Hunting with an Atlatl

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by albertaatlatl

The ABA members present at the GM moved a motion and voted 21 to 5 to take our information on the use, effectiveness, history and such to the AGMAG table in May. At the GM there were 36 people present, not all ABA members. The discussion was short and heated. We are ABA members, and were hoping for a lot more members to attend. However, the majority of members present did not think this a small issue, and decided that the board who proposed the ban should be the one to carry the 'full info' package to the table. We are currently finishing our documentation to be forwarded to ABA, HFT, AFGA and the like. We are happy at this turn of events, and FULLY expect the ABA to do the job entrusted to it's executives by the members!!

I am not sure I am clear, so please correct me if I am wrong.

The only resolution regarding the "other equipment" proposal previously made by the ABA exec/board was for those same individuals to take additional information forward to AGMAG?

Was there no resolution for ABA to withdraw its earlier proposal?

What exactly was included in the "full info package"? Does it only address Atlatls? What about spears or other bladed hunting tools?

AA, are you agreeing with the ABA that these tools NEED to be regulated?

I hope you and other 'primitive' hunters are not participating in this continued craziness because you believe that regulation is inevitable.


This is eerily familiar. Same situation in the late '90s just before C68 was passed; so many were willing to throw others under the bus hoping that THEIR firearms wouldn't be banned.

[albertaatlatl]

There was no other equipment proposal. Only to define a legal weapon.The previous proposal to ban has been withdrawn and replaced by a proposal to define a legal hunting tool. We at Alberta Atlatl, and primitive groups do not think that a regulation is required, nor do we think a definition is required at all. Our package will contain Atlatls and spears mainly, if you have any extra input on other bladed weapons please forward it to me by DM. We think that the proper unbiased info on these weapons must go to the AGMAG table with a proposal to drop the "define a weapon" and banning a weapon proposal. We are not taking part of the craziness because of inevitabilty but because of necessity to keep the historical and traditional use of these tools to be allowed.
AA

[Lefty-Canuck]

Personally I have no issue with defining a minimum standard for these "other" primitive weapons. That falls in line with the regulations to have minimum standards for rifles, bows, shotguns, x-bows and muzzle loaders. I have no issue with legitimizing other hunting tools but feel there should be minimum standards IMHO.

LC

[calgarychef]

So if there was an Alberta muzzleloaders association, it would be completely acceptable for the inline guys to put forth a resolution banning patched round balls on the basis that they are too primitive and require too much skill to learn to use. The folks who use PRB would then have to prove that their weapons can kill even though the round all has killed millions of animals.

The Atlatl doesn't need definition, we as a species only GOT here by surviving and hunting with the Atlatl for thousands of years. Remember the bow is only around 5000 years old, all of our previous hunting was done with the Atlatl for millennia and suddenly it needs to be justified?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

So if there was an Alberta muzzleloaders association, it would be completely acceptable for the inline guys to put forth a resolution banning patched round balls on the basis that they are too primitive and require too much skill to learn to use. The folks who use PRB would then have to prove that their weapons can kill even though the round all has killed millions of animals.

The Atlatl doesn't need definition, we as a species only GOT here by surviving and hunting with the Atlatl for thousands of years. Remember the bow is only around 5000 years old, all of our previous hunting was done with the Atlatl for millennia and suddenly it needs to be justified?

So you feel that there should be no need to have minimum poundage on bows or minimum rifle calibers for big game?

This is why I feel there should be...IMHO
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...hlight=walmart

LC

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

So you feel that there should be no need to have minimum poundage on bows or minimum rifle calibers for big game?

This is why I feel there should be...IMHO
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...hlight=walmart

LC

In reality - no. Do you really think a modern 36lb bow is too weak/slow to drive a well balanced arrow clear through a deer, but a 40lb bow is the magic minimum?

What possible point would there be to regulating a hand thrown cutting tool (some people are apparently right twitchy about calling things "weapns")? Setting a minimum weight of projectile doesn't mean that the thrower has the strength to throw it at the calculated speed. Much like a bow that draws 40lbs at 28" doesn't draw that weight if you only draw it to 22", does it?

Same with rifle cartridges: just because 6mm is the minimum for big game in AB doesn't stop anyone from shooting a moose with .243 55gr Ballistic Tip, or a 100 grain bullet over 5 grains of Unique doing 700fps, does it?

Should we ban reloading? Should we require ammunition to be certified at a government facility to prove it provides X ft/lbs at a required distance? Should we legislate the farthest distance at which one is allowed to shoot at a deer? Should that distance be set through annual testing of hunters?

Your linked thread was either posted by a non-hunter or a troll. I could post of a hundred threads started by morons that would support banning all firearms (cause of "bullet failure", lack of energy, don't shoot "flat like a lazer", ad nauseum).


While there are always idiots who will do stupid things, we do not need to legislate to the lowest common denominator. People will strive to take animals quickly and cleanly. No one is going to try throwing a 28" arrow as an atlatl. Why? Because it would be like shooting paper wads at deer from your 22. If the concern is "new hunters" don't know what they are doing and may make bad decisions, then there is a failure in our hunting training programs. That is where we should be focussing out effort.

[Lefty-Canuck]

So you want to hunt with a jackknife....cool post the video.

We all have opinions, yours and mine differ but neither is right or wrong.

Not saying anything should be banned but I think there should be some minimum standards.

Why shouldn't we hunt large game with FMJ bullets? Or arrows that have. .357 mag shell inserted in the tip?

LC

[nekred]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

So if there was an Alberta muzzleloaders association, it would be completely acceptable for the inline guys to put forth a resolution banning patched round balls on the basis that they are too primitive and require too much skill to learn to use. The folks who use PRB would then have to prove that their weapons can kill even though the round all has killed millions of animals.

The Atlatl doesn't need definition, we as a species only GOT here by surviving and hunting with the Atlatl for thousands of years. Remember the bow is only around 5000 years old, all of our previous hunting was done with the Atlatl for millennia and suddenly it needs to be justified?

Wrong the bow was invented at 5 different points in histroy... and has been found in archeological evidence back 14,000 years....

[Pudelpointer]

Interesting you should mention a jack-knife lefty. I propose that knives kill hundreds of deer in Alberta every year.

If "hunting with knives" is made illegal, it has the potential to criminalize a lot of people who have been taught to "finish" a deer by cutting its throat. Much like "finishing" a deer with a bullet during bow season will find you standing before a judge, killing a deer with a knife after you shoot it with a bullet will become illegal.

This whole issue is legal nightmare, fraught with unforseen ramifications. The regulations are restrictive enough IMO. The only change that could be made without turning into a royal **** show would be to set a minimum cutting width on "bladed weapons" of 7/8" as it is now for a legal arrow.

I added some info to the above post while you were responding. To that I will add: we don't legislate that broadheads need to be razor sharp, but we expect people to have them sharp (often a failed expectation). Again, a failure in hunter training, not a legislative issue.

[Pudelpointer]

To clarify, I am not suggesting we remove all equipment restrictions as they currently exist, just that there is no need to regulate the most difficult and primitive of weapons.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I have killed deer with a jackknife too....but that was after either a vehicle collision or a bullet had started it....I just used the knife to finish it.

Seems like you support no restrictions on weapons...heck clubs were used likely before atlatl were.....do I look forward to cabelas camo crowbars soon

LC

[calgarychef]

And where was the evidence of those 14,000 year old bows found?

[Matt L.]

Just how do you propose to set minimum restrictions on atlatl's and spears Lefty? I am actually curious as to how this could be done.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Just how do you propose to set minimum restrictions on atlatl's and spears Lefty? I am actually curious as to how this could be done.

Mass, length, cutting diameter.....I don't know enough about the darts/spears admittedly but I would think when Alberta Atlatl is manufacturing his darts he has a design in mind that will get the job done effectively.

LC

[nekred]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

And where was the evidence of those 14,000 year old bows found?

How about you do your own research!....

pretty easy to find.... there is actual other evidence that projectile points were found that are Hypothesized to be arrow points that ar much older.....

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I have killed deer with a jackknife too....but that was after either a vehicle collision or a bullet had started it....I just used the knife to finish it.

Seems like you support no restrictions on weapons...heck clubs were used likely before atlatl were.....do I look forward to cabelas camo crowbars soon

LC

Seems like you aren't reading LC, but that's okay.

Just so we are all on the same page: killing a big game animal, no matter the situation is still restricted by the wildlife act. Whether you are putting an animal "out of its misery" or not is irrelevant. If hunting equipment is restricted to a list of "approved weapons" as ESRD is proposing to do, then killing a deer with a knife after you shot it with a legal weapon will be illegal, period.

As for your club comment, why is that a problem for you? How many people do you think will take up "the club"? How many do you think will be successful? So what is the problem? Why do we need to legislate this?

I actually know a guy who killed a wounded deer with a sledgehammer; it was all he had available. He stated it was definitively effective.


So, now I have to ask: do believe "pursuit" or "endurance" hunting require legislative action as well? How do you propose the legislation is written? How far can you pursue? For how long? Is there a footwear restriction?

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Mass, length, cutting diameter.....I don't know enough about the darts/spears admittedly but I would think when Alberta Atlatl is manufacturing his darts he has a design in mind that will get the job done effectively.

LC

And so would anyone else who decided to try it.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I am trying to figure out how you feel existing regulations should be held up regarding minimums but when new (old) means are identified they should not have any standard?
As far as a knife think there is a certain amount of reasonability involved. If for some crazy reason the knife become prohibited to use as a tool to finish an animal off....so be it it....I'll follow the rules and use a bullet or an arrow.

Oh and I read things just fine . I see you had to add a disclaimer

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

And so would anyone else who decided to try it.

You have a lot of blind faith! I applaud you for that.

LC

[antlercarver]

CSA has a library of 3000 standards and codes that address industry, consumers, regulators and the public at large. CSA also works with other countrys to comply with their safety code to protect their citizens in case that product happens to be used there.
To manufacture and sell to the public a product must meet CSA codes. I imagine sooner or later there could be injury lawsuits similar to manufacturers of vehicles, firearms or even hot coffee.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

CSA has a library of 3000 standards and codes that address industry, consumers, regulators and the public at large. CSA also works with other countrys to comply with their safety code to protect their citizens in case that product happens to be used there.
To manufacture and sell to the public a product must meet CSA codes. I imagine sooner or later there could be injury lawsuits similar to manufacturers of vehicles, firearms or even hot coffee.

Without exception, these standards apply to manufactured products; be they hard goods, soft goods, or consumables.

Atlatls, spears, knives or clubs used for hunting are unlikely to be commercially manufactured. A flat bow, no matter whether someone makes it for themselves or for someone else will never fall under some government standard. Neither will spears or atlatls..... or the horrific "bag of rocks"; nor should they. These tools are very personal and user specific.

Are we going to regulate the type of material darts are made from? The type of wood? The type of material of a broad head? Must it be steel? Are knapped flint heads unethical? Where do we draw the line?

This is the danger in the path ESRD is taking; if it is not listed in the regulation it WILL BE ILLEGAL to use for hunting, period. End discussion. Not open for interpretation. Capiche? Currently there is only a list of what is NOT allowed for hunting / big game hunting (<.23 calibre firearms, bows that don't pull >=40lbs, arrows with a <7/8" cutting head, poison, traps, aircraft, etc.). The new direction they are taking is the real issue that we should all be concerned about.

You may trust ESRD to do this right, but I sure don't.

LC, you never answered my questions.

[Lefty-Canuck]

You never answered mine either

I think Air Jordan's or the Reebok Pump should be used as footwear as these are archaic examples of footwear

LC

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

You never answered mine either

I think Air Jordan's or the Reebok Pump should be used as footwear as these are archaic examples of footwear

LC

Dammit! Stop answering while I am adding to my current post!


Lol.

Honestly, I could care less if ESRD sets minimum standards for Atlatls ans spears (weight, cutting width, etc.), it is how they will do this that is a concern. See above.

[Lefty-Canuck]

LOL, I see where you are going, why didn't you come out and say it in the first place?

LC

[nekred]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Without exception, these standards apply to manufactured products; be they hard goods, soft goods, or consumables.

Atlatls, spears, knives or clubs used for hunting are unlikely to be commercially manufactured. A flat bow, no matter whether someone makes it for themselves or for someone else will never fall under some government standard. Neither will spears or atlatls..... or the horrific "bag of rocks"; nor should they. These tools are very personal and user specific.

Are we going to regulate the type of material darts are made from? The type of wood? The type of material of a broad head? Must it be steel? Are knapped flint heads unethical? Where do we draw the line?

This is the danger in the path ESRD is taking; if it is not listed in the regulation it WILL BE ILLEGAL to use for hunting, period. End discussion. Not open for interpretation. Capiche? Currently there is only a list of what is NOT allowed for hunting / big game hunting (<.23 calibre firearms, bows that don't pull >=40lbs, arrows with a <7/8" cutting head, poison, traps, aircraft, etc.). The new direction they are taking is the real issue that we should all be concerned about.

You may trust ESRD to do this right, but I sure don't.

LC, you never answered my questions.

Kind of backwards thinking... or reverse perspective... there are definitions for legal hunting implements in alberta as to what a firearm has to consist of, same with a muzzle loader, same with a shotgun legal for birds , and yes archery equipment... anything outside of that definition should not be declared legal until standards have been set and presented to ESRD by the relevant stakeholder group. having these standards being set is very important as then it reduces controversy, argument and division of our hunting community.

Having the definition for legal hunting implements is important as well as a process for stake holder groups to be able to present information to make revisions as necessary to include changes whether they be technological advancement or to roll back technology to increase a hunter's satisfaction....

Someone may get satisfaction from dropping an elk at a kilometre with a special long range rifle, another with a self-made bow, or another with a crossbow, or another with some other type of currently legal tool.

I have to applaud the ability for omeone to harvest an animal with an atlatl because to me s just way cool!...I believe it that a definition is needed to preserve the rights of an atlatl-hunter (aka spear chucker) to pursue game in their chosen manner.

Ethics and morals are what ones own person believes... collective ethics, or social ethics usually get codified somehow into either a practice or even law.... Whther or not I am against something should not be relevant. the relevance is whether or not the tool is capable of providing a relatively humane deathe (is death ever humane is another argument) in the harvest of an animal.

Think of this we are not dragging in bears with meat baited hooks into nets where they can be clubbed while helpless for harvest which is analogous to fishing.

No matter how nice we try to make it we are taking the life of an animal regardless of the method, we just want it to be as quick as possible NOT FOR THE ANIMALS BENEFIT... but for our own, we want to salve our own conscience..... Nature is very cruel, watch a pack of wolves take down a moose and there is nothing humane and ethical about that in my own view... but the wolf really does not give a ****... it is just doing what he can to survive.... I guess maybe wolves did not get the memo!....as to what constitutes a legal tool for harvesting in Alberta.

the vast majority of people are so insulated from what is actually done to provide them with sustenance that I cannot wait until civilization fails... or the pandemic comes, or nuclear holocaust, or zombie apocolypse, whatever and wipes things back to the Stone Age....then maybe we might want to know how to use an atlatl...

[Alley Oop]

Originally Posted by nekred

Kind of backwards thinking... or reverse perspective... there are definitions for legal hunting implements in alberta as to what a firearm has to consist of, same with a muzzle loader, same with a shotgun legal for birds , and yes archery equipment... anything outside of that definition should not be declared legal until standards have been set and presented to ESRD by the relevant stakeholder group. having these standards being set is very important as then it reduces controversy, argument and division of our hunting community.

Having the definition for legal hunting implements is important as well as a process for stake holder groups to be able to present information to make revisions as necessary to include changes whether they be technological advancement or to roll back technology to increase a hunter's satisfaction....

Someone may get satisfaction from dropping an elk at a kilometre with a special long range rifle, another with a self-made bow, or another with a crossbow, or another with some other type of currently legal tool.

I have to applaud the ability for omeone to harvest an animal with an atlatl because to me s just way cool!...I believe it that a definition is needed to preserve the rights of an atlatl-hunter (aka spear chucker) to pursue game in their chosen manner.

Ethics and morals are what ones own person believes... collective ethics, or social ethics usually get codified somehow into either a practice or even law.... Whther or not I am against something should not be relevant. the relevance is whether or not the tool is capable of providing a relatively humane deathe (is death ever humane is another argument) in the harvest of an animal.

Think of this we are not dragging in bears with meat baited hooks into nets where they can be clubbed while helpless for harvest which is analogous to fishing.

No matter how nice we try to make it we are taking the life of an animal regardless of the method, we just want it to be as quick as possible NOT FOR THE ANIMALS BENEFIT... but for our own, we want to salve our own conscience..... Nature is very cruel, watch a pack of wolves take down a moose and there is nothing humane and ethical about that in my own view... but the wolf really does not give a ****... it is just doing what he can to survive.... I guess maybe wolves did not get the memo!....as to what constitutes a legal tool for harvesting in Alberta.

the vast majority of people are so insulated from what is actually done to provide them with sustenance that I cannot wait until civilization fails... or the pandemic comes, or nuclear holocaust, or zombie apocolypse, whatever and wipes things back to the Stone Age....then maybe we might want to know how to use an atlatl...

Backward thinking and reverse perspective????
Kind of like nekred reversed or backward is redneck??

Your 1st paragraph is quite backwards.
It's innocent until proven guilty in this fair land.
Not the reverse.

Who's side are you on??????!!!!!!!

[nekred]

Originally Posted by Alley Oop

Backward thinking and reverse perspective????
Kind of like nekred reversed or backward is redneck??

Your 1st paragraph is quite backwards.
It's innocent until proven guilty in this fair land.
Not the reverse.

Who's side are you on??????!!!!!!!

What country are you in?

Do I have to pick a side or is it better to be open minded and thius percieved as more objective?

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by nekred

What country are you in?

Do I have to pick a side or is it better to be open minded and thius percieved as more objective?

People who haven't made a decision on an issue usually ask questions.

Presenting a conflicted position does not make one objective, it just makes others confused.

[Alley Oop]

Originally Posted by nekred

What country are you in?

Do I have to pick a side or is it better to be open minded and thius percieved as more objective?

Born and raised Canadian and darn proud of it.

Now back on you......you seem more subjective than objective.
You want to keep something illegal until proven innocent.
That's not how our legal system works.

[nekred]

Originally Posted by Alley Oop

Born and raised Canadian and darn proud of it.

Now back on you......you seem more subjective than objective.
You want to keep something illegal until proven innocent.
That's not how our legal system works.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth..... That is how much of the controversy started....

This is not a legal system but a regulatory process... nobody has been charged with anything....nor is it going through a court of law.....

But policy has to made which is enacted into law so that it can be added to the legal system....

innocent or guilty is irrelevant until there is a law/regulation...

It is simple one question needs to be asked, and defined... what is the definition of legal hunting equipment for hunting big game in Alberta.... leaving this open just creates a whole bunch of grey.

Grey is a problem as it leaves too much open to interpretation...