Economist article

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#4160

From the 12/21 issue of The Economist:

Can Bowhunting Save America?

[Stephen Graf]

#27984

A nice summary of things…

I was a bit taken aback that the author classified tree stands as unethical. It’s about the only way to kill a deer around here. You can sit on the ground if you like, but you will starve.

I thought he was a bit generous in his appraisal of compounds as weapons basically as primitive as traditional bows. And while he railed against the commercialization of hunting, he completely missed the uber commercialism associated with compound bows.

And I thought the bit about the NRA was spot on. And still, the average bowhunter around here is a staunch NRA supporter. Guns before bows.

I don’t know if anything will “save” hunting. But I am confident that the last group standing will be the guys with sticks and strings.

[skinner biscuit]

#28240

Here in Oregon we are facing the onslaught of crossbows under the guise of “for the disabled”. If this passes I’m sure youth will be next,followed by senior’s and on to the general public.Our neighbor Washington state started with 300 disabled crossbow permits and now has over 3000.We are not Pennsylvania.In fact our deer and elk herds are in decline on both sides of the state.With youth hunts,land owner preference tags and controlled hunts.Elk are being hunted 8 out of 12 months in the calender year.This is absurd!Game management is all about making money, not maintaining healthy herd levels.Pro market driven consumerism and loss of habitat is at play here.I’m sure the NRA is getting a fat donation from the manufacture’s being the harlot that they our!Can bow hunting save America,perhaps not.I must say though, the locavore movement gives me hope.

[Fallguy]

#28452

The NRA is just a mouth piece for those that want to sell off all public lands to private interests. I knew they put the full court press to get a crossbow season in WI. The first step they took was to make it legal for hunters over 65 to use Xbows a couple years ago. The reason being that it is to hard to draw a 60 lb bow. I believe the minimum legal draw weight is 30 lbs. If you can not draw and hold 30 lbs with a 65% let off (12 lbs) then maybe it is time to hang it up. Ultimately the goal is for the billionaires to extract as much money as possible before they close the seasons and sell the land to the highest bidder.:evil:

[David Petersen]

#28463

A friend sent me this Economist article a few days ago, which I, like brother Bruce, thought might be of some interest here. But I didn’t post the link precisely because I have strongly mixed feelings about it. As too often happens, the uninitiated journalist was on the right track but wound up following the wrong hounds, thus treed the wrong coon.

Beyond that, the reactions posted in this thread so far, once again, give me hope for hunting. We will never make any real progress, or deserve to, until we wise up enough to quit supporting self-proclaimed “hunters” groups like NRA (which gains support by fear-mongering) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (representing the billionaires Fallguy refers to) based on their claims and lies. Same with the pols we give our votes to. To get atop the game, we must wise up and start supporting or working against “hunter’s” groups and politicians based on what they DO, not what they say. We must judge them by their actions and alliances, not their promises and claims. Same goes for ourselves, of course. 😆

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#28479

I had mixed feelings about it as well Dave, which is precisely why I posted it. It’s also why I didn’t comment at first – I wanted to see what other people thought, and not bias it with my thoughts right off the bat.

Mostly, I was just pleasantly surprised to see an article of this nature in a mag like the Economist at all! Especially one that points out the important differences between the situation in Europe and the radical vision of the N. American model.

I was also pleased to see that the author broached the subject of the introduction of dart guns (err…crossbows) into archery seasons, and didn’t portray it favorably.

On the other hand, it’s rife with examples of what happens when a journalist ‘dabbles’ in a subject they obviously have no background in. The article tries to get it right, and does on some good points, imo, but also demonstrates some of the usual naivete.

Regardless of the hits and misses throughout the article though, I think the author does hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph:

“American hunting has thrived because it shuns the elitism and snobberies of the Old World. With each passing year, market forces have delivered weapons and gadgets that allow anyone to play Teddy Roosevelt, big-game hunter, further democratising the hunt. Yet to advocates of primitive hunting, those same forces—faster, easier, bigger—weaken the sport’s Rooseveltian values, and help explain its slow decline. Thanks to bowhunting, recent trends have been on the primitivists’ side. The juggernaut of commerce is now catching up. A very American contest looms.”

Does the article say everything I want it to, the way I want it to? No. But that’s also an unrealistic expectation, and I think that in general, for the audience it’s intended for, it’s probably still largely a positive message that speaks to some of the things that concern us as bowhunters about the way the hunting industry has been heading.

So, given the context and the intended audience, I’ll give it a “B-“. 8)

[David Petersen]

#28513

Bruce, I agree on the overall worth of the presentation and venue outweighing the shortcomings.

And I LOVE your Feynman quote!

[1shot]

#28521

I was mentioned in an Ecomnomist article recently, well my custom vinal window sticker was mentioned, hehehehe… When I contacted the author to discuss, no reply…

Personaly No use for their agenda…

[Author]

Posts