Why do you hunt

[Viking]

Why do you hunt? This can be a simple question, requiring only a simple answer, or it can require some introspection.

There were moves in South Africa last week to ban ‘canned’ hunts, as well as banning bowhunters from taking thick skinned animals such as rhinos. Some of the hunting methods now frowned upon are drugging the animals into an easy-to-shoot stupor, chasing them in vehicles until they’re too exhausted to run any further, and hunting animals that have been raised in near or total captivity, and therefore have retarded survival instincts. Any move to outlaw such practices is a good thing, as I think hunting animals using these methods is objectionable.

But why do people hunt at all? Some say it’s merely continuing our heritage, started millennia ago when man had to hunt to exist. These days you only have to go as far as the nearest Woolworths to find all that you need to maintain a diet that any caveman would have given his left nut to enjoy.

Some say that ‘hunting’ is far more than the kill. It’s the fresh air and exercise; it’s communing with nature; it’s the camaraderie of sitting around the fire with fellow hunters, regaling each other with tales of good hits and near misses. I have enjoyed these aspects myself, and they’re great. Some say that for all these reasons, the ‘kill’ is not the important part; it is in fact not even necessary. The satisfaction of being able to get within metres of a stag, seeing the steam from his nostrils as he is still bedded down on a frosty morning, totally oblivious of you presence, can actually be more satisfying than taking his antlers or cape home. If this was true, then why do people spend many hundreds of dollars on hunting equipment, when they could just come equipped with a camera or a sketch book, like a latter day Harry Butler? Why spend countless hours on the range, putting thousands of arrows into targets when the hitting of a real life target is not really the important part? If any member of this site went hunting every weekend for ten years, never shot anything, but came so damn close to the game they could almost reach out and touch it, would they be satisfied?

The fact is that the ‘kill’ is important, and this is not a bad thing, and it is indeed a good thing if this can be admitted without guilt or shame. It is the culmination of the hunt; the planning, the preparation and practise, the studying of the game, the finding, the stalking, the shot. So hunting as a whole can be legitimately defended to those who would say otherwise.

But what to hunt? Some say that hunting aids in conservation, as the environment can only benefit from the destruction of feral animals. This argument sounds noble enough, but let’s examine this further. If conservation is your goal, then why hunt animals that are not feral, or not a threat to the local environment due to their number? The argument for hunting rhinos certainly cannot be sustained using this logic, as they’re native to South Africa, and they’re not exactly in plague proportions. And if your goal is to make the world a better place by eliminating feral animals, then why discriminate in which feral animal you shoot? Shooting any such animal would assist in controlling their numbers, even if it’s a sow or a sucker, a doe or a spiker, a nanny or a kid. It doesn’t have to be a boar, and certainly not a trophy boar, a prize stag or a big billy. However, countless posts are made where the authors detail the painstaking lengths they went to in order to secure the trophy tusks/antlers/horns, forsaking all the ‘lesser’ animals in the process. If your true objective was to eliminate feral animals, you would shoot the first animal you came across, and every animal after that. However this does not occur, and many instances have been cited where hunter ‘let him go till next year’ during which time the animal will have sired many more feral offspring.

This is not an anti-hunting post; it seeks only to highlight the flaws in the common arguments that proponents for hunting put forward; arguments which are full of inconsistencies that leave the hunter open to question by those who would see our pastime outlawed. If you have an argument to counter these questions, then good for you. If you don’t give a rat’s ar$e what these people think, then even better for you. For the others, it’s just food for thought so you don’t get caught with your philosophical pants down. Be honest with people about why you hunt, by first being honest with yourself.

On a slightly different note, but still related to what I see as a hunter’s personal integrity, I recall skimming through an Australian bowhunting magazine many years ago (this was waaay before BHDU), several years before my interest in bowhunting was rekindled. One particular article stuck in my mind. It was a Q&A type interview with an Australian bowhunting identity (I can’t recall who), asking him about his current rig, his favourite game, his favourite property etc, and his worst hunting experience. He replied that his worst experience, although not really terrible, was going out on a property with a mate, with both of them on quads. Upon reaching a spot known for pigs, they left the quads and spent the day walking the creeks, getting many boars in the process. When evening came they went to return to their bikes, but couldn’t find them (this was pre-GPS). He said they spent a couple of hours stumbling around in the dark until they caught a gleam of moonlight off one of the bikes, and they returned to camp safe and sound. He said they were certainly glad to have found the bikes, as he “didn’t fancy spending the night out there with God-knows-what.” I read that statement and was struck by the irony of it. Here was this Great White Hunter, quite content to stroll about the creeks, putting arrows into sleeping pigs at 300+fps, during daylight when all the odds were in his favour. But as soon as night comes, and the odds are leveled, and perhaps stacked a bit in the game’s favour, he wants to run back to camp. I cannot say that I would be too keen to be out there in the middle of the night either, but it does leave anyone who thinks that way (including me) as somewhat hypocritical. I try to remember this, and I think it helps keep me humble.

As I said earlier, this is not an anti-hunting post. I am only new to bowhunting, but I’ve hunted with rifles since my early teens. For hunting, I have a personal philosophy that I believe is founded on logic which I can defend without fear of being compromised. This post only seeks to highlight some of the holes that exist in the arguments that many put forward on why they hunt. Only when we eliminate the hypocrisy and inconsistencies that are the chinks in our philosophical armour can we be confident of not being blindsided by some smarter-than-your-average animal libber.

I await the flood of hate-posts.

Take care,

Viking
[/i]

[Puk]

Viking,
Good post.
I for one am sick of having to defend why i hunt to every self-righteous individual who likes to get on their high horse and make judgements about what i should do. No one should write you any hate mail, as your reasons and ideas and opinions are just that: YOURS. No-one can change them and no one else can really share them either, as their formation as a hunter will have been different to yours.

My opinions and reasons are MINE, and that gives them validity for me. I don't have to apologise for them.

Do you know how much time we spend trying to please other people? It is staggering and causes no end of problems.

I am me. I like hunting. I ride a motorbike and drive a holden. I am a rugby fan, a cricket fan , Brisbane Lions supporter, a Lutheran, I drink Bundy and those are all my choices. Those who don't like them don't do them with me, so it doesn't bother me.

If people don't understand that, fine. If they are really interested in wanting to know why, i will take the time to tell them. I have some friends who disagree with what i do, but they are understanding enough people to look past those things and still like me.

But many are looking to wind you up. Who needs that, hey?

Puk

[jindydiver]

When it comes to the logic of arguments you let yourself down. Hunters are individuals, maybe that is part of the appeal for some hunters, the fact that to succeed or fail depends on your skill alone and not the collective skill of a team. Because hunters are individuals you can’t listen to one argue that “conservation is my goal” and then counter their argument by claiming “bull****, because you (hunters collectively) hunt rhinos”. One hunters actions do not make another hunters actions hypocritical. If that were the case then your only defensable reply to "hunters drug animals to shoot them" would be that you do not hunt.

If one hunter puts forward to you an argument on why they hunt you can’t claim that argument is “full of inconsistencies” because some other hunter (another individual) argues a slightly different case. If any single hunter was to make the claim that their ONLY reason for hunting was the destruction of ferals (and I am yet to meet this sort of hunter) then you could easily claim hypocrisy on that hunters part if they went over to Africa and shot a rhino, but to claim that all hunters have “hypocrisy and inconsistencies” in their argument because ALL hunters don’t share the exact reasoning for their desire to hunt is absurd.


You claim
For hunting, I have a personal philosophy that I believe is founded on logic which I can defend without fear of being compromised


How about you give us your reasons for hunting and lay out your uncompromisable logic for us?

And, if conservation is the goal then it is entirely possible to hunt rhinos, and elephants, whilst staying true to your ideal. Spend some time looking at the wealth of info on the internet regarding the CAMPFIRES program in Southern Africa and you will see that the death of one animal can be the security for many more of that species. And hunters in the US hunt deer extensively and the goal is indeed conservation of the species, and they are succeeding very well. Hunting native species can have a very positive effect on the animal population. If it wasn't for deer hunters in the US there would be many less deer, if any at all in a lot of cases.

[adam]

Great post Viking and great reply Puk.

There are the people that ask you why you hunt that have there minds made up already, then there’s a genuine why do you hunt. I've never felt the need to justify why I hunt to others or explain it. But if I think it’s going to favor our pastime or promote it I will take the time.

Why do I hunt, many a reason including the reasons you have put in your post Viking.

I can go out hunting and fill the freezer, I can feed my feelings and passion for hunting, I can put a great animal on my wall or in my album, I can go down to the supermarket buy some meat and not feel bad. I have feelings for all the animals I hunt and see, I also have the knowledge to know that humans eat meat and meat is on animals. A realist commonsense that animals die to feed my family and that from the dawn of life there has been death.

I'd call myself a bit of a greeny and consider my hunting a part of conservation, and bowhunting a big part of feral animal control.

My religion supports hunting and God is the only one I have to explain my actions to at the end of the day. In there lies a big reason why I hunt and will continue to hunt.

Adam

[adam]

Good post Jindy, I always enjoy your post mate. I had a good read just the other night about the campfires. It including helping the local villages out and this reduced the poachers taking endanged game as they had a better resource within the campfires.

Adam

[jindydiver]

I am disappointed we haven’t heard back from you on this Viking, I was looking forward to some lively discourse and the chance to learn something new. :( :(

[longhorn1]

The very first time I went hunting was with my grandfather. We were hunting Bear. Thats all we would hunt. My Mother was a very big PETA supporter and only let me go because my grand father was the only Man around for me and my Brothers to look up to. He asked me the night before why I wanted to go, And my answer was that I wanted to kill a Bear. He then told me all of that would change the next morning and it did. We glassed for hour's and eventual found a bear. It was a big old Black bear and it was in a good spot to stalk, So we did just that. From the time we eased down the side of that hill with the wind in our face until we eased within 35-40 yards of that Bear I figured out why I wanted to hunt. That Bear lived, And I have taken two others. One with a fire arm and one with a bow, But killing is not the high point for me. It's the fact that I , A fat clumsy, smelly Human was able to sneak up on and get the better of an animal that is hard wired to survive. It sounds corny but that is why. I don't need the meat and nine times out of ten I leav the woods empty handed by choice. I even get dogged out by my hunting partner about it. Sorrey for carrying on.

[Viking]

Jindy,

I did not mean to disappoint by my tardy reply, but I’ve still only got one arm, so typing is much slower than usual. My last post took a while to type, and any reply would most certainly also be reasonably lengthy. I’ve also got a couple of forums occupying my computer time.

Firstly, I did not condemn and dump all hunters into one lot. My post constantly refers to ‘some hunters’, and I know that each and every hunter is motivated by a different goal, and guided by a unique set of values. I also said that if those goals and values work for you, then good for you; whatever floats your boat!

I simply pondered the statement commonly made by some (not all) hunters that the ‘kill’ is not important. It’s all about the fresh air, camaraderie, getting close to the game etc etc. If this is so, then why do they tote a bow about bush rather than a camera? I concluded (and I could be wrong) that the ‘kill’ is important. And as I also said, there is nothing wrong with that. I merely wonder if some of the hunters who say this do it so as not to appear blood thirsty or barbaric. It’s easy to think that in this New Age hunting of any kind is frowned upon, and for this reason I think that some (not all) hunters feel the need to go on the defensive and try to offer other reasons to legitimise their sport.

The thing I cannot readily reconcile is the argument of using bowhunting as a means of conservation, when the particular hunter making this statement tends to target only trophy animals. I know there are situations when very selective culling is the most effective method, but I would think that if one was really serious about conservation (by getting rid of feral animals who cause detriment to the environment and compete for food with native fauna etc) then one would seek to destroy as many of these animals as possible? Fellow forum members can quite possibly come up with their own reasoning, and that is fine.

I am trying to suggest how a dedicated trophy hunter might be viewed by a card-carrying PETA member. If a hunter continually regales this rabid animal libber about his adventures in securing his record tusks/antlers/horns, and in the process has passed up on dozens of breeding animals (in particular females), I can see how any claim that he is hunting for the above-mentioned conservation reason might not be too convincing. This person might argue that the hunter is merely trying to secure the most impressive or attractive trophy possible, to bolster his own ego and standing amongst his peers. I can imagine that there are some wily old bulls and boars which have been hunted for years and have become particularly elusive, and these would be quite challenging. But as far as providing a challenge is concerned, does the average trophy boar/stag/billy provide a greater challenge than the average sow/doe/nanny? I haven’t been hunting long enough to know, so I’d be happy to be enlightened. Also, the same hunter trying to complete his collection of all the deer species, and in the process passes up several of the deer he already has, might be questioned by the same libber as to his real motives.

That’s all I am saying. My hunting philosophy is that of hunting for the sake of the outdoor experience, as well as trying to do my best to eliminate feral animals. Destroying feral animals is not my sole reason, and I never claimed it was. Other hunters have their own philosophy, and as Puk says, each hunter’s opinions and reasons are their own, and that gives the validity to the individual hunter. They don’t have to apologise for them.

My views, though not intending to condemn the views of other forum members, are also my own, and I don’t apologise for them. Having said all this, as my experience in bowhunting grows, my views may well change. We’ll see. In any event, I value the input from other members, about this topic and others.

In closing, as a police prosecutor I always attempt to pre-empt the opposition’s arguments, and in this case I merely attempt to head the libbers off at the pass by eliminating what might be an angle of attack.

Take care,

Viking

[rory]

I bowhunt because I love everything involved in it. The journey, the mates, the hours in the bush, that moment you see game, being at full draw on the critter, the kill, the meat, the trophy (which can be with or without horns/antler/tusk) the memories...

And then I like to do it all again 8)

[Antarcher]

Bowhunting to me is an absolute passion. On Vikings comments around trophy hunting, well I love to down a fine trophy, but I also knock over plenty of smaller animals for meat, far more than trophies. It's just that it doesn't stir as much interest as a fine heavy boned, large tusked or huge horned trophy to our hunting peers.

Have a look at this site when someone posts pics of a doe, rabbit or small goat and then compare the reactions to the threads when a fine stag or big billy is nailed. People love to look at the uniqueness of a fine trophy and know that they are few and far between and that is where the appreciation factor comes from. I don't think it is egotistical, but a common appreciation for the hard work required to get these animals.

There is still plenty of good feedback whenever any animal is taken, whatever the size, and I think you will find that this due to bowhunters knowing exactly how hard any animal comes with the bow.

For me, a wily old doe is just as hard to knock over as a stag, but there are more of them so the oppurtunity is there to try more often. Any deer is hard to get and from a hunting point of view, each hunt invigorates me the same way whenever I decide that I will take the bow out of the car and go after an animal. Be it stag, doe fawn, goat or whatever.

The challenge is what draws me to bowhunt. First you have to get your bow right and shoot confidently. This is worth about 80% of your success in my opinion. Go out after a poor practice session and your confidence will not be very high. Tune right and shoot excellently in practice and you know that when you finally stalk into your effective range, you are going to nail it. This is a large challenge in itself.

Secondly, there is animal instinct factor to overcome. Grab a gun and it can all be over pretty quick (I acknowledge not always). Get a bow and then try and break down the animals defence though. This has to be done at close range and is tricky in many ways, (this would be a whole other subject as there so many factors involved in this part of it), and this makes it all that much more rewarding when it all comes together.

Thirdly, the reward at the end. Be it the satisfaction of out witting the game or the fact that you now have some meat to eat. The fact that you have done it with a bow and all the above aspects of achieving that goal make it a very satisfying pastime that is also involved in animal eradication so it is justifiable in the publice eye if that's what you have to prove to do it.

Bowhunting is a total challenge. I have tried many pastimes before and been into them just as much as bowhunting, but nothing has the whole package like bowhunting does.

[jindydiver]

Thanks for continuing the discussion Viking, sorry you are having problems with your arm.

I haven’t met any hunters who have said “the kill is not important”. Maybe I knock about with a circle of guys who are all a bit hard core or something but the kill is the culmination of lots of hard work for the average hunter and without the kill all that hard work is invalidated. True some people can put off the kill for a long time in favour of other aesthetics, maybe the learning of some new knowledge about their quarry, or just because at the climax of their hunt, when they are about to take the fine animal they have been stalking they find that they are so rapt in the majesty or beauty of the animal that they decide to allow the quarry a second chance.

I shoot a lot of deer each year with a rifle. Nearly all are does, there are some spikers and occasionally a runted buck, but I don’t shoot any trophy bucks. Those guys I chase with my bow so that I can enjoy the challenge. I have had many bucks over the last few years that were well inside range for even an average shot like myself and I have only taken one shot at a trophy buck (unfortunately for me I missed). Am I missing something from my hunting for not taking shots I know many others would? I don’t think so. The hunt for me is not just that one stalk and it’s result, the hunt for me is the constant testing of myself against a quarry that is tuned finely to the natural world where it is all about who eats who. My hunt is not for the trophy that will beat someone else’s, nor is it for the personal best that I can hang on my wall. My hunt is for the part of my soul that connects me to the primitive side of our psyche and the release of that part of me that helped our ancestors to survive and prosper in more primitive times.
Crouching in the bracken ferns less than 5 metres from a 3 year old fallow buck, smelling his musk for the 3 or 4 minutes he stood there staring at me trying to work out whether I was a wallaby or not before he trotted off, taught me more about what I am as a hunter (and a person) than any single stalk I have ever had where an animal died at the end.

I have 2 reasons for hunting in general that I share with people who are not of the same mind as me.

I eat meat. I find it more appealing to me that I kill my own meat than to delegate that unpleasantness to someone else just because I can. Just because miss (or mister) anti-hunter can purchase their meat at the supermarket and feel superior because they didn’t have to see the animal before it was cut up and wrapped in plastic doesn’t mean that they hold some high moral ground on the issue, it just means that they are either to ignorant or arrogant to see the reality behind the eating of meat.

I also hunt because I want to address the imbalance in our ecosystems brought about by man introducing feral plants and animals and our use of inappropriate farming practices. The anti-hunters often tell us that hunting is ineffective because we don’t take enough numbers to wipe out the ferals. This is a disingenuous argument in that it is recognised that NO method of culling introduced animals can eradicate them from our landscape, and even with ALL methods used in co-operation we are still not winning the war. Anti-hunters will often moan about how we are killing animals but they often still claim to want Australia to be rid of ferals. This is a nonsense argument because for the feral animals to be removed from the Australian bush we must kill them. Of course we could use a lot more poison (and risk killing the very animals we claim to be saving the country for) but that is still KILLING and at least I have it in me to recognise that fact.

When anti-hunters next moan to you about how we kill things in pursuit of our pastime ask them are they happy to see poison dropped from planes so that those same animals die. If they are then they are plainly deluding themselves that because no-one sees the animal suffer it must not have. If they don’t want the feral animals to be removed (killed) then they have made a choice, they have chosen the feral animals over our natives, because often you cannot have both. Ask the next anti-hunter you see if they are being honest with themselves over this aspect of the issue, I guarantee you the argument will change from “what must be done to save Australian natural values” to “you must have something wrong in your head to want to kill”. This is of course the fallback argument of the anti-hunter/vegan/PETA supporter, that to want to have a hands-on part in the removal of a feral pest we must all be savages from a more savage time. This is why you can develop as many cogent and logical arguments as you like in support of our pastime and it doesn’t amount to a pile of cow dung, the anti-hunters are looking at the issue from an emotional viewpoint and no amount of logical argument can pierce the veil of ignorance put up to shield their fragile emotions.



But as far as providing a challenge is concerned, does the average trophy boar/stag/billy provide a greater challenge than the average sow/doe/nanny? I haven’t been hunting long enough to know, so I’d be happy to be enlightened. Also, the same hunter trying to complete his collection of all the deer species, and in the process passes up several of the deer he already has, might be questioned by the same libber as to his real motives.



Yes, for two reasons. The big old billy and the thumping big boar didn’t get to be that old by being stupid and so they must have a greater sense of self-preservation than the others. They also tend (for the reason stated above) to hang out in the middle of the group and so to get to them you face the challenge of getting past those “lesser” animals in order to get within bow hunting range. That is what makes bow hunting so much more challenging than rifle hunting.

And a hunter who has taken ANY feral animal has no need to justify to an anti-hunter why they did not shoot at a particular animal. The very fact that the hunter is out there doing what the anti-hunter is only paying lip service to puts the onus on the anti to explain themselves, not the other way around.

Sorry for the rant guys :oops:

[Puk]

I don't mind the rant Jindy. I enjoy learning from others, and these discussions are rich with new information and the chance to look at things from other's perspectives.
I found this interesting though:

The hunt is not for the trophy that will beat someone else’s, nor is it for the personal best that I can hang on my wall.

Are you having a dig at the personal best comp, or am i just being paranoid? Let me tell you, that with that big old billy in my sights, the last things on my mind were prizes or awards. All that came afterwards, but that's all just a bonus. That's not why i hunt either. But i will display Scott's "Personal Best" trophy proudly beside the Trophy Takers "Best goat of the year" shield on my mantelpiece.

I don't think you were. You are not that type of bloke. Those words just jumped out at me, and i suppose because of the stupidity over the comp (on the part of some) i am a little touchy over it.

I use words all my life, they are what i work with, but i don't think i can adequately explain why i hunt. I just can't put it into words. I hunt. I love it. There is a deep pleasure and a soul-refreshing peace in it, as well as an affinity with nature, and a willingness to pit myself against the senses of animals who need them to survive. There is a historical element, to be doing things as our ancestors did. There is a romantic element (perhaps more with the trad gear) reminiscent of Robin Hood and days of yore. and there is the pleasure mixed with regret, of a clean kill. There is the satisfaction and pride of eating something you harvested yourself, and providing for your family. and there is more...

I hunt, and i love it. Maybe (as many tell me) being a minister i shouldn't love it so much. But i do.

Puk

[jindydiver]

Puk


The hunt is not for the trophy that will beat someone else’s, nor is it for the personal best that I can hang on my wall. My hunt is for the part of my soul that connects me to the primitive side of our psyche and the release of that part of me that helped our ancestors to survive and prosper in more primitive times.


I thought I had phrased this with some thought and I would avoid just the sort of question you have posed. Reading the whole paragraph you can plainly see what I was saying (or so I assumed :( ). I will edit it to make it more clear.


You have no need to feel fragile over the response to your winning the comp (or how it was decided), you have your trophy you took for your own reasons and the rest of the world can lick your sack.

[Puk]

Now THAT is how to sum up something properly in words! :lol:

You have quite the turn of phrase there Mick.

I would emulate you in one of my sermons, but i don't think it would go over too well. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Puk

[jindydiver]

You had best be carefull about the use of such phrases in any event, you wouldn't want to fall into a habit and let one slip in more polite company :lol:

[XTfreak]

You had best be carefull about the use of such phrases in any event, you wouldn't want to fall into a habit and let one slip in more polite company

Awww come on now. Who could possibly be more polite company than us lot? :D
These posts are all great reading. Like Puk, I have learned much. Thanks...
Bill

[AdamK]

Gents,
I am enjoying reading your contributions on this thread

I am yet to be in range of a fine trophy deer (or even a humble doe for that matter) and so can not speak for how I will think when in such a situation, however the closest equivalent scenario I have been in shows why I hunt-

Spearfishing two seasons ago, I'd spent the entire season looking for a trophy class mulloway - 25 to 30kg. I had decided I would take nothing less. After spending untold hours in the water, often in before dawn and out after dusk, sometimes in water so dirty I could barely see the end of my gun, often facing off with sharks, and having passed up many respectable table fare species (kingfish, snapper, bream, black drummer etc), I jumped in after work on a saturday to be greeted with perfect conditions.
Cobalt blue water, 23 degrees, heaps of baitfish about, and calm seas. I was diving solo and had the ocean to myself. I recognised some familiar underwater land marks that indicated I was near one of my jew holes. I relaxed as completely as I could, took one last breath and desended to the 12m bottom. Having spat out my snorkel on decent by the time I hit the bottom I was in stealth mode making no noise in my minimal movements as I moved slowly along the bottom. As I approached the sandy depression in the otherwise rocky bottom no jew awaited me. The crystal clear water always provides for enjoyable diving. but usually works against the spearfisherman from a concealment perspective. The prime conditions and variety of fish species surrounding me in the silent blue provided for my absolute relaxation. In continuing my stalk I began my ascent up an area of large scattered boulders. It was there that I came face to face with my quarry. The jewfish faced me head on, with his belly just above the flat top of the boulder beneath him. His immense head easily wider than my own, and eyes looking calmly at me. His only movement was by his pectoral fins fanning slowly to keep him in position. Instinctively I levelled off my ascent in front of him with my gun outstretched and spear pointed directly and square between his eyes. My finger on the trigger I was awestruck. The usual application of pressure on the trigger for release of the spear never came. Time seemed to stand still, as we faced each other off. In a smooth motion, the beast turned his head and presented broadside to me showing me his immense size. The metalic blue flecks along his lateral line irridecent shining like blue diamonds. My point of aim having moved now to his centre mass, but still the required extra pressure on my trigger was not applied. The beast continued his turn and swam away with my gun remaining pointed at his tail..... He was gone and I had not even fired my gun. I completed my ascent and time seemed to start again as I sucked in a long awatied lung full of air.
This fish was without doubt the monster jewfish I had been searching for. In the emotion of the moment I was too awestruck to do what I had set my mind on many months previously. After re-gaining my composure, I spent the next 2 hours in the water scouring the bottom in search for that beast, but he had moved on.
I have not seen one as big since after many successful hunts, and hope he is still out there somewhere. I dragged my body out of the water that afternoon without even firing a shot, but without doubt, that fact was irrelevant, I had just completed the best and most rewarding hunt of my life without even firing a shot.
I look forward to one day being in a similar hunting scenario on land with my bow. I continue to hunt on land and undersea with a passion only the likes of many of you and some of my fellow spearfisherman can understand. To me it's an inherent instinct I can not control that requires I hunt in order to maintain my sanity. I'd go as far to say it is my religion.
PS- I lost a 20kg jewie at 7:15pm yesterday evening, and although very disappointed at having mucked up an easy shot after 2.5 hours in the water, I returned to the shore contented at having once again been in the hunt.

[VerminBeware]

I relaxed as completely as I could, took one last breath and desended to the 12m bottom. Having spat out my snorkel on decent by the time I hit the bottom I was in stealth mode making no noise in my minimal movements as I moved slowly along the bottom.

How long can you hold your breath for??? I would be struggling to make the 12m down, let alone stalking around on the bottom...

Great post - you just got my curiosity going.... Thats Navy SEAL kind of diving...

[perry]

Why do I hunt , the common theme being as individuals we all have our own reasons , for me of course the goal is to kill though I cant say that every animal I take is utilized at least I'm honest enough to say so and dont kid myself but I take skins ,meat , horns etc at times . Am I immoral for wasting a life some would say so , do I like to kill even though the goal is too - no killing is not a pleasant thing . I have a respect for life and there is the point that the anti use . How can anyone that respects life hunt , for me hunting is not about killing but an instinctive link to living , thats how the world works everything feeds off everything else on this earth when we live and when we die the favour is returned this is the essence off life .
Legally we are not allowed to hunt native animals but in the future the line between native and feral will blur , look at the Dingo by all reports introduced 5000 odd years ago but now regarded as a native .Introduced animals ourselves included have changed the enviroment beyond repair to its former state so I dont buy the hunt to save the bilby's argument ferals are a part of our enviroment now and natural selection will dictate how it changes , we can influence the change but I cant see how we can stop or reverse it .
I am selective in how I hunt though the overriding goal is not to trophy hunt ,Earlier this year I could have shot a slightly bigger goat than I have previously shot but as the goal was to shoot a pig with my shot gun [ I have not hunted with a firearm in years] I let the billy go for another day . Hunting is instinct , biologically correct behavior - most needs have been meet by our modern society for me but not this one so I will continue to buck the system maintain some connection with my animal side until the day I die . regards Perry

[jindydiver]

How long can you hold your breath for??? I would be struggling to make the 12m down, let alone stalking around on the bottom...

Great post - you just got my curiosity going.... Thats Navy SEAL kind of diving...

I have been on SCUBA and had a club mate dive down next to me to 18 metres breath-holding. He could also stay down there for at least a minute and I have seen him breath-hold dive for 3 full minutes. He is certainly not a "navy SEAL", though he is possibly a mutant :lol: :lol:

During part of my training I had to breath-hold dive to 15 metres to recover my SCUBA unit and weight belt, it certainly made me respect the hard core spearo's a lot more.



And you are spot on Perry, hunting is hardwired into humans and it has been suggested by people with a lot of letters after their name that the social disconnect from our instincts has been part of the reason we see so much inner city violent crime.

[Viking]

And you are spot on Perry, hunting is hardwired into humans and it has been suggested by people with a lot of letters after their name that the social disconnect from our instincts has been part of the reason we see so much inner city violent crime.

I have to agree. As a police officer working on the road, I got my fill 'hunting' people; drink drivers, break and enter merchants etc.

Now that I'm a prosecutor, my job is more sedentary. Although I'm still involved with the very same people by ensuring they're convicted, my role is much less hands on.

As such, since taking on this role I've found I need an outlet to exercise the instincts which are only a normal part of a normal bloke. That is why I have become re-acquainted with bowhunting.

I think Jindy is correct; a reason why society suffers so much violence at the hands of young men is that their instincts have been suppressed. Testosterone charged men (some not so young) no longer have to expend energy hunting and gathering, as all they ever need is now readily available from the nearest supermarket. This hunting and gathering is also no longer socially acceptable, resulting in pent up frustration which all too often manifests itself in criminal behaviour.

Along with conservation, I think we can mount another argument for our pastime; mental health.

Viking

[Puk]

Viking,
This is a bit of a passion of mine, and one that i want to explore more. I have read a great book (written from a Christian point of view) called "Wild at heart" about how men were created with something fierce in them, something independent, outdoorsy, powerful etc. Now if you believe in evolution, you see it that way, rather than created.

But either way, whether in the church, or society in general, men are turned into women in a lot of ways. there is nothing wrong with women, but when a man is TOO feminine, something is out of place, just like when a woman is TOO masculine, she is called butch etc.

Because men cannot express that wild, fierce, independent, even violent side of themselves (this was a good thing when they had to fight wars to survive, or hunt their food) because it is now seen as a bad thing, it gets repressed and comes out in all the wrong directions at the wrong times: Domestic violence, abuse and drunken brawling.

If football is not a chance to get some of that out of the system, what is? It is like an ancient gladiatorial bout, where the "civilised" crowd can watch something a bit more violent and raw and kid themselves that they are above all that. But if they are, why do domestic violence police call-outs go up after footy games, when losing-side fans go home drunk and take out the anger and fierceness they feel on their wives and kids?

I am part of the "Mallee mental health advisory committee" to address the depression and self-harm issues of kids out here who feel they have no way out and no future. I have actually seriously suggested bowhunting, or at least buying each of the kids a disposable camera and then teaching them all the stalking and bush-craft skills, for a feral photography comp. But i actually think the archery and the kill itself (recognising that wild part of the soul, even up to the kill) would be better in the long-run.

My suggestion was actually accepted very well from the health-care and mental-health professionals in the district.

Puk

[jindydiver]

My suggestion was actually accepted very well from the health-care and mental-health professionals in the district.

Puk

I am glad the group was honest with themselves and saw the merit in your suggestion, did anything come of it?

[Puk]

No, but i think that is only because i am leaving. I got them to see the treasures they have in the mallee scrub here, and how it could help the kids be proud and passionate about where they live, and what else lives there.

Puk