- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 56
I don't know if this has been discussed before. If it has mods feel free to close/ delete:
The passage was showing a comparison to archery, as archery was deemed:
I am curious. I don't think there is such a division today. But I think it explains some odd ideas about conservation that I run across from time to time.
The modern hunting gun is an irresistible weapon of wholesale murder, and is just as deadly no matter who pulls the trigger. It spreads terror as well as death by its loud discharge, and it leaves little clew as to who is responsible for the shot. Its deadly range is so fearfully great as to put all game at the mercy of the clumsiest tyro. Woodcraft, the oldest of all sciences and one of the best, has steadily declined since the coming of the gun, and it is entirely due to this same unbridled power that America has lost so many of her fine game animals.
The passage was showing a comparison to archery, as archery was deemed:
The bow is a far less destructive weapon, and to succeed at all in the chase the bowman must be a double-read forester. The bow is silent and it sends the arrow with exactly the same power that the bowman's arm puts into it--no more, no less--so it is really his own power that speeds the arrow. There is no question as to which hunter has the right to the game or is responsible for the shot when the arrow is there to tell. The gun stands for little skill, irresistible force supplied from an outside source, overwhelming unfair odds, and sure death to the victim. The bow, on the other hand, stands for all that is clever and fine in woodcraft; so, no guns or fire-arms of any kind are allowed in our boy scout camp.
I am curious. I don't think there is such a division today. But I think it explains some odd ideas about conservation that I run across from time to time.