Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ramius
He says he didn’t know about the law,

To take it one step further, there's the question of whether he actually "wounded" the bear or not since the video clip only shows the arrow grazing the animal.

No matter, Ted took the high road and got this crap over with and I respect him for that..........

9 posted on 04/23/2012 6:08:03 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Would I like to be young again? No, I worked too hard to get here, I don't want to do it again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Hot Tabasco

It begs the question of whether the arrow was ever found. If they found the arrow at the spot the bear was first shot at... And there was no blood on the shaft, it would suggest that there was no “through and through” (inevitably fatal) injury. If the blade tip only grazed the bear, the injury may have been serious but it also may have been inconsequential. If it wasn’t through and through and they followed the blood trail as far as they could... And never found the bear... At some point it becomes safe to assume the bear got away OK.

I understand why laws like this happen. There are too many hunters (especially bow hunters? Maybe...) that take shots they shouldn’t take and wound animals instead of waiting for the right kill shot. But this law takes the silliness perhaps too far the other way.


11 posted on 04/23/2012 7:47:04 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson