Bow hunting V Rifle hunting debate;

[John Gryphon]

The first video i found when I went looking was this one..@ 70 metres/76.5 yards ,they are doing ok too. I know a few blokes that couldn't do that off the shoulder with a rifle.

 

[howa243]

why is it bollocks, there are far easier ways with the thermal like I said not only that but people poach now with a firearm you can hardly do a drive by with a bow out of a truck window lol, stop dreaming up rubbish

Okay, so acquiring an off ticket centre fire rifle and several thousand pounds worth of thermal scope is easier than buying a bow and having a crack. I can see how the former might be more effective but not so easy to do.

 

[howa243]

The first video i found when I went looking was this one..@ 70 metres/76.5 yards ,they are doing ok too. I know a few blokes that couldn't do that off the shoulder with a rifle.

Do you know any archers that couldn't do it?Do you shoot many in a sports hall where conditions cannot effect the projectile in flight?

 

[howa243]

Gotta say after reading through this thread, there is a whole lot of complete bollox being put forward by some of the vehement antis, and some objective defense by those in favour.

I have my lifelong bow hunter 57yr old cousin sitting next to me, shaking his head in abject disbelief at some of the nonsense spouted so far. Its been entertaining though.

It really is EXTREMELY important to understand the terminal performance of your chosen method. It is abundantly clear here that some posters haven't a clue about how broadheads kill, hardly suprising as they've never picked up a bow in their lives. (It's been obvious for a long while that a lot of members don't even really understand anatomy, bullet placement, bullet construction and why different types of bullets kill faster or slower when shot into different parts of the animal. So hardly suprising that this should extend to postulating about broadhead arrows.)

Cherry picking YouTube videos to suit your argument? Not very smart is it. (mind you we've all done it lol)

There really is some good work here though, @mereside in particular. Obviously I'm on the pro- side, but then I've actually bow hunted, a lot, and thoroughly enjoyed it. With very limited success! So much so that I wish more than anything else that I had retained the strength and dedication to keep it up, but unfortunately life dealt me a hand that made bow hunting impossible for 3-4 years, and since then I've struggled and let it go.

Amusing to me is that one of the most vocal anti bow hunting advocates in this thread, his forum name is my favourite brand of rifle in a calibre / cartridge that I adore. One that I have been roasted on here about countless times, as not being "sufficient" for deer. That made me chuckle.

God knows I wish some of the antis could experience the thrill of bow hunting, and observe firsthand the skill, fortitude and remoreless pursuit of perfection that a stalking bow hunter must grow and nuture, to be successful. I reckon I was successful maybe one in fifteen or twenty hunts? I wasn't very good... too clumsy. But I loved it and it taught me so much. The man sitting next to me now reckons he's successful once or twice in a season, so probably ten hunts?

But that said it is clear that some will never "get it" and choose to lecture others on their inhumanity. Those blokes who advocate going for a walk and enjoy the outdoors, and almost incidentally "harvesting" some meat (hate that word), well that's no different to me going out into my garden, strolling around a bit and then plucking a carrot or beetroot out of the ground. I sure as hell don't enjoy growing carrots as much as I do my hunting!

Hunting is way more than just a physical pursuit, isn't it. I haven't the words now, try reading Steve Rinella's books for a modern précis.

This genuinely made me laugh. I am at a loss as to how anybody could read this thread and come to those conclusions. No wonder brexit is a cluster****. Lol

 

[mereside]

Okay, so acquiring an off ticket centre fire rifle and several thousand pounds worth of thermal scope is easier than buying a bow and having a crack. I can see how the former might be more effective but not so easy to do.

Actually again poaching comes from people who have centre fire or .22 on ticket wheather you believe me or not it happens all the time now and is a huge problem even nv is cheap to go alongside a thermal spotter so keep your blinkered look on life as I know nothing said here you would ever agree with funny how many pm's i recieved saying the same thing, did you bother to read any of the links you posted at all, regards Wayne

 

[howa243]

My instinct is that proportionally you are looking at orders of magnitude more deer being wounded and left to die a miserable death than those wounded

I post research showing an increased incidence of wounding by bows and this is countered by this blokes instinct. Genuinely amusing counter argument.

 

[User00033]

I'm desperately keen to know what that fark its got to with Brexit!

Do you know what I think @howa243? I think that if this was a face-to-face discussion with experienced bow hunters from New Zealand or America, or elsewhere, within a very short space of time you would wish you had a broader base of hunting experience, in different countries, with different people from different backgrounds...

 

[howa243]

I'm desperately keen to know what that fark its got to with Brexit!

Do you know what I think @howa243? I think that if this was a face-to-face discussion with experienced bow hunters from New Zealand or America, or elsewhere, within a very short space of time you would wish you had a broader base of hunting experience, in different countries, with different people from different backgrounds...

I have had to put several animals down with the use of a rim fire 22. I am fairly sure that I would be capable of doing this effectively with head shots at the kind of distance that bow hunters appear to use. However just because my personal experience indicates that I could do it, I would not do it and I would not use my personal experience to convince others that it was a viable method to be used by other hunters.
Do you agree that the research indictates a higher incidence of wounding and lost animals or not? I assume not. Because if the answer is yes, then you are putting your enjoyment ahead of animal welfare. So if I fou d more research to indicate that the incidence was higher, would you simply disagree with it or ignore it?

 

[John Gryphon]

So if I found more research to indicate that the incidence was higher, would you simply disagree with it or ignore it?

You are not going to win mate ha ha

 

[BryanDC]

Danish evaluation

To precis

During the period in question

Hunters fired 576 arrows (371 from blind or high seat) up to a maximum of 30 metres. 11 missed and 32 were wounded.

Is this the European experience that we should be looking at?

Howa, It seems to me that you are cherry picking the data. Most of the wounded animals were recovered as it is a legal requirement here in DK to call out a tracking dog. You are probably quite right that a 5% wounding rate from 30 metres is less likely with a rifle, BUT do you limit your shots to 30m, I doubt it very much. What is the wounding rate with a rifle from a more typical 100m. That is why bow hunters are tested here and range is limited to 30m. The study clearly states that bow hunting correlates well with other methods of harvesting Roe deer in Europe. I am not a bow hunter and probably never will be as I don't think my skill with a bow would be good enough. The government here in DK are satisfied that bow hunting is ethical and have actually extended it to Fallow and Red deer since the start of the current hunting season. It will be reviewed within two years to decide if it will continue.

 

[howa243]

You are not going to win mate ha ha

There is no winning in the case where people ignore evidence and rely on feelings/desire.

 

[howa243]

Howa, It seems to me that you are cherry picking the data. Most of the wounded animals were recovered as it is a legal requirement here in DK to call out a tracking dog. You are probably quite right that a 5% wounding rate from 30 metres is less likely with a rifle, BUT do you limit your shots to 30m, I doubt it very much. What is the wounding rate with a rifle from a more typical 100m. That is why bow hunters are tested here and range is limited to 30m. The study clearly states that bow hunting correlates well with other methods of harvesting Roe deer in Europe. I am not a bow hunter and probably never will be as I don't think my skill with a bow would be good enough. The government here in DK are satisfied that bow hunting is ethical and have actually extended it to Fallow and Red deer since the start of the current hunting season. It will be reviewed within two years to decide if it will continue.

In order to make this discussion a sensible one we need to compare on an equal basis. So we are not talking about an archer taking a shot at rifle distance because we know that this is not acceptable. So we are talking about using a rifle at bow distance. We can see that most shots from archers are in high seats or blinds, where the argument of a visceral hunting experience is somewhat irrelevant. So I am going hunting from a high seat and I am going to take a bow where there is a provable higher incidence of wounding or missing and not my rifle. WHY?
Because I want to!Not because it is better or even equal. Jesus, why do folks even try to cover up the reality with a rationale that just doesn't hold water, is way beyond me.

 

[User00033]

Danish evaluation
To precis...During the period in question...Hunters fired 576 arrows (371 from blind or high seat) up to a maximum of 30 metres. 11 missed and 32 were wounded.

Is this the European experience that we should be looking at?

South Carolina Dept of Natural Resources, 1999

@howa243, this study is regarded as one of the most detailed studies of the use of firearms on deer and the recovery of those deer, classified by a range of factors. It is a very thorough and informative study that is referenced over and over in subsequent hunting studies.

I will precis something for you in return.

Of the 493 animals shot with centrefire rifles, 15 were never found (because they were injured and ran too far), and a further 19 were recovered still alive after being shot. Therefore we have 34 animals wounded to a degree that resulted in them not dying a "sporting" death, or however you would want to phrase that.

[15+19]/493=0.0689 or 7%

What was the percentage wounded in the study you are quoting? I think @landkeeper posted 5% or something like that?

Honestly mate, your arguments are so flawed and hopelessly naive that I'd just give up now if I were you. You don't understand, because you don't have the experience. Without experience, it is unwise to judge. To judge unwisely invites scorn and, sometimes, a determined effort to make someone look silly. I have no interest in making you look silly, but please understand that you're taking on people with considerable experience of things that you mate, plainly know nothing about.

You cannot, must not, approach this type of philosophical argument in a binary manner. It is not a black and white, one or zero, yes or no, answer. Never has been, never will be. Bow hunting is an art, almost a spiritual pursuit for some. You just don't know what that feels like.

Now I for one really really don't want this thread to descend into the aforementioned antipathy that has resulted in previous efforts to debate this subject being shut down. So lets try and change the tone back to where it was around page 4, starting with my tone (sound of scurrying back to position of considerably less scorn).

 

[howa243]

South Carolina Dept of Natural Resources, 1999

@howa243, this study is regarded as one of the most detailed studies of the use of firearms on deer and the recovery of those deer, classified by a range of factors. It is a very thorough and informative study that is referenced over and over in subsequent hunting studies.

I will precis something for you in return.

Of the 493 animals shot with centrefire rifles, 19 were never found (because they were injured and ran too far), and a further 15 were recovered still alive after being shot. Therefore we have 34 animals wounded to a degree that resulted in them not dying a "sporting" death, or however you would want to phrase that.

[15+19]/493=0.0689 or 7%

What was the percentage wounded in the study you are quoting? I think @landkeeper posted 5% or something like that?

Honestly mate, your arguments are so flawed and hopelessly naive that I'd just give up now if I were you. You don't understand, because you don't have the experience. Without experience, it is unwise to judge. To judge unwisely invites scorn and, sometimes, a determined effort to make someone look silly. I have no interest in making you look silly, but please understand that you're taking on people with considerable experience of things that you mate, plainly know nothing about.

You cannot, must not, approach this type of philosophical argument in a binary manner. It is not a black and white, one or zero, yes or no, answer. Never has been, never will be. Bow hunting is an art, almost a religion for some. You just don't know what that feels like.

Now I for one really really don't want this thread to descend into the aforementioned antipathy that has resulted in previous efforts to debate this subject. So lets try and change the tone back to where it was around page 4, starting with my tone (sound of scurrying back to position of considerably less scorn).

Honestly, I don't worry about folks mooching around the countryside with a bow making me look silly, so please do not concern yourself over that.
I shall have a look at that research later when I am inaposition to do so.

 

[User00033]

Take your time, @howa243... there will be a test at the end. 100% factual correctness required to pass!

 

[JTO]

The only strong reason why anyone could want to make bow hunting legal again is for their own enjoyment of that particular hunting style....and I agree that this is a strong argument. There is no argument about it being the only safe way to kill animals in urban areas though....that’s simply not true.

+1

 

[mereside]

+1

Can you explain then why urban roe in scotland is a huge issue? regards wayne

 

[howa243]

Take your time, @howa243... there will be a test at the end. 100% factual correctness required to pass!

Thats fine. Can I not have my papers marked by your cousin please. When you say factual, you dont want me to tell you what my instinct is on the subject?

 

[howa243]

Can you explain then why urban roe in scotland is a huge issue? regards wayne

Can I answer this one please? Its not cos we dont bow hunt.

 

[mereside]

Can I answer this one please? Its not cos we dont bow hunt.

It’s because areas are difficult with firearms and certain areas a no go simple