Woman Kills Elephant with a Bow!


PDA






testar77
May 7, 2009, 03:54 PM
I am not sure if this was already posted before, but I just saw this and thought I would pass it on!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1177990/U-S-woman-poses-magnificent-elephant-downed-bow-arrow-left-die-overnight.html

Make sure and read some of the comments

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman Kills Elephant with a Bow!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
natman
May 7, 2009, 04:04 PM
So wrong on so many levels. It went 500 yards. It took all night to die. I have no problem with killing game animals, but the object of hunting should be to make the shot itself as UNCHALLENGING as possible, not the other way around. DRT should be the goal.

EmGeeGeorge
May 7, 2009, 04:07 PM
i dunno... this seems like the grown up equivalent of shooting a raccoon to death with a spring powered pellet gun, just "to see if (i) could"... kinda gross and purposeless...

testar77
May 7, 2009, 04:09 PM
Well she couldn't have gotten any closer! In fact I must be a friggin weenie cuz she got A LOT closer than I would EVER think about. Course I would never try and kill an elephant with a bow though either.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 7, 2009, 04:13 PM
Did I step into the twilight zone with the last two posts? Animals often go a long ways when shot with a bow. It happens all the time on every continent. And the story IMPLIES that it "took all night to die" but offers no proof of that. For all we know, it went 500 yards in about 5 minutes, and then dropped dead as a doornail.

Even someone here took the *implication* that it took all night to die, and repeated it as FACT. All the article says is that she left it overnight to make sure it was dead. Not a bad idea, even if while looking at it, you're 99.9% sure it's already dead. And nowhere does it state that it was still breathing when she left it. Presumably, she's an ethical enough hunter to give it a second or third shot through the heart while it is lying there, if that had been the case. I'll give HER, the hunter, the benefit of the doubt of facts, not some trash online anti-hunter rag. Chances are it was stone cold dead when she left it, but she wasn't going to take any chances.

Critical thinking, folks.

Believe me, a bow is plenty deadly. Shooting an elephant with a bow, which can penetrate far better than even your biggest nitrogibbs round, is way way more deadly proportionally than trying to kill a raccoon with a puny pellet gun. It's not a fair comparison, for those that know how deadly a bow is in skilled hands with a razor sharp broadhead. Howard Hill killed an elephant with a long bow in the 20s or 30s IIRC. Albeit a 100 lb longbow. Since she worked out for 4 years, presumably she had a plenty powerful enough bow (obviously did the job), and knew the anatomy extremely well (obviously did the job).

Funny how the article says that the elephant had no chance. That's laughably untrue. If you went to Vegas bookmakers and told them you're sending in a woman on the ground with a bow with 37 sets of elephant eyes, ears, & nostrils, which one would come dead, her or one of the elephants, they'd give 3 to 1 odds in favor of the elephant living and her dying. I'd say the elephants had the far better chance to kill her, even if she was backed up by a PH with double rifle.

JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone
May 7, 2009, 04:22 PM
Testar77, I seem to remember one wounded snarling Racoon neither of us wanted to get much closer too! :D

Fact is, dangerous game is often left to parish for hours after the shot. Did it take all night to die? We'll never know. And yes, some animals should not be killed with under powered means. I believe in a quick humane death if I am going to kill something. No suffering. (Except sex offenders) The artical is written from a very biased point of view and doesn't tell the whole story.

That Elephant meat probably fed hundreds of villagers! And the hunt, paid for by sponsors brought a healthy sum of money into the impoverished country. The hunt appears to have been legal, and most of the hunts on Elephant are targeting animals that have damaged crops or personal property.

I see no issue with this. She's a hunter. She's got Ko-ho-nay's that ride with the camera man!

-Steve

testar77
May 7, 2009, 04:24 PM
Dr. Tad

I was not saying anything negative about what she did, I was simply stating that I don't have the BALLS to do it!! I am rather impressed myself!

ArmedBear
May 7, 2009, 07:29 PM
Did she have an arrow, or just a bow?

Dark Skies
May 7, 2009, 07:41 PM
Killing dumb animals for the fun of it is kind of off-putting to me. I'd have thought elephant flesh would be too tough to be edible for humans. If it can't be eaten then it's just killing for killing's sake.

AKElroy
May 7, 2009, 07:59 PM
Even someone here took the *implication* that it took all night to die, and repeated it as FACT. All the article says is that she left it overnight to make sure it was dead. Not a bad idea, even if while looking at it, you're 99.9% sure it's already dead. And nowhere does it state that it was still breathing when she left it. Presumably, she's an ethical enough hunter to give it a second or third shot through the heart while it is lying there, if that had been the case. I'll give HER, the hunter, the benefit of the doubt of facts, not some trash online anti-hunter rag. Chances are it was stone cold dead when she left it, but she wasn't going to take any chances.

Look, I have been hunting all my life. First rule is to take the quarry as cleanly as possible, and to be quick with a mercy shot if needed. I agree that we should not be convicting without the facts, so I take your point. However, if that part of the story is actually true, then this was an unethical act. Denying a mercy shot just to set a record would violate everything I was ever taught about hunting.

rr2241tx
May 7, 2009, 08:08 PM
All I can say is that if we had any wooly mammoths left in Texas, there'd be a season on them and a month of bow season ahead of it.

AFAIK, every safari animal is eaten by the local villagers. The paying hunter and his party usually get one meal, the hide and horns.

If using weapons for securing a meal bothers you, you definitely are reading the wrong message board. Try MyLittlePony.uk instead.

kingpin008
May 7, 2009, 08:17 PM
I have to agree - if you're not sure it's really dead, make sure. I'm not a bowhunter and I'm also not a biologist, but I'd imagine that an animal that huge wasn't killed outright by one single arrow, no matter how gnarly the tip and how powerful the bow shot was.

IMHO, leaving and coming back the next day is cruel and cowardly. Poor example of ethical and reasonable hunting practices.

kingpin008
May 7, 2009, 08:23 PM
If using weapons for securing a meal bothers you, you definitely are reading the wrong message board. Try MyLittlePony.uk instead.

Way to totally miss the point.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with using a weapon to hunt an animal, whether it's for sport or food - the issue is the ethics of leaving an animal that is very possibly still alive to lay there bleeding and in pain rather than take the few minutes and deliver a final killing blow to end it's suffering.

If you have a problem with that, I humbly suggest that it might be you that is on the wrong forum.

SHOOT1SAM
May 7, 2009, 08:42 PM
Dark Skies: Killing dumb animals for the fun of it is kind of off-putting to me. I'd have thought elephant flesh would be too tough to be edible for humans. If it can't be eaten then it's just killing for killing's sake.

rr2241tx...........AFAIK, every safari animal is eaten by the local villagers. The paying hunter and his party usually get one meal, the hide and horns.

If using weapons for securing a meal bothers you, you definitely are reading the wrong message board. Try MyLittlePony.uk instead.


kingpin008: Quote:
If using weapons for securing a meal bothers you, you definitely are reading the wrong message board. Try MyLittlePony.uk instead.

Way to totally miss the point.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with using a weapon to hunt an animal, whether it's for sport or food - the issue is the ethics of leaving an animal that is very possibly still alive to lay there bleeding and in pain rather than take the few minutes and deliver a final killing blow to end it's suffering.

If you have a problem with that, I humbly suggest that it might be you that is on the wrong forum.


kingpin008,

I'm not speaking for rr2241tx, but I read it that he was responding to Dark Skies.

Sam

Dark Skies
May 7, 2009, 09:03 PM
"I'm not speaking for rr2241tx, but I read it that he was responding to Dark Skies."

And he still missed the point. If he read my post properly he'd see I have no problem with killing for food.

In point of fact I regularly shoot rabbits for food. I also shoot rats because they're vermin. I got the impression he just needed an opening to stick his MyLittlePony.UK jibe in. And that's OK - not everyone likes the English.

SHOOT1SAM
May 7, 2009, 09:20 PM
Dark Skies,

Didn't notice you are from the UK, so I didn't quite get the jist of the jibe.

I'm not picking a fight with you or anyone. I read the reply as if rr2241tx assumed you didn't know the locals ate the meat (and I kind of got that impression myself). Then again, maybe I missed all the points!

Sam

2RCO
May 7, 2009, 09:27 PM
When I hunt I follow 3 Rules

1.Kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible.
2.Don't kill it unless you are going to eat it or it's a pest.
3. Don't hunt with anyone else that doesn't follow 1 & 2.

dcoop
May 7, 2009, 10:19 PM
I love the comments from the British Subjects. Typical bleeding heart liberals enjoying the government cheese:D

Art Eatman
May 7, 2009, 11:08 PM
There is one reason for why I try to avoid being judgemental about other folks' styles of hunting: Too many different ways, too many different hunting cultures.

Look how many posts here are hollering about "Get close!" and decry those of us who are willing to take longer shots. Others laud the virtures of bow-hunting as being more "natural". Some love hunting with dogs, others go bonkers against that. Some will only sneaky-snake still hunt, and will gripe about others who sit in stands.

Bleeding out from a broadhead, seems to me, is better than lingering for days from the "natural" poisoned arrows used by some indigenes of Africa, or from falling into a pit having stakes in its bottom.

And, as was pointed out, it's not known if the elephant died quickly or lingered. All we know is that it was found the next morning. Nobody ever had an evening shot on a deer lead to hours of problems? In U.S. deer country, there's nothing out there at night that looks upon you as supper...

kingpin008
May 7, 2009, 11:44 PM
I love the comments from the British Subjects. Typical bleeding heart liberals enjoying the government cheese.

Stay classy, dcoop. :rolleyes:

countertop
May 8, 2009, 12:47 AM
And, as was pointed out, it's not known if the elephant died quickly or lingered. All we know is that it was found the next morning. Nobody ever had an evening shot on a deer lead to hours of problems? In U.S. deer country, there's nothing out there at night that looks upon you as supper...

Good points Art.

Here's some other things that bother me.


The story reports that the hunt took place in 2007. If so, why is it only appearing now.
And the Daily Mail admits they never spoke to the hunter - they basically put the story together based on what they READ on various message boards and then got a notable anti hunting bigot to comment on the evil of this.
Finally, how did the paper get copies of the pictures, high quality copies at that - and get ownership of them enough to assert copyright (well Bancraft Media does) if this took place two or three years prior and the paper hasn't spoken to the guides or the hunter


The whole thing just smells funny to me.

wankerjake
May 8, 2009, 02:08 AM
The story reports that the hunt took place in 2007. If so, why is it only appearing now

I watched this happen on tv like a year ago. Not my cup of tea but whatever. She was kind of a weirdo it looked like in the video, she trained for like a year to get that elephant. She was pretty jacked by the time she went hunting. I don't recall the draw weight but it was insane. Probably more than I could pull back. She made a good shot, it turned around and they just went back to camp and came back in the morning. It was dead. I'm on the fence about the morality of it all I guess, but mostly you have to admit it is quite the accomplishment. Everyone kinda has their own opinions on what hunting should be. I guess if she stuck 3 elephants before this one I would be more against the whole affair, and maybe she did, but we don't know. I know she trained harder that 90% of the elk hunters in AZ. Like I said I bet she could have mopped the floor with your average joe by the time the hunt rolled around, she was strong! Anyway that's my two bits.

fivepaknh
May 8, 2009, 06:48 AM
As long as it was a legal hunt then who cares? Many people out there disapprove of use legally owning guns. I’m not going to be quick to judge. I say congrats to her. There are far too few women out there hunting. I think I’m in love with this one. She’s beefy, but looks to be in shape AND she hunts. What’s not to love.

BFE
May 8, 2009, 07:11 AM
It really is not funny how so many people are willing to jump on a bowhunter for bow hunting. If the facts were out then and only then could you folks with negitive comments have any right to bash a true fact, until then get over your off topic thought's. Just because you can think it does not make it a fact or worth any negitive comments, it just shows what you can think about a subject only.

kingpin008
May 8, 2009, 07:22 AM
As long as it was a legal hunt then who cares?

Really?

That's kinda like saying "well, it's legal to hunt this deer, so who cares if I snuck up on it in it's sleep and stabbed it to death with a nail file over the course of two hours instead of dropping it DRT with my rifle. It's dead, right?"

As I said before, I'm not a hunter and I won't profess to have a clue about what most of ya'll do, but I'd imagine that in general, hunting isn't just about killing the animal - it's about doing so with as much respect and reverence for it's life as possible. That means that one of your goals should be to dispatch the animal as quickly as possible, right?

Art Eatman
May 8, 2009, 08:57 AM
Ahhh, c'mon, kingpin. That's reaching out way too far, for no more than appeared to be intended by fivepaknh. Let's don't get into that sort of twisting of meanings. I see enough of that in the Legal Forum.

Marcus5aurelius
May 8, 2009, 09:27 AM
I'm all for hunting for food but this is f*cked up.

kingpin008
May 8, 2009, 11:35 AM
Let's don't get into that sort of twisting of meanings.

Twisting of meanings?

So when someone says this:

As long as it was a legal hunt then who cares?

They don't really mean "as long as it was legal to hunt, who cares [how it dies?]"?

I agree with you that we should try not to take each other's words out of context and/or misundertand them, but how else is one to interpret this particular statement?

DeepSouth
May 8, 2009, 12:13 PM
one of the comments clearly shows the hate of an anti

Maybe someone should shoot her and leave her to die overnight.

That is the kind of thing that ticks me off. They can't even disagree with civility. How stupid.

It is an animal, lets not starting about killing people for killing animals.

Not to mention the writer of the article is so bias he has discredited himself, I have no reason to believe the info about the hunt presented in the article. People DO lie in order to benefit there agenda. What kind of news network or whatever would allow the kind of comment quoted above to remain on their site, they have NO credibility with me.:fire:

As for now, until I would have the facts from her or an unbiased associate, she has my full support, respect, admiration, and a good ol' pat on the back. Now lets hope she doesn't have to use a weapon on a crazy, stalking anti.

testar77
May 8, 2009, 01:00 PM
Now lets hope she doesn't have to use a weapon on a crazy, stalking anti.


That unfortunately would not surprise me at all. Do a google search of her name and you will see some of the really nasty threatening stuff that is out there about her. Funny how most of it is from the other side of the pond!! :rolleyes:

flipajig
May 8, 2009, 01:10 PM
After reading some of these threds hear are my thoughts. Im a bow hunter as well as a gun hunter. I pratice year round. with bow and rifle. I grew up hunting and have taken severial animals with eather one. Most people who shoot a bow are far better shots with them than alot of people are with a gun. I myself have put 3 arrows inside a silver doller at 50 yards. and that was back in the mid 80's to present. as far as taking a elephant your talking about a bow with atleast 80 to 90lbs of pull. Fred Bear has taken every large game animal in noth america with a recurve. Chuck Adams has with a recurve and compound and is curretly one of the few to have a grad slam. I have taken deer that have run 20 yards and some that have run a 500 it depends on the deer and shot placement with gun or bow.Will i ever take a elephant with a gun or bow probably not but that is one heck of a accoplishment. did the elephant die humanly probabley. Nobody would go on a hunt like that unprepaird they would have the best posible equpment. and the gides in Africa are the best ive ever seen (on tv)they have forgot more about hunting than the comman man will ever know.
These are my thoughts. she deservs a big pat on the back;

quatin
May 8, 2009, 01:36 PM
After briefing through this article. I don't see what's wrong. She shot an elephant "near dark". It took off. You're supposed to wait an hour before tracking it down. Tracking at night is pretty hard, much more when lions are about. Would you track down an animal at night in the African Safari? I figure best thing to do would be to come back the next day.

Dark Skies
May 8, 2009, 01:44 PM
"Do a google search of her name and you will see some of the really nasty threatening stuff that is out there about her. Funny how most of it is from the other side of the pond!"

Not really, if you think it through. This sort of story will always bring out the nutters - regardless of which side of the pond you live. The salient point is that the story was plastered all over the UK media. Obviously that'll mainly reach British nutters. If the story had been plastered all over the US media then you'd have the same sort of comments from American nutters.

I noticed that, presumably because she is of Dutch descent, her story didn't play too well in the Netherlands either.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/reiskrant/3867920/__Toeriste_schiet_olifant_dood__.html

shaggy430
May 8, 2009, 01:46 PM
If she took the animal legally, then there is nothing wrong. The article is clearly a piece of anti-hunting propaganda. This is a hunting forum and anti-hunting propaganda shouldn't be posted here.

If I shot an elephant just before dark, I sure wouldn't follow it in the middle of Africa at night armed with a bow. Neither would you. As for wasting the meat, usually in instances where the animal is too large to be shipped back to America, UK, etc. the meat is donated to the local village.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 8, 2009, 02:19 PM
Some really good reading:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189864

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=288378

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=221076

Dark Skies, I'm fairly certain that you now realize that your assumption on page 1, that the meat is not eaten, is 1000% incorrect. It most certainly is all utilized by thankful, hungry villagers.

testar77
May 8, 2009, 03:17 PM
It most certainly is all utilized by thankful, hungry villagers.

That honestly is one of my favorite parts of African Safari hunts (I haven't done it yet) Nothing that is edible goes to waste. Call it what you want but I am sure there were a couple of hundred people or more that were pretty thankful for what she did. But then I suppose the next argument about how wrong that it is will be that hunters must be making the villagers lazy and dependent or something by providing food for them :rolleyes:

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 8, 2009, 03:42 PM
But then I suppose the next argument about how wrong that it is will be that hunters must be making the villagers lazy and dependent or something by providing food for them

Yep, the anti-hunting ninnies are always gonna make up some nonsensical BS, and then go buy their meat at the store, which comes solely from animals which died of old age, so no one had to kill them.

testar77
May 8, 2009, 03:52 PM
You mean kind of like this:

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt131/testar77_2009/Meatpic.jpg

Dark Skies
May 8, 2009, 06:11 PM
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow :
"Dark Skies, I'm fairly certain that you now realize that your assumption on page 1, that the meat is not eaten, is 1000% incorrect."

1000% incorrect? Don't you feel that a little harsh for a first time offence? :)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 8, 2009, 07:19 PM
OK, sorry, 99% incorrect. :)

Does anyone know how I can translate that Dutch website? Is that in Dutch, Belgian, what language? I'm a dunce on that stuff.

MCgunner
May 8, 2009, 08:22 PM
First of all, our ancestors make many a meal out of Mammoths. They used the atlatl, a stick with a pointed rock on the end of it, thrown with a spear thrower device. Google it. They'd stab it, get the heck outta the way, and wait til he fell. They weren't stupid enough to try to finish off a wounded animal at close range that outweighs a Suburban. That's how they survived to procreate. Many a bison was run off a cliff to be wounded at the bottom and suffer until he could be approached. Hey, it was a successful strategy. It fed the tribe. Had our ancestors had a .600 nitro express double rifle, I'm sure they'd have made good use of it. They were just as smart as you are, believe it or not. They just didn't have the benefit of several thousand years of metals and weapons development.

Second of all, "dumb animals?" I think I'd be the dumb animal to get 12 yards from a friggin' elephant! Ballsy woman there, a bit stupid if you ask me. Our ancestors hunted in packs, gave 'em half a chance to survive to mate. They'd not live long if that was their primary strategy, get 12 yards from a mammoth and toss one spear at it.

I'd like to taste elephant meat, but elephants are highly regulated animals and it takes a LOT of money and luck to draw a permit to take one. But, being regulated, that's why they're still around. Do away with hunting them and you do away with the need to manage them or the money to manage them.

It's a typical UK editorial piece disguised as hard news and typical responses from the moronic, clueless readers. Does anyone, but me remember when the PETA types were on a crusade to end bow hunting? They claimed that the animals suffered for hours after being shot, that at least they died instantly after being shot with a rifle. :rolleyes: They watch a lot of TV shows and old westerns and believe 'em, I guess. Cowboy gets hit with an arrow, he bites on a bullet, breaks the arrow off and pulls it out and lives on in pain. Indian shot with a .44-40 dies before he falls off the horse. :rolleyes:

MrCleanOK
May 8, 2009, 09:13 PM
Anybody notice the guns on that bowhunter? The article is right, this chick was definitely working out in preparation for this hunt.

Shooting an elephant for sport on a bet that nobody else had done it yet isn't really my cup of tea, but as long as she did it legally and ethically (which it sounds like she did) I'm not going to salt her for it.

If you had read the article, you'd know that she made the shot right before dark. Leaving animal to expire overnight in that circumstance is the right thing to do in my book. The animal is far more likely to be recovered in the morning if you just leave it alone, than it is if you blunder after it in the dark, scaring it up to run further without leaving a blood trail.

Art Eatman
May 8, 2009, 09:16 PM
"Dumb" as applied to animals, means the inability to speak.

Think about how we refer to one group of handicapped as "Deaf and dumb". Nada to do with intelligence.

Art Eatman
May 8, 2009, 09:22 PM
kingpin, until folks prove obviously to be otherwise, we begin here with the assumption that the hunters who frequent this forum are ethical.

Since this is the Internet, and there are no facial expressions nor is there any body language to assist in communication, cutting slack is always the best way to interpret whatever is written.

MCgunner
May 8, 2009, 10:18 PM
I reckon that woman has some arms on her cause I reckon that bow has to draw 80 or 100 lbs I'd think. Okay, it's a compound, but still! Now, I WOULD be impressed if she'd shot that thing with a long bow. :what: I'd like to know some story details, like draw weight of the bow and such.

testar77
May 8, 2009, 11:20 PM
IIRC I think it was a 90# bow. Hence the guns she's packin! :o

Dark Skies
May 9, 2009, 01:48 AM
MCgunner
"It's a typical UK editorial piece disguised as hard news and typical responses from the moronic."

I'm pretty sure this isn't a typical UK editorial per se. It's a filler piece written by a freelancer to one of the central news agencies that has been picked up by one of the sensationalist English newspapers on a slow news week and chopped and changed to get a reaction. Don't tell me you don't get exactly the same kind of stuff from the same kind of newspapers in the US. My wife is American so I regularly visit the States - I've seen the same kind of shock, horror, probe fluff in your lesser papers.
Citing the Daily Mail with a straight face just doesn't happen here - nuff said.

Dr Tad. Re translation
It's only a filler piece and is actually shorter than it looks due to the Dutch language having a vocabulary only marginally shorter than Welsh. The gist of the translation is:


AMSTERDAM -- American Teressa Groenewald-Hagerman (39) on safari in Africa with an elephant shot dead with a bow and arrow. She has proudly placed the photos of her prey on the Internet. The senseless slaughter is the result of a bet.

Under the Web name Prohuntress Mrs Green Ewald boasts that the animal was in a group of 37.
"I knelt down at a distance of 12 yards and shot the arrow out." The American practised for a year with a PSE X Force crossbow to carry out her act, after a male friend had challenged her.

Another internet blogger says that the elephant stumbled for 500 yards before it fell.

Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation was shocked by the killing: "Why would anyone make such a bet ? She needs therapy. It is really sick. "
Recent studies demonstrate that elephants mourn for lost members of the group.
Hunting elephants unfortunately is still not banned in some parts of Africa. There are even those that organize hunting trips specifically to do so.

Sunray
May 9, 2009, 02:01 AM
Saw a hunting movie, very long ago. A big elephant was shot in the heart/lung area with a 100 pound bow. Broad head of some kind, as I recall. The bull ran for a mile and dropped dead.

Art Eatman
May 9, 2009, 10:46 AM
"Another internet blogger says that the elephant stumbled for 500 yards before it fell."

And

"A big elephant was shot in the heart/lung area with a 100 pound bow. Broad head of some kind, as I recall. The bull ran for a mile and dropped dead."

Stipulating accuracy as to the facts in these comments: Nothing unusual happened.

Grey Morel
May 9, 2009, 11:50 AM
The critics DO realize that this is how humans hunted for the 10,000 years of our history which preceded the 20'th century?

Early hunter-gatherers used to run an entire herd off of a cliff just to eat one or two animals. Do you think they lost any sleep over it? No they didn't. I'm not loosing any sleep over an elephant shot with a bow.

heviarti
May 9, 2009, 12:38 PM
Silly English antis. Do they think Jeffery, Holland & Holland, and Westley Richards are ethnically Japanese or something? or maybe Rudyard Kipling was Tibetan? All English, all elephant shooting all the time. England is a lot like War or Russia. I miss it. Remember England? Spreading joy and happiness via .303 England? Pip pip hurrah for the Empire, now let's go shoot some bloody pagan wogs England? England that practically invented the safari England?

There is still some hope for .uk tho.... Anyone see that tv show on BBC America, The ****ing Fulfords? The patriarch of the family was quite entertaining, down to earth, and what I expect of a real Englishman (see above) Were England populated solely with that type I doubt there would be the draconian gun legislation there is now. I'm entirely for replacing bludgeonings and stabbings with shootings when the shooter is the intended bludgeon- or stabee. Unfortunately I think we'll have War back before England or Russia.... or America for that matter

MudPuppy
May 9, 2009, 12:40 PM
I don't know why I am so AMAZED at how people are so easily manipulated by the press. I swear, the williness to accept as fact boggles my mind.

Man, consider the source and remember there is almost always more than one side to a story.

I don't bow hunt anything, but that's because I don't have confidence in my ability. I also much prefer to take the meat and not worry about trophy, and when legal, I'll take a 30 yard shot over a feeder vs a 400 yarder out of respect to what my abilities are, coupled with the desire for a quick kill.

Finally, who's never taken a deer at twilight that didn't go back in the morning to retrieve the kill--that doesn't mean it took all night to die. Even on the various hunting shows, it's common to see the hunters restrain themselves from immediately rushing to the downed deer due to the possibility of adreline charging up the deer and have it run on a good bit--its more humane to let them bleed out or die.

Feh, propaganda, I say.


ETA - Side note about the English folks--when I lived there, everyone knew I was a Texan with a big gun collection back in the states. And almost all of them were interested in shooting and almost to a person they asked if I'd take them shooting when they visit (of course--a coworker in the states has 3k acres and we take them out and shoot everything, from handguns to EBRs to a couple Then of 50 BMGs). Then I'd shame 'em about it over a pint and tell them to enjoy their percieved safety, but don't get the illusion that they were free. We'd laugh, but with the multiple gun and knife deaths in the UK while I was there for a year illustrated that safety is never provided through disarming the good guys. Hell, if gun free zones are really safe then prison out to be like candyland.
I like what Art says about not judging other's culture's hunting traditions--that's a good point to keep in mind.

john paul
May 10, 2009, 11:51 PM
does anyone think that the ph guiding her would have let the elephant suffer?

natman
May 11, 2009, 07:22 AM
Even someone here took the *implication* that it took all night to die, and repeated it as FACT. All the article says is that she left it overnight to make sure it was dead.

I re-read the article and you are right. It is indeterminate how long the elephant took to die. I should have read it more carefully. Mea culpa.

I don't know how long the elephant took to die, but neither do you and more importantly, neither did the hunter. If it's too dark to confirm the animal is dead, then it was too dark to take the shot.

Now that we've picked that nit, let's go back to the real issue.

If you want to show off by making difficult shots, do it on targets. If you want to hunt game animals, then use an adequate weapon and tactics to insure a clean kill.

For the posters who mentioned cavemen hunting with arrows, if you are hunting to stave off starvation, then kill the game any way you can. A higher standard of ethics applies to sport hunting.

JpSnareGuy
May 11, 2009, 07:47 AM
I wrote a comment on their site and they did not put it up. I think they deleted it. I figured that would happen. :neener:

CajunBass
May 11, 2009, 09:25 AM
Seems to me I remember an old "American Sportsman" show about Fred Bear killing an elephant with a bow. I remember the "shot." At the time I thought "What is he shooting at? Then the elephant moved. That thing was so big it didn't register as an animal. It just looked like a wall. The hunter (Bear) couldn't have been more than a few feet from it.

MCgunner
May 13, 2009, 09:59 AM
I'd hunt elephant with a bow, just ain't got the cojones to do it nor any sort of death wish. Those prehistoric cromagnon hunted like wolves, in packs, ganged up on 'em. It bettered the odds, and hey, an Atlatl is a more powerful weapon than a bow.

I've heard this suffering thing applied to hunting deer with a bow, too, by PETA. My main concern with leaving game in the field over night would be spoilage of the meat. A rotten elephant carcass can't be rosy. Eeeewww.

I don't know, I'm sort of in a primitive mood lately, been shooting bows and black powder and ignoring my cartridge firearms. Is this a disease or maybe just a passing fad? :D

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 13, 2009, 11:26 AM
Disease....but it can be controlled. Liberal archery & primitive tag availability in multiple states doesn't help the disease any however.

MCgunner
May 13, 2009, 11:56 AM
Well, yeah, that and the limited availability of primers or milsurp ammo don't help right now. I'm even wanting a flinter. :rolleyes: I do make my own percussion caps, work great in my C&B revolvers, but hangfire in the hawken. I am thinkin' they'd work great in an inline, though, or if I could just make me some real black powder. Pyrodex is a might hard to ignite, anyway, compared to BP. I'm saving for a couple of sieve screens and am going to start BP production. :D Hey, cast the bullet, make the powder, make the percussion cap. Who the heck cares about ammo shortages???? :D

I watched Nugent on Outdoor Channel using a crossbow last night. Now, I'm starting to think about crossbows!:banghead:

atomd
May 15, 2009, 08:16 AM
Seems like a lot of people here know nothing about bowhunting or hunting dangerous game.....yet they all have an opinion to share. Someone even mentioned that they thought elephant meat was inedible. :rolleyes:

You can not approach dangerous game with a bow after it has been wounded, even if it's mortally wounded and might already be dead. That is a sure way to end up dead yourself. It might have died in 30 seconds or it might have died later. No one knows. An arrow into the heart of an animal is an ethical way to dispatch it. If you don't agree, you probably disagree with hunting altogether. They only leave the elephant as a precaution. I don't know about you guys but I'm not walking up on a wounded elephant with a bow. If you think anything is wrong with that situation you might as well be against bowhunting period.

Rifle hunters can make follow up shots to the skull of the animal where as a bowhunter has a very small area in which to place the arrow. Good luck hitting that small area on a wounded charging elephant.

I watched this hunt on TV about a year or so ago. Great hunt. She used a PSE xforce bow with 90# limbs on it I believe. She had to weight train in order to be able to use the bow. That's a pretty serious bow right there.

John E.
May 15, 2009, 12:12 PM
What it was doing with a bow, I'll never know!

natman
May 15, 2009, 12:43 PM
You can not approach dangerous game with a bow after it has been wounded, even if it's mortally wounded and might already be dead. That is a sure way to end up dead yourself. It might have died in 30 seconds or it might have died later. No one knows. An arrow into the heart of an animal is an ethical way to dispatch it. If you don't agree, you probably disagree with hunting altogether. They only leave the elephant as a precaution. I don't know about you guys but I'm not walking up on a wounded elephant with a bow. If you think anything is wrong with that situation you might as well be against bowhunting period.

You're right. All of this is an excellent argument against hunting dangerous game with a bow.

das028
May 15, 2009, 12:57 PM
IMHO, I think this is absolutley sickening! I am by no means a"tree loving hippie libral" but I dont believe in killings animal for sport. I think its immoral.

If you want to hunt for food it syour choice. i believe the animal needs to be consumed some way or another. I choose not too, because frankly I dont have the heart to kill any animal. I prefer to kill paper targets, lol!

To shoot an elephant with a freaking bow is just horrible to me on many different levels!!!

atomd
May 15, 2009, 01:14 PM
You're right. All of this is an excellent argument against hunting dangerous game with a bow.

A rifle isn't exactly a laser beam of instant death by the way. Many animals who are hit with bullets do not expire instantly. Some of them are also dangerous game that have attacked and killed hunters after being shot even more than once. A bow that can shoot a heavy enough arrow at an fast enough speed is capable of humanely harvesting an elephant (as long as shot placement is correct).

I believe bowhunting is just as humane as hunting with firearms. If the hunter is taking a risk, it is a calculated/educated risk and that is a decision for the hunter to make, not you.

It amazes me to see people on a hunting forum who are only ok with harvesting one or two types of animals with one particular type of weapon. Anything else in their mind isn't acceptable. These are the same hunters that get our hunting rights thrown out the window when it comes time to vote. First it's banning bowhunting, then it's banning crossbows, then it's only one type of rifle...and pretty soon you've voted your way out of the sport entirely.

I think some people should just be honest and admit that their real issue is that they don't believe in hunting elephants at all. If this article was about a hunter who shot a rabid coyote with a bow instead of an elephant, I highly doubt there would be an argument.

atomd
May 15, 2009, 01:16 PM
IMHO, I think this is absolutley sickening! I am by no means a"tree loving hippie libral" but I dont believe in killings animal for sport. I think its immoral.

If you want to hunt for food it syour choice. i believe the animal needs to be consumed some way or another. I choose not too, because frankly I dont have the heart to kill any animal. I prefer to kill paper targets, lol!

To shoot an elephant with a freaking bow is just horrible to me on many different levels!!!

#1. That animal was consumed.

#2. Why are you on the hunting forum? Why don't you go to PETA's website or something?

Man...some people....:fire:

61chalk
May 15, 2009, 01:39 PM
post 63.....I'm against people who shoot paper. They are sick, how many more trees must suffer an die an horriable death to make paper for you to shoot, how many times must you kill something. At least that woman only shot Dumbo once,great shot by the way, but you have people kill trees an then you try an kill them again with mutliple shots...by the way, to the anti's out there, I've shot an killed 14 deer with archery.....now you can go cry.

MCgunner
May 15, 2009, 05:21 PM
The more people grow up in and live in overpopulated big cities and the east coast concrete jungle, the more we get people with anti attitudes like this. I think it's sick that people can eat a burger and don't have a clue where it came from or how it was made. :rolleyes: And, I'm not talkin' about burger king, I'm talking about the farm, the feed lot, the slaughter house, etc. So, I like to kill and butcher my own meat. Why is that anyone else's business? Why is it their business how I kill it or with what tool? It dies, I eat it.

I wonder, how could a man or woman who can't bring themselves to kill supper possibly kill a man if they are forced to for survival? If you're interested in self defense at all, if you don't think the police will necessarily be there where you need them, then you'd better shoot a lot of paper. You ain't gonna know how to actually shoot a living being, that's for sure.

kyle1974
May 15, 2009, 11:58 PM
Oh my God....I can't believe anyone would shoot an animal in the evening, and not try to find it at night time...with lions hyenas and god knows what else in the area....

when you shoot something with a bow, it runs... that's the way it is. I'm sure you brave souls wanting to insure the absolute and quick death of an animal that could kill you in an instant would have no issues tracking one into the bush at night time...


what are you guys reading this liberal bull S*** for?

what's next, articles from handgun control?

Mokwepa
May 16, 2009, 12:09 AM
Killing dumb animals for the fun of it is kind of off-putting to me. I'd have thought elephant flesh would be too tough to be edible for humans. If it can't be eaten then it's just killing for killing's sake.
__________________


I know for certain that elephant are smarter than this guy. Early/modern explorers and locals alike in my country have been eating elephant for many many years, its actually very good eating.

Have you ever heard the quote " I do not hunt to kill, I kill in order to of truly hunted"

Mokwepa
May 16, 2009, 12:11 AM
Oh yes, Africa is'nt for sissies

Mokwepa
May 16, 2009, 12:12 AM
#2. Why are you on the hunting forum? Why don't you go to PETA's website or something?

Man...some people....

Ill back you up all the way.

heviarti
May 16, 2009, 12:45 AM
Yeah... I'll definitely listen to Mokwepa about Africa. These antis don't understand what a bull in musth is... or that hippos are not slow, happy, or placid. A lot of americans think the wilderness is a disney movie. Perhaps Mokwepa can explain what happens when you run into baboons unarmed... I'd kill the president of Paraguay with a fork to hang out with this dude for a week. I might know my share... but Mokwepa is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable of us on the subject of Africa, and would likely have to keep the bulk of us from doing something that would invoke natural selection.

Mokwepa
May 16, 2009, 03:46 AM
run into baboons unarmed

I can tell you a few stories. Ive ended many of these primates lives. Nasty little buggers. Ive seen/heard of quite a few decent dogs being mauled by these primates.

cooch
May 16, 2009, 08:17 AM
Have you ever heard the quote " I do not hunt to kill, I kill in order to of truly hunted"

I believe that the correct quote is -
"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

The Author was Josť Ortega y Gasset, in the 1942 book, "Meditations on Hunting" He articulated the relationship between hunter and game. That the potential for a kill validates hunting as a participatory activity - where man acts as the high-level predator - rather than a spectator sport.

..... and yes, heart-shot elephants typically run some distance. The mechanism of death with a heart-shot is bleeding out. The same regardless of whether bow or rifle is used. (Or so those with some experience will tell us.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...killing is not the exclusive purpose of hunting." [p.45]

"To the sportsman the death of the game is not what interests
him; that is not his purpose. What interests him is everything
that he had to do to achieve that death - that is, the
hunt. Therefore what was before only a means to an end is now an
end in itself. Death is essential because without it there is no
authentic hunting: the killing of the animal is the natural end
of the hunt and that goal of hunting itself, not of the
hunter. The hunter seeks this death because it is no less than
the sign of reality for the whole hunting process. To sum up, one
does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in
order to have hunted." [p.96-97]

Jose Ortega y Gasset. 1985. "Meditations on Hunting". Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York. ISBN 0-684-18630-6


Peter

Mokwepa
May 16, 2009, 09:47 AM
Thanks for the corection, i knew it went something like that.

61chalk
May 16, 2009, 10:00 AM
If the death of the prey is the end of the hunt.....then gutting must be the beginning of dinner!!!!

natman
May 16, 2009, 01:42 PM
You can not approach dangerous game with a bow after it has been wounded, even if it's mortally wounded and might already be dead. That is a sure way to end up dead yourself. It might have died in 30 seconds or it might have died later. No one knows. An arrow into the heart of an animal is an ethical way to dispatch it. If you don't agree, you probably disagree with hunting altogether. They only leave the elephant as a precaution. I don't know about you guys but I'm not walking up on a wounded elephant with a bow. If you think anything is wrong with that situation you might as well be against bowhunting period.

You're right. All of this is an excellent argument against hunting dangerous game with a bow.

A rifle isn't exactly a laser beam of instant death by the way. Many animals who are hit with bullets do not expire instantly. Some of them are also dangerous game that have attacked and killed hunters after being shot even more than once. A bow that can shoot a heavy enough arrow at an fast enough speed is capable of humanely harvesting an elephant (as long as shot placement is correct).

I believe bowhunting is just as humane as hunting with firearms. If the hunter is taking a risk, it is a calculated/educated risk and that is a decision for the hunter to make, not you.

It amazes me to see people on a hunting forum who are only ok with harvesting one or two types of animals with one particular type of weapon. Anything else in their mind isn't acceptable. These are the same hunters that get our hunting rights thrown out the window when it comes time to vote. First it's banning bowhunting, then it's banning crossbows, then it's only one type of rifle...and pretty soon you've voted your way out of the sport entirely.

I think some people should just be honest and admit that their real issue is that they don't believe in hunting elephants at all. If this article was about a hunter who shot a rabid coyote with a bow instead of an elephant, I highly doubt there would be an argument.

Go back and read all three statements in context. If you do that you will see the following:

In the first quote the author says that it is too dangerous to administer a coup de grace with a bow. Let's assume that's true.

To my mind that's an excellent reason not to hunt DANGEROUS GAME with a bow, not an excuse for leaving a fallen animal to die slowly. If you drop the animal, you should be able to finish it off. If you can't, then you shouldn't be hunting it with that weapon in the first place. I highlighted the words DANGEROUS GAME in the hope that it would emphasize the point, but apparently to no avail.

No, a rifle does not always drop game instantly, but it's a far better tool to finish off fallen game than a bow.

All the rest is unsupported projection on your part. I've never said that there is only one good way to hunt or anything that can be responsibly extrapolated to support that I want to get our hunting rights thrown out or that I have anything against responsible bowhunting, elephant hunting in general or any of the other nonsense you've conjured up out of nothing. Your entire third paragraph is way out of line.

And yes, if this were about a coyote, I wouldn't have a problem with it. A coyote is a reasonable target with a bow. An elephant is not.

atomd
May 16, 2009, 05:51 PM
To my mind that's an excellent reason not to hunt DANGEROUS GAME with a bow, not an excuse for leaving a fallen animal to die slowly. If you drop the animal, you should be able to finish it off. If you can't, then you shouldn't be hunting it with that weapon in the first place. I highlighted the words DANGEROUS GAME in the hope that it would emphasize the point, but apparently to no avail.

Who said it died slowly? It didn't drop dead right there on the spot...obviously. Most animals shot with a bow travel some distance before expiring. How is an arrow through the heart of one animal any different than an arrow through the heart of another animal? Please explain why the coyote would be different. If you hit it in the heart (which the bowhunter in question DID), then what is the problem here? A bow that powerful is easily capable of penetrating an elephant's heart.

No, a rifle does not always drop game instantly, but it's a far better tool to finish off fallen game than a bow.

Who said anything needs "finishing off" anyways? One shot through the heart with any weapon should be fast enough and ethical enough for anyone.

All the rest is unsupported projection on your part. I've never said that there is only one good way to hunt or anything that can be responsibly extrapolated to support that I want to get our hunting rights thrown out or that I have anything against responsible bowhunting, elephant hunting in general or any of the other nonsense you've conjured up out of nothing. Your entire third paragraph is way out of line.

That wasn't 100% in reference to your post. It was a combination of your posts and many other ridiciulous posts prior to yours. I thought you might be able to figure that out by how it was a different paragraph that started with "It amazes me to see people on a hunting forum". See the word "people"? There was nothing "out of line" about that at all and I never directly accused you personally of anything so quit being so sensitive.

And yes, if this were about a coyote, I wouldn't have a problem with it. A coyote is a reasonable target with a bow. An elephant is not.
Last edited by natman; Today at 02:59 PM.

Ok...there's a reason why I would like to know how an arrow through the coyote's heart is any different than the arrow through the elephant's heart. I'm very curious about that part so be sure to include that in your response. We're not talking about going around making poor unethical shots on animals. That's a different subject matter altogether. She didn't shoot it with a .22. She shot it in the heart with a weapon easily capable of penetrating that animal's heart. She even trained for a year to make sure she could make the correct shot with the correct equipment. Why is that wrong? Since you are obviously an elephant hunting expert that would know why an elephant is not a reasonable target with a bow....you can explain that also. I'll bet that many professional hunters might disagree with you though.

61chalk
May 16, 2009, 07:03 PM
atomd...its ok to shoot coyotes because they haven't been on a Walt Disney movie,..like Dumbo. I saw a guy fill a 5 gallon bucket with sand, then shoot it with a 30/06, the bullet didn't come out the other side...he then shot it with a arrow an it had total penetration....so much for an arrow not having any penetration. I've shot deer with archery that ran a few feet, stopped an bled out an died in seconds, an have heart shot deer with a .12 gauge slug that ran 200 yds. before dropping an kicking around. So I suppose someone will tell me a .12 ga. with slugs should only be used on squirrels......

kyle1974
May 16, 2009, 11:02 PM
It's just like my grandfather used to say when those damn dolphins would screw us up once we got on the trout....


"no one gave a damn about those ******** dolphins until that "flipper" TV show came out :D

LMAO... God rest his soul.... He hated those dolphins

natman
May 17, 2009, 04:19 AM
Quote:
No, a rifle does not always drop game instantly, but it's a far better tool to finish off fallen game than a bow.

Who said anything needs "finishing off" anyways? One shot through the heart with any weapon should be fast enough and ethical enough for anyone.


Quote:
All the rest is unsupported projection on your part. I've never said that there is only one good way to hunt or anything that can be responsibly extrapolated to support that I want to get our hunting rights thrown out or that I have anything against responsible bowhunting, elephant hunting in general or any of the other nonsense you've conjured up out of nothing. Your entire third paragraph is way out of line.

That wasn't 100% in reference to your post. It was a combination of your posts and many other ridiciulous posts prior to yours. I thought you might be able to figure that out by how it was a different paragraph that started with "It amazes me to see people on a hunting forum". See the word "people"? There was nothing "out of line" about that at all and I never directly accused you personally of anything so quit being so sensitive.


Quote:
And yes, if this were about a coyote, I wouldn't have a problem with it. A coyote is a reasonable target with a bow. An elephant is not.
Last edited by natman; Today at 02:59 PM.

Ok...there's a reason why I would like to know how an arrow through the coyote's heart is any different than the arrow through the elephant's heart. I'm very curious about that part so be sure to include that in your response. We're not talking about going around making poor unethical shots on animals. That's a different subject matter altogether. She didn't shoot it with a .22. She shot it in the heart with a weapon easily capable of penetrating that animal's heart. She even trained for a year to make sure she could make the correct shot with the correct equipment. Why is that wrong? Since you are obviously an elephant hunting expert that would know why an elephant is not a reasonable target with a bow....you can explain that also. I'll bet that many professional hunters might disagree with you though

Please read the following carefully.

You can not approach dangerous game with a bow after it has been wounded, even if it's mortally wounded and might already be dead.

This is what the first poster said. Assuming it's true, then a bow is not a suitable weapon for DANGEROUS GAME, because even if it's POSSIBLE to make a clean kill with a bow, it is not GUARANTEED that you will, and you need to be able to administer a followup shot if needed.

I don't care if you can shoot a bow through a Sherman tank, in the real world not every shot goes perfectly and YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FINISH THE JOB.

If you start off a post with a quote from someone, then launch into a rant about what "people" do, it is not clear who you are talking about. It may have been clear to YOU that you were talking in general terms, but the secret to effective communication is not what is clear to you, but what you make clear to everyone.

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman Kills Elephant with a Bow!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!