Forum Replies Created
James HarveyMemberJanuary 30, 2013 at 9:29 pmPost count: 1119
WICanner wrote: One can argue specifics on individuals, but the trends in ‘bowhunting’ are undeniable.
My bowhunting experience is less than a decade old so there will be many here who have a better idea of trends than I do. I recently read ‘Hunting With the Bow and Arrow’ by Saxton Pope. He and his hunting companions seemed to regularly take shots at animals at the limits of their range. Is it possible that hunting ethics is a never ending battle against the risk taking, glory hungry drives of young men? Particularly young men who have come from a non-hunting family, so have had no childhood education in the matter?
I introduced myself to bowhunting (and hunting in general) when I was about 20, after watching ‘Deliverence’ of all things. I took some wildly unethical shots with my shiny new compound bow. The virtue of being a terrible shot was the only thing that saved me and my prey from having to live with the results. I wouldn’t characterise my younger self as generally unethical or risk taking. Just an ignorant young man who had spent a childhood reading about Robin Hood splitting shafts at 100 yards.
I’ll tell you the real flaw in the character of that younger man though. He thought rather than investing time into developing woodcraft and talent with a simple new tool, he could invest money and buy talent and craft with a fancy new tool. That there is probably the moral failure underpinning the later unethical practices.
Apologies for my wandering mind, but perhaps a slightly different perspective to that normally found here?James HarveyMemberJanuary 30, 2013 at 8:40 pmPost count: 1119James HarveyMemberJanuary 30, 2013 at 8:12 amPost count: 1119James HarveyMemberJanuary 30, 2013 at 12:41 amPost count: 1119
I don’t have a winter range but it is rather flooded in my little part of the world at the moment, so many roads are cut and I’m forced to shoot at home. I made this little 10m range today.
I’m shooting for Dumbo up the back. Tell you what, the little munchkins make it hard to get a clear shot, its like put put golf.
Incidentally, my arrow doesn’t seem to be shooting real straight, if anyone has any tuning tips they’d be appreciated.James HarveyMemberJanuary 28, 2013 at 7:57 pmPost count: 1119
Steve – I don’t dispute much of what you have said above. The pesticides issue is largely irrelevant however. The evidence that synthetic pesticides do not cause cancer is circumstantial, but here it is in a nutshell. Per mass of pesticide, naturally occurring varieties have been shown in all tests available (Ames tests on bacteria and rodent tests) to be equally carcinogenic as synthetic pesticides. Americans in an ‘average’ diet apparently consume approximately 0.09 mg of synthetic pesticides daily. They consume approx. 1500mg of natural pesticides daily. There is no suggestion that the natural pesticides cause cancer. Beyond the ‘boogy man’ that is ‘synthetic chemicals’, there is no suggestion that that miniscule percentage of dietary carcinogen intake is causing it either.
It is worth noting I’m not talking at all here about industrial exposure. Someone who works in the ‘pesticide production plant’ may do well to take care.
Steve Graf wrote: The problem with your challenge is that it is hard to prove something like this without a study which includes people not exposed to the food. Which is impossible. The argument you make is the same argument that the sludge dumpers make: “Prove that putting sludge on fields is bad” and the climate change deniers make “prove the CO2 causes global warming”
I am shamefully ignorant of sludge dumping Steve so can’t make any comment. As far as global warming is concerned, to prove CO2 causes global warming is an experiment so simple it can be and is conducted by school children. You simply use a smaller system than our atmosphere and introduce CO2. It’s called a greenhouse. You can do the same thing with natural and synthetic chemicals. It’s called the Ames test.
Steve Graf wrote: But here’s a quote from your rebuttal : “we are far more likely to get cancer from eating “healthy” foods than from eating at a fast food restaurant” So I challenge you. Eat only at a fast food restaurant for a year and see how you feel (if you are still alive).
Steve, you have either misunderstood or taken that quote out of context. The author was saying that given there is roughly equal amounts of carcinogenic chemicals in ‘healthy’ and ‘fast’ food and we eat more ‘healthy’ foods, that is statistically more likely to give you cancer than the occasional ‘fast’ food.
Honestly though, it seems like we’re talking about two different things. I’m simply discussing the merits of synthetic vs natural pesticides. You are more broadly discussing diet choices. And I agree with you whole heartedly. High calorie diet is a much greater risk increaser for cancer than any pesticide. So let us agree that you can easily kill yourself eating from the supermarket. But I would suggest that has to do with the choices you make buying from there, rather than anything inherently nasty in industrial agriculture.
I would contend that if you ate a diet of similar content from the supermarket (mainly vegetables and unprocessed meats) you would be equally healthy.
Finally, I apologise for highjacking a bowhunting thread. I’ll accept anything more you have to say Steve, but I think I’ve said my bit 😛James HarveyMemberJanuary 28, 2013 at 9:31 amPost count: 1119
Steve Graf wrote: It’s not that I want to hunt. I need to hunt. I have no choice in the matter (not picking on you L. Just saying how I am). And for myself, grocery stores are not an option. Industrial “food” is canned cancer.
That sounds exactly like a choice. And if you live in any part of the developed world, it’s a choice afforded to you by the vast bulk of the population choosing otherwise.
I applaud you for that choice by the way, sounds like an admirable way to live. But a choice none the less.
Steve Graf wrote: Industrial “food” is canned cancer.
I challenge you to support such a bold claim with evidence. In anticipation of your reply, here is my rebuttal:James HarveyMemberJanuary 28, 2013 at 7:13 amPost count: 1119
Mate, I reckon bang for your buck, it’s hard to go past the old US LC-1 alice frame packs..
They can stow quite a lot of volume and weight but are pretty small all strapped down. The best thing is how light they are. Something like 3 pounds. As a reference, my fancy mystery ranch assault pack (worth about $350) can only carry half the volume and weighs almost 6 pounds.
They’re pretty popular in the Aussie Army because they are so light. The only failure I’ve ever seen in them is the frame breaking on para drops as they’re made of aluminium not steel.
Value for money, best pack in the world in my humble opinion.James HarveyMemberJanuary 26, 2013 at 8:27 pmPost count: 1119
Here’s the link I think:
Something of a Taj Mahteepee 😛James HarveyMemberJanuary 25, 2013 at 6:29 amPost count: 1119
lyagooshka wrote: A 240gr .44 Remington Mag cannot compare to a 55gr 5.56 traveling at 3X the speed.
That’s not a fair comparison! Those .44 magnum slugs are like shooting a coin at someone, no wonder they just slap the skin and bounce off 😛
Compare the zipping 5.56 to the 7.62 short, twice the weight at 2/3 the speed carries only about 15% more energy but it does a whole lot more going through things and killing. I’ve never hunted animals with rifles, but our experience in Afghan has been that you can fill a guy full of 5.56mm holes and he keeps fighting, but you put a 7.62 hole in his torso and he is done.
IMHO the selling points of 5.56 are mostly administrative, not direct combat effects.James HarveyMemberJanuary 25, 2013 at 5:04 amPost count: 1119James HarveyMemberJanuary 23, 2013 at 9:38 pmPost count: 1119
David – that’s really unfortunate to hear. I always assumed because the bulk of book cost is in print/distribution, with those costs cut away an ebook selling at 50% of it’s tangible equivalent would still result in higher royalties for the author. Your case is genuine theft. But thank you for letting us know.
Jim.James HarveyMemberJanuary 23, 2013 at 8:48 pmPost count: 1119
David Petersen wrote: no tree stands allowed.
Hah. I’ve never met anyone in Australia that uses them, but I understand they’ve very popular up your way. I was a bit shocked to read a whole story centred around them in the latest mag (maybe that’s commonplace but I only started reading the TradBow mag this Christmas).James HarveyMemberJanuary 17, 2013 at 2:59 pmPost count: 1119James HarveyMemberJanuary 16, 2013 at 12:50 pmPost count: 1119
sinawalli wrote: QuickClot should only be used as a last resort. Can be very damaging to a wound, and the ER doctor will have the job of removing it.
I understand what you’re saying, but I would like to clarify on your choice of words. I would say use it as a first resort on a wound you assess as deserving.
I understand the powdered variety creates heat and can burn the skin, get blown into your eyes etc. The treated gauze variety does not have any of those issues. You will probably widen the wound in applying it (as youve really got to stuff it in there) and a doctor will have the tricky job of removing the clot along with the gauze when she’s fixing you up. But if that wound bleeding freely is a serious problem I’d rather a doc in an ER deal with that than me out in the bush.
Those are just my thoughts. I’m no medical professional.James HarveyMemberJanuary 16, 2013 at 2:45 amPost count: 1119
David Petersen wrote: While I could live and hunt in areas lacking big scary predators, it would be like drinking tea instead of bourbon.
Hah, I think there a couple of down to earth species of snakes in Oz that have higher kill counts than your rather glamorous big predators. But they certainly don’t actively hunt us!
Friendly intercontinental banter aside, I can’t help but be jealous. There is a distinct lack of ‘threat’ if you stay away from water around here. Funny given that dehydration probably kills more people than anything on this dry brown land.
David Petersen wrote: But great white sharks … BRRRR! Something about being eaten by a fish while at the same time drowning is just incomparably scary.
My better half is a marine biologist and often reminds me that where I swim you can just about guarantee a ‘man eater’ shark within a kilometre of me. He’s just choosing not to eat me. You can’t help but take a rather fatalistic philosophy when confronted with that. But I haven’t been eaten yet, not even once.
Thanks again for the pics mate. There is something terribly romantic and thrilling about sharing space with genuine predators.