Hunting with an Atlatl

[SammyIam]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

The debate centers around some who want to hunt any way they chose, and others seen to want to be sure of ethical, clean kills with less chance of wounding. This leads to choice of weapons and skill of the hunter. I think there are much better weapons than a spear. As for skill and testing of that skill to be permitted to hunt, seams to be becoming a necessary part of hunting. In a earlier post I suggested testing and someone questioned how long I have hunted and if I was skilled enough to qualify for a hunting permit. I shot my first deer in 1963 and many, many more since then along with several moose, a few elk, bears and several years on a trapline. I have shot deer and moose in their bed, they had no clue I was there.
In all those years of bush experience, I have seen enough to want the cleanest, most humane kills, possible. If useing a spear is your thing, that is fine, use non living targets. The animals are not yours, they belong to all of us. Useing a spear on animals will bring the anti hunting public down on all hunting. Killing in slaughter houses is very regulated, because the public demands it. There is enough of the public against hunting without having their imagination running bloody with spear hunting similar to what they are trying to do with the baby seal clubbing.

Buddy...get off your high horse and come down among the commoners. The only thing "more" lethal about a firearm is that any putz can take one out and start flinging bullets at animals and from a longer range, with absolutely zero experience or practice. And no...the animals don't "belong" to anyone.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

The debate centers around some who want to hunt any way they chose, and others seen to want to be sure of ethical, clean kills with less chance of wounding. This leads to choice of weapons and skill of the hunter. I think there are much better weapons than a spear. As for skill and testing of that skill to be permitted to hunt, seams to be becoming a necessary part of hunting. In a earlier post I suggested testing and someone questioned how long I have hunted and if I was skilled enough to qualify for a hunting permit. I shot my first deer in 1963 and many, many more since then along with several moose, a few elk, bears and several years on a trapline. I have shot deer and moose in their bed, they had no clue I was there.
In all those years of bush experience, I have seen enough to want the cleanest, most humane kills, possible. If useing a spear is your thing, that is fine, use non living targets. The animals are not yours, they belong to all of us. Useing a spear on animals will bring the anti hunting public down on all hunting. Killing in slaughter houses is very regulated, because the public demands it. There is enough of the public against hunting without having their imagination running bloody with spear hunting similar to what they are trying to do with the baby seal clubbing.

Clean ethical kills can be made with a spear. A spear to the heart lungs of an animal will do the same damage if not more than a rifle. Basically what I get from your post is that rifles are easier to use and everybody should use one because they are the fail proof. This is not true. It all comes down to the hunter to do his part no matter what weapon he or she is using. There are people out there who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a rifle.

As for the anti's, we will never be able to make them happy, so just because you want to please some of them doesn't mean you will please all of them. And when you do please some of them they will then move onto being against bow hunting, next rifle hunting. Slippery slope.

I'll leave you with this question. Where should the line be drawn on ways to ethically kill an animal because that line is different for every hunter?

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

The debate centers around some who want to hunt any way they chose, and others seen to want to be sure of ethical, clean kills with less chance of wounding. This leads to choice of weapons and skill of the hunter. I think there are much better weapons than a spear. As for skill and testing of that skill to be permitted to hunt, seams to be becoming a necessary part of hunting. In a earlier post I suggested testing and someone questioned how long I have hunted and if I was skilled enough to qualify for a hunting permit. I shot my first deer in 1963 and many, many more since then along with several moose, a few elk, bears and several years on a trapline. I have shot deer and moose in their bed, they had no clue I was there.
In all those years of bush experience, I have seen enough to want the cleanest, most humane kills, possible. If useing a spear is your thing, that is fine, use non living targets. The animals are not yours, they belong to all of us. Useing a spear on animals will bring the anti hunting public down on all hunting. Killing in slaughter houses is very regulated, because the public demands it. There is enough of the public against hunting without having their imagination running bloody with spear hunting similar to what they are trying to do with the baby seal clubbing.

"Hunting Rant" is the correct term for the "justification" provided above. I am trying to figure out if you are president of the ABA or the Big Game Specialist for the province?

Legislating ethics and behavior is nothing but a "feel good" project for the Liberal minded among the population.

I am so glad that Antlercarver knows what is ethical and humane when it comes to hunting. So glad that Antlercarver is pushing for competency testing for Alberta hunters. I feel so much better knowing that hunting methods in Alberta will soon pass the PETA Ethical Harvesting Protocol.


Don't know why I continue on with this conversation....

[avb3]

If you look at the presentation ESRD made to the AFGA conference, it is clear the lobby to exclude spears has made its point.

The proposal is to change the law so only prescribed implements can be used.

In other words, if it is not on the list, it's illegal.

Spears and atlatls do not make the list.

[J D]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

The debate centers around some who want to hunt any way they chose, and others seen to want to be sure of ethical, clean kills with less chance of wounding. This leads to choice of weapons and skill of the hunter. I think there are much better weapons than a spear. As for skill and testing of that skill to be permitted to hunt, seams to be becoming a necessary part of hunting. In a earlier post I suggested testing and someone questioned how long I have hunted and if I was skilled enough to qualify for a hunting permit. I shot my first deer in 1963 and many, many more since then along with several moose, a few elk, bears and several years on a trapline. I have shot deer and moose in their bed, they had no clue I was there.
In all those years of bush experience, I have seen enough to want the cleanest, most humane kills, possible. If useing a spear is your thing, that is fine, use non living targets. The animals are not yours, they belong to all of us. Useing a spear on animals will bring the anti hunting public down on all hunting. Killing in slaughter houses is very regulated, because the public demands it. There is enough of the public against hunting without having their imagination running bloody with spear hunting similar to what they are trying to do with the baby seal clubbing.

If we are going to appease anti's expect to loose you're trapping rights. As a trapper my self I will say right now anti's want us trappers gone even more than the issues they have with spear hunters. Don't know any spear hunters receiving death threats from anti's but I do personally know trappers who have.

You should not throw others under the bus for the anti's especially when you are high on their list of outdoorsmen they want gone.

You are not helping outdoorsmen in the fight with anti's but instead helping the anti's cause.

[Alley Oop]

Dear antlercarver

You do realize this is an outdoors forum?
And it's the main goal to keep hunting and fishing alive?
Your stance is nothing more than anti propaganda and is not appreciated.
You're like a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Post your comments on facebook.....not here.

[nekred]

I was at the ABA AGM.

I heard the discussion there.

The motion was to the effect of getting a definition. of legal hunting equipment for alberta

Alberta Atlatl is getting to present information to AGMAG to assist with the motion.

The problem is weapon by its very definition implies harm to a person. That is why we need to defin hunting equipment, or harvesting tool and get the list to be very definite.

As for determining if there is enough momentum in a thrown dart/atlatl; spear consider this..... Jai alai is a game that uses an atlatl like device to throw a rubber ball at speeds aproaching 180 mile an hour (almost 300 fps) this ball weighs over 2000 grains. imagine a 2000 grain arrow moviing at almost 300 fps....

Using a little more understandable stats.... a person can throw a baseball at 80 miles per hour which is about 140 fps. A baseball is over 2000 grains and a pro pitcher can exceed 100 mph which is over 150 fps..... This exceeds what a legal longbow can do (40 lbs at 28 ").....

The key is not the weapon but the user.... a longbow shooter has to be very careful on his ability to ensure thay are not outside their pok 95% range.... same with an atlatl where you have to be even closer....

In reality if a person goes out with an atlatl and can successfully harvest game he needs a hand shake and pat on th eback from his hunting compadres not the "shame shame" finger stroke....

We need to be careful and this debate has identified the need to set limits and define what a legal harvesting tool is. We need to be very careful as if we start opening a can of worms regarding lethality of certain weapons we have more to lose than to gain....

The same arguments heard against atlatls.... were said about archery at one time as well....

[Lefty-Canuck]

^^^^^

Well said...

LC

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by nekred

The problem is weapon by its very definition implies harm to a person. That is why we need to defin hunting equipment, or harvesting tool and get the list to be very definite.
...
The same arguments heard against atlatls.... were said about archery at one time as well....

Sorry Nekred to paraphrase your post, but I need some clarification.

First, was there a motion at the ABA AGM to ask ESRD to define "hunting equipment"?

As paraphrased, are you saying we need to get the list to be "very definite" or is that what the ABA is now saying?

I agree with your last statement.

[nekred]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Sorry Nekred to paraphrase your post, but I need some clarification.

First, was there a motion at the ABA AGM to ask ESRD to define "hunting equipment"?

As paraphrased, are you saying we need to get the list to be "very definite" or is that what the ABA is now saying?

I agree with your last statement.

I will wait for meeting minutes there was a motion made but exact wording and gist will be in the minutes...Much of the controversy was started because of wordplay, miswording, and hearsay. So i should have remained silent as others have until minutes are available...

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by nekred

I will wait for meeting minutes there was a motion made but exact wording and gist will be in the minutes...Much of the controversy was started because of wordplay, miswording, and hearsay. So i should have remained silent as others have until minutes are available...

I don't think the controversy had/has anything to do with "wordplay, miaowed ing and hearsay". It has everything to do with the ABA trying to throw a smaller group (or individuals) under the bus and opening up a huge can of worms without any consideration for anyone other than themselves.

No hunting group in this province (country) should be arguing for MORE restrictions on hunting equipment. Killing animals using any type of "remote equipment" is already illegal, so using "possible technological advancements" as an excuse to regulate/prohibit the most basic of hunting tools is an offence to all hunters, both modern and historical.

Shame on the ABA for continuing down this road. Shame on any club tha continues to support the ABA through affiliation. I am deeply disappointed.

[antlercarver]

I am glad I got several years of hunting in before it becomes like a fantasy role playing game.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

I am glad I got several years of hunting in before it becomes like a fantasy role playing game.

I guess it's been a fantasy role playing game for thousands of years.

[calgarychef]

Considering that a modern rifle has never killed a mammoth and the lowly Atlatl has killed thousands of them, maybe we should ban these modern contraptions called firearms until their effectiveness can be proven.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

I am glad I got several years of hunting in before it becomes like a fantasy role playing game.

So you want hunting to stay the way YOU do it, and anyone who wants to do differently is living in a "fantasy"... got it.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

I am glad I got several years of hunting in before it becomes like a fantasy role playing game.

Yup I guess it's time for you to pack it in....you have done all you can do, except keep your fellow-hunter-bashing opinion to yourself....

LC

[avb3]

Originally Posted by nekred

I was at the ABA AGM.

I heard the discussion there.

The motion was to the effect of getting a definition. of legal hunting equipment for alberta

Alberta Atlatl is getting to present information to AGMAG to assist with the motion.

The problem is weapon by its very definition implies harm to a person. That is why we need to defin hunting equipment, or harvesting tool and get the list to be very definite.

As for determining if there is enough momentum in a thrown dart/atlatl; spear consider this..... Jai alai is a game that uses an atlatl like device to throw a rubber ball at speeds aproaching 180 mile an hour (almost 300 fps) this ball weighs over 2000 grains. imagine a 2000 grain arrow moviing at almost 300 fps....

Using a little more understandable stats.... a person can throw a baseball at 80 miles per hour which is about 140 fps. A baseball is over 2000 grains and a pro pitcher can exceed 100 mph which is over 150 fps..... This exceeds what a legal longbow can do (40 lbs at 28 ").....

The key is not the weapon but the user.... a longbow shooter has to be very careful on his ability to ensure thay are not outside their pok 95% range.... same with an atlatl where you have to be even closer....

In reality if a person goes out with an atlatl and can successfully harvest game he needs a hand shake and pat on th eback from his hunting compadres not the "shame shame" finger stroke....

We need to be careful and this debate has identified the need to set limits and define what a legal harvesting tool is. We need to be very careful as if we start opening a can of worms regarding lethality of certain weapons we have more to lose than to gain....

The same arguments heard against atlatls.... were said about archery at one time as well....

From the ESRD presentation at the AFGA conference, it seems clear that there will be a proposal (most ESRD proposals become fact) to limit the implement used.

In the past often government will use a NGO to champion its policy. Looks like the ABA may be part of this.

Of not, why is the ABA even considering asking for restrictions on what can be used?

Is it concern that archery hunters may not get "their fair share"?

Are we not all hunters?

[nekred]

Originally Posted by avb3

From the ESRD presentation at the AFGA conference, it seems clear that there will be a proposal (most ESRD proposals become fact) to limit the implement used.

In the past often government will use a NGO to champion its policy. Looks like the ABA may be part of this.

Of not, why is the ABA even considering asking for restrictions on what can be used?

Is it concern that archery hunters may not get "their fair share"?

Are we not all hunters?

Again a lot of wordplay and misinterpretation.... at ABA general meeting was a letter on how everything transpired on this and handed out. If it is of such a concern to you maybe you should have been there?

From my perspective it appears that someone did not do due diligence before jumping to conclusions then spewing all over the interweb and media....

I think that there needs to be a definition of what are legal hunting implements and there is a huge hole in the legislation that needs to be defined....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by nekred

Again a lot of wordplay and misinterpretation.... at ABA general meeting was a letter on how everything transpired on this and handed out. If it is of such a concern to you maybe you should have been there?

From my perspective it appears that someone did not do due diligence before jumping to conclusions then spewing all over the interweb and media....

I think that there needs to be a definition of what are legal hunting implements and there is a huge hole in the legislation that needs to be defined....

Not a ABA member and besides winters I am sailing. Not sure why one can't be concerned without taking part in every meeting... I've done enough of those over the years.

Here is the ESRD presentation made to the AFGA. Scroll down about a quarter of the way.

http://www.afga.org/pdf/2014Conferen...Conference.pdf

[nekred]

AFGA and ABA are two different organisations... so how does and AFGA ESRD proposal get attributed to ABA?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by nekred

AFGA and ABA are two different organisations... so how does and AFGA ESRD proposal get attributed to ABA?

Read Post #162. A little history on how this came to be.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by nekred

AFGA and ABA are two different organisations... so how does and AFGA ESRD proposal get attributed to ABA?

Because, unless someone is going to admit otherwise, the ABA proposed to ban spears and atlatls at AGMAG and ESRD is running with it.

What ESRD presented at AFGA shows the direction they are planning on taking it.

Why do we need to define and limit hunting equipment? Imaginary public criticism?

What issues are falling by the wayside (or flying under the radar) while we argue about sticks and stones?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by nekred

Again a lot of wordplay and misinterpretation.... at ABA general meeting was a letter on how everything transpired on this and handed out. If it is of such a concern to you maybe you should have been there?

From my perspective it appears that someone did not do due diligence before jumping to conclusions then spewing all over the interweb and media....

I think that there needs to be a definition of what are legal hunting implements and there is a huge hole in the legislation that needs to be defined....

Lol.... What spew is incorrect?

1) The ABA initiated this discussion at the AGMAG Table (May 2012).

ABA Executive meeting June 18 2012
AGMAG mtg (May)

"Hunting with spears
Discussion as to issue brought up at AGMAG. Possible public reaction if it became public. How we as hunting groups can defend the practice - very hard. SRD Enforcement will bring issue back to Dec AGMAG with proposal to prohibit hunting with spears. Was no opposition from groups at AGMAG."


The claimed lack opposition is also correctly stated that there was no support for the discussion. While the topic was brought up by the ABA, no positions were taken by the AMAG members.




2) The ABA has an active Proposal to ban Spears and Atlatls that was tabled at the May 2013 AGMAG meeting. The ABA executive presented this proposal to the AGAMG table without ever consulting the membership.


"May 29 2013 AGMAG MEETING
1:50 Advance regulation change proposals for 2015

• ABA – Make use of spears and atlatls illegal for hunting big game in AB.
o Full support from AGMAG to define legal big game hunting equipment."


Full support means that the other groups accepted that F&W has the authority to re-define legal weapons. This is not an endorsement of the ABA resolution. There has never been another member of AGMAG offering support of the ABA proposal.









In regards to the new discussion just opened by F&W to redefine legal weapons, other than the ABA, there is NO SUPPORT to do so.

Jan 2014 AGMAG Meeting

" New issues to initiate for consultation

2. Limit weapons allowed to hunt big game (ESRD)
• Rather than list prohibited weapons, list those that are permitted.
• Members don’t want change… there is no issue – AFGA
• Our members also don’t want definition – SCI
• This regulation change can help defend against the unknown, e.g. drones, remote hunting.. etc. etc. – ESRD




ESRD's comment that the weapon redefnitioncan help defend against drones and such is misleading. Remote cameras are NOT regulated under weapons. They need to address this concern within another area of the Wildlife Act.

------------------



I'll ask again. Hopefully one of the ABA execs will clear the air.



Is the ABA officially withdrawing their AGMAG Advanced Regulation Change Proposal for 2015 (May 2013 AGMAG meeting)
"• ABA - Make use of spears and atlatls illegal for hunting big game in AB." ?


Is the ABA now taking a position to NOT OPPOSE the use of spears and atlatls for hunting big game?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Read Post #162. A little history on how this came to be.

Use salt.

[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!!

[albertaatlatl]

Originally Posted by nekred

I was at the ABA AGM.

I heard the discussion there.

The motion was to the effect of getting a definition. of legal hunting equipment for alberta

Alberta Atlatl is getting to present information to AGMAG to assist with the motion.

The problem is weapon by its very definition implies harm to a person. That is why we need to defin hunting equipment, or harvesting tool and get the list to be very definite.

As for determining if there is enough momentum in a thrown dart/atlatl; spear consider this..... Jai alai is a game that uses an atlatl like device to throw a rubber ball at speeds aproaching 180 mile an hour (almost 300 fps) this ball weighs over 2000 grains. imagine a 2000 grain arrow moviing at almost 300 fps....

Using a little more understandable stats.... a person can throw a baseball at 80 miles per hour which is about 140 fps. A baseball is over 2000 grains and a pro pitcher can exceed 100 mph which is over 150 fps..... This exceeds what a legal longbow can do (40 lbs at 28 ").....

The key is not the weapon but the user.... a longbow shooter has to be very careful on his ability to ensure thay are not outside their pok 95% range.... same with an atlatl where you have to be even closer....

In reality if a person goes out with an atlatl and can successfully harvest game he needs a hand shake and pat on th eback from his hunting compadres not the "shame shame" finger stroke....

We need to be careful and this debate has identified the need to set limits and define what a legal harvesting tool is. We need to be very careful as if we start opening a can of worms regarding lethality of certain weapons we have more to lose than to gain....

The same arguments heard against atlatls.... were said about archery at one time as well....

Well said!!

[albertaatlatl]

http://s72.photobucket.com/user/albe...tml?sort=3&o=8
I think that most of y'all still think of Atlatl/Spear hunting as stabbing a crutter with a HUGE pole, or something. This picture shows my Atlatl (left hand) and my dart ( right hand ). Notice that the dart is a long thin ARROW, and an Atlatl is a board or rod used to throw and multiply the force of the dart.

[Grey Owl]

Big thank you to Alberta Atlatl for being a dedicated voice for the traditional (OK, more primal) hunting advocates. As a casual maker of darts and atlatl I am eager that this skill remain part of our common ancestral skill set. And an option for the dedicated traditional hunter.

Has anyone invited our First Nation brothers to add their voice? A few years ago some folks down amongst the Piegan were starting to build their skills with these devices.

One day I would love to get together with the other throwers here in Alberta and learn from your experiences.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Grey Owl

Big thank you to Alberta Atlatl for being a dedicated voice for the traditional (OK, more primal) hunting advocates. As a casual maker of darts and atlatl I am eager that this skill remain part of our common ancestral skill set. And an option for the dedicated traditional hunter.

Has anyone invited our First Nation brothers to add their voice? A few years ago some folks down amongst the Piegan were starting to build their skills with these devices.

One day I would love to get together with the other throwers here in Alberta and learn from your experiences.

Yes, a few of the Alberta Treaty Nations have been notified by myself of the proposed weapon regulation changes. Currently, it appears that no Alberta Treaty Nations have been included or advised of these discussions by the government. Hopefully they will have the chance to have their say before any changes are made.

This is an interesting part of the proposed changes by both the ABA (if the Ban proposal still stands) and the F&W proposed legal weapon definition. It is very unlikely that such a weapon ban would ever survive a court challenge by a Treaty hunter. To this point, it has been suggested by individuals within Alberta Enforcement that the government would simply not enforce this potential regulation change on Indians, only Non-aboriginals would be charged....

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Yup I guess it's time for you to pack it in....you have done all you can do, except keep your fellow-hunter-bashing opinion to yourself....

LC

High five