Is it humane to shoot a deer with an arrow? Seems to me that would be the most painful and lengthy time to die.
I have been bow hunting since 1952, starting with a 25# pull Osage orange long bow at age 11 (sticking rabbits in the suburbs); killed my first deer in 1962, and uncounted numbers since. It has been my experience that a well hit large buck (shot straight through the lungs and heart) will run on adrenalin up to 100 yards, probably not even knowing he has suffered a killing penetration. There is no impact shock like with a slug or sabot (which are the legal loads in IL). I have killed a large buck that ran less than 100 feet, and a doe that went down with a broken back (squealing like a baby until dispatched).
The idea of hunting is to reduce game animals to possession, and death ensues (hunting is not "catch and release"). A true sportsman tries not to make a mess of it. The skill level necessary to bag a deer (or anything else) with a bow and arrow is so much beyond that of gun hunting that there can be no comparison. I have always thought that sticking a deer with a razor-sharp broadhead was something like letting the air out of a tire, and no more painful than being cut with a very sharp object, as contrasted to the destructive impact and shock to tissues and organs of a bullet or slug.
In the final analysis, no animals are going to get out of this life alive, including posters on this site. Given my observation about an adrenalin-charged deer running up to 100 yards max, and cranking in 20 MPH (men have run a mile at over 15 MPH), that's about 30 feet per second, or 10 seconds till the deer collapses in a heap. When one considers the long drawn-out alternatives of starvation and hypothermia, and the weakened animals being eaten alive by predators (turkey vultures, crows, coyotes, wolves, bugs and vermin), not to mention the toll motor vehicles take, I think if the deer had a say about their preferred ultimate demise, they would cast their ballot for the arrow and not the bullet, automobile, or "natural death."
Jim: If you would like to get up to speed on "painful and lengthy times to die," you should visit a nursing home or hospice. And on topic there is an interesting picture in James Beard's famous book,
The End of the Game, of a native that had been eaten by a lion. The lion started from the feet without regard to whether his meal had checked out. The lion licked the skin off the lower extremities to savor the blood, then started chomping the calves and thighs, cracking bones and shaking ("not stirred", Mr. Bond). How long the victim was alive, in shock, or in pain was only speculation. Someone once commented to me about this being the worst way to go. I pointed out that the killing process, albeit seemingly protracted, probably took less than two or three minutes. One needs only to become acquainted with how people die a "natural death" by way of disease, trauma, or simple aging to realize that few are so fortunate to achieve their four score years in painless perfect health and lie down, go to sleep, and not wake up. Maybe being eaten alive isn't so bad after all. Investigation continues. EDM
