i don't understand why he shot this particular animal

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not sure where this myth came from that this was some promotional stunt. Bil is a hunter first and has travelled the world feeding this passion. The guy loves to hunt with a crossbow and yes, he wanted to try an elephant hunt with it. I wanted to kill a sheep with a muzzleloader a few years ago....what's the difference. Anyhow, I know Bill very well and he is one of the good guys in this industry and it really breaks my heart to see others taking pot shots at him based on nothing more than inuendo. The guy has done more for hunting in general, and all behind the scenes, than just about anyone else I know.

I wasn't intending to take a personal pot shot at the guy. I don't know him or what he stands for. My point was that I tend to be suspicious of peoples motives and if there is a taint of something I find distasteful then I'm not going to be supportive.

Elephant hunting is not my game. Never will be. I know the management issues. I know it is legal so if someone is willing to pay the big bucks to do it then fine. I don't know that a crossbow is a responsible or respectful way to kill an elephant.
I'm sure that running down a deer and strangling it with my bare hands would be an impressive feat frought with danger but I would hope that not too many people would respect me for putting an animal through this sort of treatment. Regardless of how great a guy I am.

Just my opinion based on my personal set of values and ethics. No need to agree with me.

[Donny Bear]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not sure where this myth came from that this was some promotional stunt. Bil is a hunter first and has travelled the world feeding this passion. The guy loves to hunt with a crossbow and yes, he wanted to try an elephant hunt with it. I wanted to kill a sheep with a muzzleloader a few years ago....what's the difference. Anyhow, I know Bill very well and he is one of the good guys in this industry and it really breaks my heart to see others taking pot shots at him based on nothing more than inuendo. The guy has done more for hunting in general, and all behind the scenes, than just about anyone else I know.

I wanted to take my Mule Buck with the 300wsm for the first time. There has been a first for every cartridge every bow everything. If not a first for everyone then a first for the individual. A legal hunt is just that a first is a first Their have been good points made I can add nothing to this forum but support for a ethical legal hunter who can afford to do and has done something I to would do, given the oppertunity and the cahunah's to do so. Want to watch unethical find a military Elephant cull video and see the waste and carrnage see the decimation of Kenyas game population since the end of legal harvest and then look at the prosperity of the people who benifit from jobs meat and other benifits of such hunts in Tanz, Mos,SA and other countries.

Thanks for letting me piggy back Sheep hope its okay!

[BrownBear416]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

Fellas people hunt in africa every day, it is most hunters dream to go there and hunt, ive been there i will go back, to take the big 5 is not easy and its very dangerous, all you guys posting on here and taking pot shots well stop it because bill went over there with the cross bow he made and is very proud of his accomplishment...the man made a one shot perfect kill and is the first to ever do it.
if i made the cross bow that harvested the elephant i would be very proud of my trophy and equipment as he is, things can go very wrong when hunting with a rifle,muzzleloader over there, to do it with a cross bow is awsome.
bill is a outstanding contribution to our hunting heritage and we should commence him on a great one shot on the biggest animal in the big 5.
one day if half you go to africa you will understand that there is alot of preparation and practice in your shooting before you go there, months and months of excitement and studying on the animals you want to harvest.
congratulations bill on your great shot and another step towards your big 5.

I for one was not taking potshots at Bill and we are all aware that he made a great one shot kill.I simply was expressing my feelings on the type of equipment he used for this particular animal.

Copidosoma stated my feeling on this subject perfect.

I'm sure that running down a deer and strangling it with my bare hands would be an impressive feat frought with danger but I would hope that not too many people would respect me for putting an animal through this sort of treatment. Regardless of how great a guy I am.

[gunslinger]

thats what i am saying , the type of equipment did a great job.so obviously this type of stick and string is.

Bella Twin may have been the first (and only) to shoot a top 10 grizzly bear with a .22. She did it with one shot. I guess this would make it an ideal cartridge for hunting Griz.

[BrownBear416]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

thats what i am saying , the type of equipment did a great job.so obviously this type of stick and string is.

One time is not enough proof for me to support the hunting of elephants with CrossBows.

I've had some long conversations with Bill about his hunt and I think that despite the fact that he made a one-shot kill with no follow up required, that any archery grear, crossbow or not is not the ideal elephant weapon in his opinion.

How many people are going to follow in his footprints after this?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 700TI

Bella Twin may have been the first (and only) to shoot a top 10 grizzly bear with a .22. She did it with one shot. I guess this would make it an ideal cartridge for hunting Griz.

sigh, Once again you contribute so much, thank you.
Now if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about would be another thing, the pictures of the skull show at least 6 bullet holes in it.
But if you personally wanted to hunt grizzly with a 22 I'd supply the gun and bullet for you.

[Waxy]

Very interesting thread.

I'm not a fan of the elephant hunt with a crossbow. It doesn't appeal to me in any way, in fact, it turns me off, but to each his own I suppose. At the very least, I agree that a great opportunity to set the stage for the hunt was lost, and there's no doubt that oversight will cause people to be left with the same feelings as Mooseburger and others. It's not the same thing as shooting a doe in Peace River, that's absurd quite frankly. Elephants are an international symbol of wildlife and conservation, and people have far more of an emotional attachment to African wildlife, and elephants in particular.

I had the WildTV preview for a month, and I watch Canada in the Rough now and then, but I have to say, hunting as a spectator sport does not appeal to me. That's not what hunting is about to my way of thinking. Watching a trophy hunt on TV - the killing of an animal - as entertainment is kind of a bizarre notion to me. I realize there's technically nothing wrong with it, and we as hunter's don't need to apologize for it, but celebrating the kill of a trophy on TV doesn't do us as hunters any favours with the general public. IMHO, WildTV does far more to hurt hunters and further the "redneck" stereotype than it does to advance our cause. And make no mistake, we need to constantly be making the effort to advance our cause in the best manner possible, because the oppostion never rests.

I think these discussions are a healthy thing. There are many hunts that I as hunter have no interest in, or would rather see limited/eliminated, but I understand that others don't share those views, and there are management issues involved as well. I wouldn't try to impose my views on the subject onto others. That being said, I don't think that suggesting or demanding unity on these issues is the right approach either. Open debate and education are the best bet.

Waxy

P.S. I completely agree with Lazy Ike regarding the "if it's legal your good to go" theory. "Legal" is only what we define it to be.

[209x50]

I don't know where the idea started that Wild TV should have aired something in conjunction with the show. Wild TV just broadcasts finished shows that are supplied to them by producers. The producers have to insure that nothing illegal is going on TV. The producers decide if there needs to be an explanation. Each producer has their own idea as to what makes a successful show, some are more hunting talkumentary than hunting documentary. Others like more whacking and less yacking. Each to their own. One bright side of these discussion is the sponsors of the show are sure getting a bang for their buck.

Originally Posted by 209x50

sigh, Once again you contribute so much, thank you.
Now if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about would be another thing, the pictures of the skull show at least 6 bullet holes in it.
But if you personally wanted to hunt grizzly with a 22 I'd supply the gun and bullet for you.

She shot it from 5 feet away. I am sure the first bullet immobolized it and it would have died without the extra shots. Maybe not though.
So I guess you would agree that a crossbow is sufficient for an Elephant then?

I don't think I like your attitude. i have had nothing to do with you in the past. And you come up with that sort of response.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 700TI

I don't think I like your attitude.

Good! Then we agree on something finally, I don't like your attitude either.

The archery guys will know better but I believe that Fred Bear was the first man to kill an elephant with a bow. I don't know how many have followed him since but there are a lot of people that have their world slams with a bow. Are they wrong? Nope not to me.
Some places in the US 22 cal guns are legal for big game and deer are harvested with 222, 22-250 and the like regularly. We have a different standard here and think that might be too small and unethical, but in the end it is only our opinion based on what we think is right or wrong.
If you think the xbow is wrong for elephants that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I think it is fine, once again just an opinion.
Can we agree on that too?

Originally Posted by 209x50

Good! Then we agree on something finally, I don't like your attitude either.

The archery guys will know better but I believe that Fred Bear was the first man to kill an elephant with a bow. I don't know how many have followed him since but there are a lot of people that have their world slams with a bow. Are they wrong? Nope not to me.
Some places in the US 22 cal guns are legal for big game and deer are harvested with 222, 22-250 and the like regularly. We have a different standard here and think that might be too small and unethical, but in the end it is only our opinion based on what we think is right or wrong.
If you think the xbow is wrong for elephants that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I think it is fine, once again just an opinion.
Can we agree on that too?

I agree, but please don't jump all over me for it. When are you sending the gun?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 700TI

I agree, but please don't jump all over me for it. When are you sending the gun?

You get me the details of your hunt booking and I'll bring it with me when I come to film the hunt. You gonna be a STAR!!!

Originally Posted by 209x50

You get me the details of your hunt booking and I'll bring it with me when I come to film the hunt. You gonna be a STAR!!!

This should be fun. Me ****ing off a bear and you slipping in my **** with only a camera.

[Donny Bear]

Originally Posted by 700TI

This should be fun. Me ****ing off a bear and you slipping in my **** with only a camera.

Ha HA that is a good come back do care what anyone says

Best in a long while

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 700TI

This should be fun. Me ****ing off a bear and you slipping in my **** with only a camera.

You think I'd be stupid enough to film a guy bear hunting with a 22 and not have a gun along? I thought this would be a perfect way to get a free grizz hunt!

Originally Posted by 209x50

You think I'd be stupid enough to film a guy bear hunting with a 22 and not have a gun along? I thought this would be a perfect way to get a free grizz hunt!

Did you have to ask?

[Bull Shooter]

Rich, Perhaps I was a little too quick in my appraisal of WildTV’s role (versus the producer of the particular episode), but I still support the message. Although I have little knowledge of television production values, target audiences, marketing and the like, I would still guess that WildTV has some judgement on which shows make the air and hopefully recognize the controversy they might generate.

In the absence of a “backgrounder” on this particular hunt, I see a huge potential for fallout (we are witnessing it here - firsthand) towards the hunting community so I do have an issue with the producers, WildTV, etc. They missed an opportunity to educate the viewers (not necessarily their target audience who may already be educated) on the facts of this particular hunt. Is this the type of controversy or discussion they wish to promote to increase ratings and sponsor dollars? Well, by my observations they have caused quite a negative stir (largely due to lack of information) in the hunting community so my simple answer would be no. Had they given a one or two minute prelude into the segment, explaining the situation with elephants and the needs of the indigenous peoples we might win some support for the hunt or at least create an atmosphere of indifference. As a hunter who supports lawful hunting, this is my concern. Regards, Mike

Interesting thread but i have to ask why do any of us choose the weapons we hunt with .?? I for one wouldnt want to Build another fence between hunters there are enough out there already.

Hunting is hunting be it with a gun ,bow ,spears , camra etc.if its legal theres nothing lame about it enjoy the hunt life is to short .When i dont like something on TV i change the channel or turn it off.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think that's a great example and it demonstrated how hunters can band together, have a rational discussion about a subject and then lobby the law makers to change the law. It wasn't the guys shouting the racial slurrs and bad mouthing the Metis that were responsible for the IMHA being changed. It was hunters with a love of the heritage that acted in a responsible, rational and educated manner.

I agree with Sheep's comment here completely. However I'm not sure I agree with the original point made about the IMHA being legal. Didn't the judge in the Kelly case make the statement that the IMHA was unenforceable (and, therefore, presumably not legal)? I think I'm right about this but am open to correction if someone knows more about it than I do.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by Carolyn

Interesting thread but i have to ask why do any of us choose the weapons we hunt with .?? I for one wouldnt want to Build another fence between hunters there are enough out there already.

Hunting is hunting be it with a gun ,bow ,spears , camra etc.if its legal theres nothing lame about it enjoy the hunt life is to short .When i dont like something on TV i change the channel or turn it off.

Welcome to AO Carolyn. I think the majority of hunters choose their primary hunting tool to acheive a certain level of challenge. Some like long-range, some prefer open sights, some prefer close-range, some prefer bows but most of the preference is relative to the challenge it creates for the hunter. I think it is always a very healthy goal to balance our own desire for challenge with an equal respect for the animal and our continued lawful hunting opportunities; but I am also careful to recognize that is my own personal ethics. Regards, Mike

[209x50]

Originally Posted by 700TI

Did you have to ask?

It was rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a figure of sp, ah you can ask someone to explain it..
If you are having troubles booking a hunt I can get you some outfitter names, you prefer BC or the Yukon? These are pretty good guys wouldn't think twice about sending your widow flowers for free either! A couple would even deliver the flowers if the found the widow comely.

Originally Posted by 209x50

It was rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a figure of sp, ah you can ask someone to explain it..
If you are having troubles booking a hunt I can get you some outfitter names, you prefer BC or the Yukon? These are pretty good guys wouldn't think twice about sending your widow flowers for free either! A couple would even deliver the flowers if the found the widow comely.

Some people have fun on here, some cross the line.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Carolyn

Interesting thread but i have to ask why do any of us choose the weapons we hunt with .?? I for one wouldnt want to Build another fence between hunters there are enough out there already.

Hunting is hunting be it with a gun ,bow ,spears , camra etc.if its legal theres nothing lame about it enjoy the hunt life is to short .When i dont like something on TV i change the channel or turn it off.

That's the kind of common sense you can't expect to come from the anti-hunting side...

Waxy

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

Rich, Perhaps I was a little too quick in my appraisal of WildTV’s role (versus the producer of the particular episode), but I still support the message. Although I have little knowledge of television production values, target audiences, marketing and the like, I would still guess that WildTV has some judgement on which shows make the air and hopefully recognize the controversy they might generate.

In the absence of a “backgrounder” on this particular hunt, I see a huge potential for fallout (we are witnessing it here - firsthand) towards the hunting community so I do have an issue with the producers, WildTV, etc. They missed an opportunity to educate the viewers (not necessarily their target audience who may already be educated) on the facts of this particular hunt. Is this the type of controversy or discussion they wish to promote to increase ratings and sponsor dollars? Well, by my observations they have caused quite a negative stir (largely due to lack of information) in the hunting community so my simple answer would be no. Had they given a one or two minute prelude into the segment, explaining the situation with elephants and the needs of the indigenous peoples we might win some support for the hunt or at least create an atmosphere of indifference. As a hunter who supports lawful hunting, this is my concern. Regards, Mike

The producer made the decision that an explanation wasn't needed. You have to remember that the producer is producing a hunting show not National Geographic. Should the producer explain why the hunters are or aren't wearing orange? Should he explain that swan hunting in Tennessee and cranes in SK are legal? Isn't that just a little condescending to view? Assuming they don't understand that a different province or country might have different game laws?
As a producer of a TV show we actually did have an episode that caused a stir, some people even went as far as to email us and the sponsors. Their response? "Well at least we know people are watching your show". Bottom line you are NEVER going to make everyone happy and if you do then you have achieved that perfect shade of gray that insures that no one will ever remember you.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

The producer made the decision that an explanation wasn't needed. You have to remember that the producer is producing a hunting show not National Geographic. Should the producer explain why the hunters are or aren't wearing orange? Should he explain that swan hunting in Tennessee and cranes in SK are legal? Isn't that just a little condescending to view? Assuming they don't understand that a different province or country might have different game laws?

No more than it is arrogant to assume that everyone understands, or should understand, the details and leave them out.

Waxy

I was watching an episode of American Bird Hunter a while ago and Tom Knapp was hunting ptarmigan in Alaska and in one flush he must have shot about 6 rounds from his shotgun. He explained right after the flush that in Alaska there is no law about having no more than 3 rounds in your shotgun this took about 3 seconds to explain. It was a nice tidbit of information for the viewers. As a producer of a TV show you should probably assume that not everyone that watches your show researches all the details before watching.

Originally Posted by ehntr

No one has to justify (defend) hunting at every instance (and that wasn't ever suggested), because we know it's right....it's a legitimate activity onto itself. Now I would wager if you were called upon to justify/defend hunting you would not lay down (quit) - I've got faith in you.......you would come out charging like a bull. Why is it that justifying or defending hunting has fallen out of favour on this post (all in vain - say it isn't so)?

We'll never stop bashing each other in public...too much to ask because we are individuals with differing opinions. The best we can ask for is respect for others....and that can be accomplished wether you agree with someone or not. Debate is good.....right?

Actually totally agree with all you say there and if asked or forced to defend hunting, I know you'll be there and you know I'll be there. But what I don't agree with is justifying it to those who don't want it justified and sanitizing it for those who don't want to see it anyhow. We shouldn't automatically assume we need to justify hunting every time it's on television or in print...especially in vertical media like WILD TV and AO.

I also agree that debate is very healthy and often leads to positive change but I fail to see how a hunter saying he was sickened by another very ethical hunter's actions is respectful. That's my thoughts anyhow.

One thing I find funny throughout this whole thread is that some people preface their statements with "I don't know, but" and then go on to form an opinion based on what they don't know. Is it only me that sees the folly in that????? Why not learn before you speak or say I don't know and ask a question. An informed opinion is a wonderful thing....an uninformed one is just plain dangerous.

FYI 700TI, Bella shot the bear a minimum of 6 times and I don't think she ever claimned it was the ideal grizzly weapon...just the only one she had in her hand at that time. But I'll kick in for the shells if 209 is sending the gun!

Originally Posted by 340wtby

I was watching an episode of American Bird Hunter a while ago and Tom Knapp was hunting ptarmigan in Alaska and in one flush he must have shot about 6 rounds from his shotgun. He explained right after the flush that in Alaska there is no law about having no more than 3 rounds in your shotgun this took about 3 seconds to explain. It was a nice tidbit of information for the viewers. As a producer of a TV show you should probably assume that not everyone that watches your show researches all the details before watching.

And I think irregularities in the law like that should be mentioned as it will save him answering a whole lot of letters later. It just seems to me that some things like the hunter has a licence, the hunt is being conducted in an area where populations are sufficient and the meat will be fully utilized shouldn't have to be said to a viewership that's supposedly comprised of suposedly educated hunters. It would seem common sense to me but what do I know.