to call it a choice...
This stereotype probably can't be further from the truth, but because others with your so-called views and beliefs think this way, then you must.....do you see how rediculously foolish this is....same principle regarding hunters. You group us with outlaws who deserve the same treatment that they show the animals they kill. Law abiding hunters are nothing like this as I'm sure you are nothing like that stereotype.
Posted by Harmony (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey st8player37--do you happen to know that there is a difference between stereotyping and stating the truth?
Hunting does NOT work. If it did then it would not be required year after year after year. There are STILL several thousands of DVA's every year. There are STILL deer that starve to death year after year. To add to that list, there are human lives senselessly destroyed via lousy shots---without hunting there would be ZERO human fatalities and injuries due to hunting accidents. That is a FACT. Hunting does NOT work and only causes increase in the herd year after year and it causes human deaths as well as countless needless animal deaths.
Now, are you also saying I am stereotyping when I state that you are a bloodthirsty killer? Emphasizing, or slightly exaggerating perhaps, but calling you a bloodthirsty killer is far more suiting then saying you "respect" deer by invading their territory, seek out the strong and healthy of them and then proceed to snuff the life out of them. Sorry bud, you are in the tiny minority --less than 7% of US citizens get a kick out of murdering animals. Your numbers are dwindling, and non hunting citizens are becoming more aware of the deceit that they have been fed in order to pacify them into being falsely led to believe it it 'necessary'.
BTW, just because something is considered "legal" does not mean it is right. People are working towards abolishing hunting forever.
Posted by st8player37 (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well then, as a hunter and a minority, I'm feeling discriminated against....haha!!!
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. When oil prices cause commodities to become so expensive that the general public can't afford food, you are more than welcome to come to my house and eat all the deer meat that you want.
Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
harmony, you need to relieve some stress, why don't you take up a hobby. Something like hunting!!!!!!!!
Posted by Harmony (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
guy2co~ Like the majority of delusional hunters, you seem to not comprehend that you are in a tiny minority. Unlike you and your ilk, the majority of sane, sensible, intelligent people do not get a thrill out of murdering beautiful healthy animals, and they are intelligent and compassionate enough to find non violent ways to relieve stress and/or enjoy a hobby that does not inflict pain, suffering and death to animals --or humans for that matter. It seems as though you have a difficult time in grasping the truth of the matter. You are in the tiny minority of people who actually enjoy snuffing the life out of beautiful healthy animals----and your numbers are dwindling.
Now, to relieve the stress you likely feel just from reading my post, if it is daylight--why don't you go for a walk armed with a camera and take some pictures of any wildlife and other beautiful sites of nature that you encounter? It will do you good and there won't even be any bloodshed---if you can even fathom that. Good day.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)