From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.174331.21347@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <RIGG.92Oct9093716@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.182631.6179@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>   In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>
>>
>>I respect your reasons and support laws allowing hunters to elect to
>>use these drugs (it is illegal in Wisconsin).  However, I personally
>>would not use them, unless mandated which I would fight.  I take great
>>pride in placing my shots well.  I also find great satisfaction in
>>taking the time to follow the trail as long as needed.  I see no need
>>to use the drugs.  I have never lost a deer (knock on wood).   It just
>>seems to remove much of the attractiveness of bowhunting if I just
>>have to hit the deer anywhere.  I can do that at 70 yards which means
>>I might as well be using my rifle.
>
>I see the words, but can't appreciate them.  If the idea is to kill for
>food, the gun at 70 yards is just as good and probably more efficient in
>that it could save you alot of time.  If the idea is to demonstrate that
>you have the talent of a great woodsman sufficient to approach to within
>25 yards of a deer, then you can do your shooting with the trusty
>camera. 
>

  If I may again interject here (I'll be here off and on):
   Killing for food is part of the idea. The other part is earning it. In
the last two weeks, I could have shot at least a dozen deer with a rifle.
A camera would have been nice, in fact I plan to take one out after the 
hunting season, but it too is much easier. Allow me to illustrate by 
describing some "close encounters".  Deer #1 I managed to sneak up on while
feeding. At approximately 20 yards, I could get no closer without leaving 
protective cover. He was broadside and totally unaware of my presence. My
arrow struck a twig en route to the deer, sending it clattering through the
trees while he ran in the other directions. Deer #2 was a similar situation,
but in this case I saw the twigs, and being unable to get a reasonably clear
shot, allowed him to feed out of range and live another day. Deer #3 was at
about 25 yards and walking, but obviously nervous. Too alert to draw and shoot,
even though she hadn't seen me. Deer #4 was broadside standing still at 15-20
yards, and wide open. But he was looking right at me. I had an arrow nocked
and drawn, but he never took his eyes off me. A shot under those circumstances
is, IMO, too risky to take. 
   The conditions necessary to risk a shot are very specific and demanding. 
I do my hunting on foot, as I don't have the patience to sit and wait. Should
I be good enough to sneak into a deer's bedding or feeding area and shoot him
with an arrow at less than 25 yards, with him/her unaware of my presence until
it's too late, I feel I've earned the right to eat it. It took a long time 
and a lot of practice to develop these skills, and the chances of success are
always slim, but the challenge is what makes it exciting. The surging 
adrenalin and pounding heart are on a par with losing my virginity. You may
not understand, but that's the closest analogy I can think of.

Jeff Achenbach

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals