Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Any opinions on "Humane Hunting"?

I noticed an article in I believe it was Week Magazine several days ago about some outfitters who are offering basically catch and release hunts where the animals are shot with tranqulizers instead of live rounds. The hunter takes his photos and maybe a souvenier (lock of hair?) and the animal is allowed to live. I can see all kinds of problems with this, and was wondering if any of you had heard of it or if it has maybe been going on for a while and just hadn't crossed my radar?

John

Sounds really fugging stupid.




Travis

It could be argued that killing the animals would be more "humane" than to catch & release.

unless it was a Bigfoot. then you could get a TV show.

A typically unmentioned component is the incidental mortality accompanying tranquilizing activities. Knocking an animal down is a near death experience, with the subject often crossing over.

I usually agree with Travis and this is no different.

Plus the animals would have a hard time making it after I sawed off their skull plate for a head mount. YMMV

Hunting isn't a video game, I think urbanites have lost all connection with where meat comes from and what Hunting is.

the subject is beyond stupid. A liberal must have thought it up.

can be done in conjunction with scientific research(jaguars and rhinos) but need to keep in mind being slightly off with the drugs means a dead anima....things not done just right means a dead animal....it isnt 'humane'

I remember reading about some study where bears were repeated shot with tranquilizers and apparently enjoyed the sensation as they began to hang around the area where they had been shot. Might have been an urban legend from the sixties.

Seems like leaving them vunerable to predators would be one concern. Also, even after they "wake up", they probably don't have their full wits about them for a while.

John

Spot on, folks don't have a clue other than whats on the shelf at the grocery store.

It would remove all sport from the hunt.

After an animal gets hit by the tranquilizer dart 5 or 6 times, he'd get all strung out and go looking for the hunter to shoot him again.

Catch and release fishing meets hunting. No thanks.

Didn't you used to do that with women, in college?

I can't imagine what a venison hair stew would taste like.

If I wanted to go "green" I'd grab a camera. If I can take a picture of it, I likely could have killed it.

Drugging animals to attain some sense of "adventure", and to see my mug in a picture with the volunteer, is my idea of absolutely nothing. I'd pay nothing for the privilege....especially to meet some politically correct moral standard foisted on me by clowns who never have hunted. After all, the objective of the hunt is not a photograph.

If the animal's demise is not a possible consequence of the pursuit, it isn't hunting.

continued advances in technology is getting us further into this morass.

improvements in tranquilizers is always possible.

guns, with cameras on the scopes are here. a reddot picture on the animal's chest, and whose to say it wasn't a "kill" shot.

hunting for food is another subset of the overall discussion. lot's of eaters and breeders down here on the Earth now.

I thought "Humane Hunting" would be placing your arrow, bullet, slug, or whatever in a vital spot so as to ensure a quick, clean, harvest of whatever you're hunting. I'm so humane that I've used a 9mm to the back of the head/neck area on deer that have been incapacitated by a 12 ga. slug or a rifle bullet. If they're down but not out yet they shouldn't suffer too long. It's nicer than using a 12 ga. slug gun from two feet away. See how caring and compassionate I am?

Didn't Nugent say " You can't grill it, until you kill it." that motto works for me.