Jeff Higgins |
10-17-2008 09:22 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by aigel
(Post 4244223)
If you hunt deep in the woods, you never bring out the whole carcass. Often all you carry out is a pile of boned out meat and a head / hide.
I can't say I am terribly worried about being attacked by wildlife while out in the CA woods.
George
|
Good point, and one I should have remembered. I have packed out more animals than I care to remember. I have actually passed up some nice ones at the thought of just how far out I was going to have to pack it, and how many trips it was going to take.
That said, I just have to think the hunters going to that effort are also not the typical stereotype, slovenly, lazy bastards that would pop an animal with a handgun and then claim they shot it with a bow. I suspect that occurs more among what we call "road hunters", those highly motivated, industrious lads that drive around in the truck all day with a case of beer. Those guys are more likely pointing a rifle out the window than a hand gun anyway.
Come to think of it, your average Nimrod is probably better off using a bow than a hand gun. I bet most can shoot a bow far better, and have a greater effective range with the bow. Hand guns are difficult to shoot well enough to hunt with. Folks that have put the effort into getting proficient enough with one to actually be effective in the field with it will more than likely hunt with one as their primary weapon, and be proud of that fact.
So, the more I think about it, the more I think that bow hunters would gain no real "unfair advantage" by packing a defensive sidearm. The whole thing just doesn't add up to any advantage. In that light, it makes even less sense for game departments to prohibit the carry of a sidearm. I think they have an unrealistic perception of the situation, and I think that places sportsmen out in the woods at unnecessary risk.
|