Persistence Hunting

[rwc101]

so color me unsurprised that people are negative about someone trying something different.

Sorry, but that's a total cop-out. It has nothing to do with it being different. None of the supporters of this have even tried to address the ethical issues surrounding running an animal until it suffers heat stroke.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Sorry, but that's a total cop-out. It has nothing to do with it being different. None of the supporters of this have even tried to address the ethical issues surrounding running an animal until it suffers heat stroke.

Yeah... I'm kinda over the whole "ethics" of killing something conversation.

I watched someone drown a deer, suffocate a duck so they wouldn't damage the mount, wound things with bows and rifles, kill them with knives, spears, etc

I can't justify one method over another.

 

[noharleyyet]

@neffa3 Should I ever see that dude trotting towards me with a bow....I ain't running, that's for sure. ; )

 

[TheTone]

I’m glad he’s using a stick bow so he can be super ethical

 

[rwc101]

Yeah... I'm kinda over the whole "ethics" of killing something conversation.

I watched someone drown a deer, suffocate a duck so they wouldn't damage the mount, wound things with bows and rifles, kill them with knives, spears, etc

I can't justify one method over another.

Strange. I can't rationalize witnessing ethical and unethical behavior and saying "#*^@#* it, it's all the same." Doesn't change the fact that "it's different" has absolutely nothing to do with my objections.

 

[MThuntr]

In before this one gets locked

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Strange. I can't rationalize witnessing ethical and unethical behavior and saying "#*^@#* it, it's all the same." Doesn't change the fact that "it's different" has absolutely nothing to do with my objections.

Lots of grey area is more my point.

 

[TOGIE]

Strange. I can't rationalize witnessing ethical and unethical behavior and saying "#*^@#* it, it's all the same." Doesn't change the fact that "it's different" has absolutely nothing to do with my objections.

maybe start with convincing us why it's so unethical

one of the lines everyone draws in the proverbial ethics sand is unfair advantage. this is the exact opposite of unfair advantage.

as far as suffering? man. we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that we all deal out and inflict serious pain upon living creatures leading to death every year. if we can't deal with a guy shooting an antelope with a trad bow after it lies down from exhaustion.... then i personally feel it's hard to justify the fact that i have on multiple occasions caused multiple deer and pronghorn's insides to explode with supersonic expanding bullets and then they wobble around and watch their friends running safely away for anywhere from 20 seconds to a minute

i just don't see the black and white nature of this

 

[Nameless Range]

I read the article. It will be a hell of a feat of human endurance and fortitude.

That said, intentionally inflicting suffering and fear upon an animal for such a length of time that the goal is its absolute exhaustion is unnecessary to the point of being unethical. I don't have a problem saying that.

Hunting isn't all about a net-reduction in animal suffering, but this isn't close enough to the threshold to be reasonable IMO.

 

[rwc101]

maybe start with convincing us why it's so unethical

one of the lines everyone draws in the proverbial ethics sand is unfair advantage. this is the exact opposite of unfair advantage.

as far as suffering? man. we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that we all deal out and inflict serious pain upon living creatures leading to death every year. if we can't deal with a guy shooting an antelope with a trad bow after it lies down from exhaustion then i feel it's hard to justify the fact that i have on multiple occasions caused multiple deer and antelope insides to explode with supersonic expanding bullets and they wobble around and watch their friends running safely away for anywhere from 20 seconds to a minute

There is no mistaking that this guy has an unfair advantage. Truck to travel miles to find pronghorn, optics, electrolytes, hydration pack, etc. I respect anyone that sheds as much of their unfair advantage as possible though. That isn't my issue.

My issue is that this form of hunting necessitates an immense amount of suffering of not only the animal killed but of every other animal in the herd he is chasing. With a rifle, proper skills, and ethical decision making there is a good chance an animal dies within seconds perhaps without even knowing of the hunter's presence. The same can be said for any other method of take though the skill required and decision making have to be more honed.

 

[rwc101]

I read the article. It will be a hell of a feat of human endurance and fortitude.

That said, intentionally inflicting suffering and fear upon an animal for such a length of time that the goal is its absolute exhaustion is unnecessary to the point of being unethical. I don't have a problem saying that.

Hunting isn't all about a net-reduction in animal suffering, but this isn't close enough to the threshold to be reasonable IMO.

Thanks for saying what was rattling in my caveman brain more succinctly and intelligibly than I was able to.

 

[FI460]

Do I like it? Not really.

Do I think it will get more media attention than it deserves? Yes.

Do I think it's the worst thing that someone calls hunting? No.

I don't believe the optics are particularly good, but it's also not going to gain enough of a following to invest a bunch of energy in.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I read the article. It will be a hell of a feat of human endurance and fortitude.

That said, intentionally inflicting suffering and fear upon an animal for such a length of time that the goal is its absolute exhaustion is unnecessary to the point of being unethical. I don't have a problem saying that.

Hunting isn't all about a net-reduction in animal suffering, but this isn't close enough to the threshold to be reasonable IMO.

See here's my problem, I agree with the logic... but it gets a little bows v. rifle to me.

 

[bullbugle307]

I haven't heard of Native Americans ever marathon running pronghorn and then killing them with a bow, but I have heard stories of coordinated hunts where a great number of horse hunters would create a giant circle around a herd and space themselves out evenly. One would run them until another with a fresh horse would pick up the chase, and once they were exhausted they would kill them with whatever means.

Fully aware that that may not have actually happened, so who knows. I read the article in OL when it arrived in my mailbox. I wasn't impressed.

I wonder how non hunters (not anti hunters) would react to this?

 

[TOGIE]

I wonder how non hunters (not anti hunters) would react to this?

honestly, and i could be totally off, but i see the ultra running, climbing, backpacking, north face, patagonia, etc, non hunting community looking at this and cheering

"wow look at that! a human using his own power to down an animal, finally someone doing it the fair way! all those fat rednecks shooting deer need to take a lesson from this guy"

i'm still wrestling in my brain on the ethics of it, i'm not disappearing from that conversation

but i'm still just not worked up about this being very unethical

 

[Nameless Range]

See here's my problem, I agree with the logic... but it gets a little bows v. rifle to me.

I am a big believer in thresholds from a philosophical point of view. Interesting discussions happen around them, and like Overton Windows, they migrate.

I think one of the chief problems here, as I said above, is that the goal is fear and suffering, and drawing those things out. Persistence Hunting, like bows and rifles, also has a balance between efficacy and difficulty to consider, efficacy being tied to animal suffering. But because reducing suffering doesn't even register on the graph of persistence hunting and in fact is inverse on it, I have a problem with it.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think a lot of people would like the idea of persistence hunting, until they actually saw what an animal so exhausted it is on the brink of death looks like.

Also, think of the externalities of spending a day or days chasing herds of animals means for those animals. If the hunter is successful on one animal or not, I would wager they have increased the mortality of the herd they chased in general, to a far greater degree than hunting typically does.

 

[bullbugle307]

honestly, and i could be totally off, but i see the ultra running, climbing, backpacking, north face, patagonia, etc, non hunting community looking at this and cheering

"wow look at that! a human using his own power to down an animal, finally someone doing it the fair way! all those fat rednecks shooting deer need to take a lesson from this guy"

i'm still wrestling in my brain on the ethics of it, i'm not disappearing from that conversation

but i'm still just not worked up about this being very unethical

That's what I was thinking. A lot would probably think it was cool and say something like "there's a real hunter".

Until they actually witnessed that type of a hunt vs. a clean kill with a rifle.

I've seen it done plenty of times with a truck, and it never took anywhere near 20 miles to get them exhausted enough to just stand there and let themselves get shot. I have a hard time differentiating between this and that.

 

[antlerradar]

I would bet on the antelope.

 

[COEngineer]

I think it was someone on Meateater that said their wife wants to know (believe) that every animal her husband brings home never knew he was there. So there's definitely a value put on quick, clean kills, even by those who don't witness the death. Running an animal to death is 180 degrees from that and therefore seems obviously immoral.

Sure, if it's some dude living in the boonies that doesn't have a better tool handy and this is the only way he can get food, then sure (human life > animal suffering). But, just doing it to prove something? I don't like it one bit.