Bow hunting V Rifle hunting debate;

[Jagare]

Can't be bothered to read through 12 pages as I've just got back from driven hunting in Hungary. If i was a young man again i would give bow hunting a try. I'm sure with plenty of practice i could have become competent with a bow. Lets face it there are plenty of rifle hunters who don't practice enough and are crap shots.

 

[howa243]

howa do you shoot birds with a shot gun? to those that do would a centrefire rifle not be more humane? i know im sounding like an arse but what is the difference really?
shakey

Well, with a shotgun there is a spread of shot that hopefully the bird flies into. With a centre fire rifle, if I miss the bird I might kill someone three miles away.

 

[BryanDC]

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.

You miss my point. You are saying it is not ethical based on those published figures of 5% wounding. But bow hunters only take shots at this range (or should do) That is the norm. whereas most people that hunt with rifles shoot at far longer distances. That is also the norm. I agree with you it's because they want to, but as for the ethics debate that's another story. what you are saying just does not add up. You can also see from those figures that only around 20% of the total number of bow hunters actually took a shot at a deer. That probably shows how difficult it is to get that close, blind or no blind. Yes of course people go bow hunting because they want to hunt with a bow. Don't you go hunting with your rifle because you want to? What is the difference? I would hope that you are an ethical hunter and only take shots with your rifle that you are 100% confident will be succesful and not cause unnecessary suffering. Why don't you use a larger calibre rifle for instance. that will give you a better outcome with more margin for error. I assume you use a .243. That's not legal in Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Germany for anything larger than Roe. So why do you use it in the UK. Because it's legal to do so and you want to.

 

[shakey jake]

i was assuming you wouldnt use it in an unsafe fashion, waiting at a feeder till stationary, also your hoping it flies into doesnt sound very humane?

 

[User00033]

Hee hee we edge ever closer to the old "Thread Closed" sign.

Scrabbling for traction a bit there, @howa243? Sure sounds like it.

Tell you what, when it comes to instinct. We use it to judge people. We don"t use facts or statistics, standing by the side of the road, talking to someone you've never met. You use your instinct. I can usually tell if someone is a GC or not pretty quickly. Kiwi vernacular there. Look it up.

And instinct is a critical part of a good hunter's makeup, isn't it? It comes back to @Alantoo's thread about safety, and heuristics, how hunters use their instincts and how sometimes it all goes horribly wrong. Our instinct leads us to make decisions when there may be little or no evidence and very little time. Instinct develops from training and experience.

So my instinct is not only telling me that many many more deer are wounded by rifles every year, the world over, than they are by bows (I have no way of proving it, its an instinctive belief based on experience), but both my instinct and the evidence is telling me you are out of your depth on this one buddy. Because you are using increasingly inflammatory and ridiculous "evidence" to argue a case that you seem intent on moving a long way from @Uncas's original question, which one would reasonably assume was asked in a deer stalking context.

NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SHOOTING HIPPOS AND ELEPHANTS WITH BOWS

You can find whatever you want to support an argument, no matter how extreme or subjective, on YouTube. YouTube is full of kunts doing stupid things. Shooting a hippo with a bow qualifies on both counts. Does it relate at all to my feelings or experience of hunting deer with a bow? Of course it doesn"t. Its a very weak and feeble effort, that, @howa243.

I think the percentages "evidence" you were basing your argument on earlier got shown up a bit, didn't it, eh? Its quite normal for an under pressure debater to become increasingly hysterical towards the end an argument they are imminently going to lose. So see if you can dredge up some more dreadful videos from Satan's arse and by all means show us all what a bunch of knobheads there are out there in the world, doing hideous stuff.

So, again I will point out the obvious, You have never bow hunted. You haven't the faintest idea of the nature of the sport, what it takes to become proficient and the depth of passion and commitment it demands to be successful. And you're also not listening. Because you don't want to. I've heard all this numerous times before, it never changes, there are always gonna be stalkers with rifles who act like Morrisey at the mere thought of a bow and arrow. Can't be helped, just the way it is.

(Now you are responsible for making me cross @howa243, just as I go to bed, because I've never seen someone try and shoot an elephant with a bow. D'ya know what I mean? I will have to take a beta blocker to calm things down a bit.)

 

[howa243]

I assume you use a .243. That's not legal in Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Germany for anything larger than Roe. So why do you use it in the UK. Because it's legal to do so and you want to.

I use a .243 in a park setting. When stalking I use a .308.

 

[howa243]

I think the percentages "evidence" you were basing your argument on earlier got shown up a bit, didn't it, eh?

In what way? Sorry I missed that.

You can find whatever you want to support an argument, no matter how extreme or subjective, on YouTube.

Yes you can. Which is why I posted a couple after someone had done so to support the topic.

So my instinct is not only telling me that many many more deer are wounded by rifles every year, the world over, than they are by bows

Am just guessing here, but could this be down to the fact that more are shot at with rifles?

Its quite normal for an under pressure debater to become increasingly hysterical towards the end an argument they are imminently going to lose.

I dont feel under pressure at all. Yes I got a bit heated watching folks pinging away at animals from 70 yards when I had been informed that his doesnt happen, but I am comfortable that this will never happen here. Also, I am not using how I feel as a justification for my weapon of choice. So I am pleased for you that you think in some way that you have adequately justified the use of such equipment for the humane killing of an animal, because it will allow you to continue to do so without self doubt. For me you have not. Indeed I find the arguments quite laughable and I will continue to use what I use, in the belief that it is as good as it can be in the circumstances. I say this because clearly circumstances change and one has to make judgments on occasion as to what is best.

 

[howa243]

i was assuming you wouldnt use it in an unsafe fashion, waiting at a feeder till stationary, also your hoping it flies into doesnt sound very humane?

Agreed there are issues. Do you have a better option for shooting birds on the wing?

 

[howa243]

You miss my point. You are saying it is not ethical based on those published figures of 5% wounding. But bow hunters only take shots at this range (or should do) That is the norm. whereas most people that hunt with rifles shoot at far longer distances. That is also the norm. I agree with you it's because they want to, but as for the ethics debate that's another story. what you are saying just does not add up. You can also see from those figures that only around 20% of the total number of bow hunters actually took a shot at a deer. That probably shows how difficult it is to get that close, blind or no blind. Yes of course people go bow hunting because they want to hunt with a bow. Don't you go hunting with your rifle because you want to? What is the difference? I would hope that you are an ethical hunter and only take shots with your rifle that you are 100% confident will be succesful and not cause unnecessary suffering. Why don't you use a larger calibre rifle for instance. that will give you a better outcome with more margin for error. I assume you use a .243. That's not legal in Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Germany for anything larger than Roe. So why do you use it in the UK. Because it's legal to do so and you want to.

Bryan

From a distance of up to 30 yards, 11 were missed entirely and 32 wounded and not recovered ( I think). So 576 shots and 533 recovered. A loss rate of 7.4% from 30 yards!!!! Can I assume that if you lost that many from 30 yards with a rifle you would take up a different sport? Would you miss a dear sized target at 30 yards with a rifle? On the basis that you would be unlikely to do so, why would you take the risk?

 

[BryanDC]

I use a .243 in a park setting. When stalking I use a .308.

Not being any kind of expert in deer management but why not use the .308 in a park setting. Is it because the range is far less (like bow hunting)? and when stalking the range could be much longer?

 

[howa243]

Not being any kind of expert in deer management but why not use the .308 in a park setting. Is it because the range is far less (like bow hunting)? and when stalking the range could be much longer?

Wondered if you would ask and was concerned that if you did it might all explode. lol. Anyway the answer is that the animals are normally shot when in a large group. To do this job effectively and if possible to shoot a number at the same time it is necessary not to spook the herd. For this reason and also because of the demand from the game dealer the shot of choice, is to the head. For this job, I have cut down a heavy barrelled .243 (with mod) to make it easier to use in the confines of a vehicle. The choice of round is down to trajectory and exit wound. I am not a fan of seeing the end result of head shots with large exit wounds and I have found that frangible bullets at high speed kill extremely effectively and with no mess. All I can tell you is that I shoot from 25 out to maybe 80 yards (bowhunting distances) and in large measure, the animals drop on the spot with hardly any movement. This means that the rest of the herd continues to graze, I can get additional shots away if necessary and I can look in the mirror and not have that haggered look of a bloke that has wounded an animal looking back at me.

I use the .308 when stalking and take heart lung shots as one might imagine.

 

[landkeeper]

Bryan

From a distance of up to 30 yards, 11 were missed entirely and 32 wounded and not recovered ( I think). So 576 shots and 533 recovered. A loss rate of 7.4% from 30 yards!!!! Can I assume that if you lost that many from 30 yards with a rifle you would take up a different sport? Would you miss a dear sized target at 30 yards with a rifle? On the basis that you would be unlikely to do so, why would you take the risk?

Again go and read it properly
Also if you do note the comments on shot placement
It would also appear that bows were used during drives !!!!! Not ideal in my opinion ,anyway the danish goverment have concluded that bow hunting roe deer was a comparable method and therefore was an acceptable method .
Reading the next page to the one you linked shows an ever growing list of countries permitting now hunting as a legitimate method ,and in fact one state body had used it as a cull method in a sensitive public enviroment.

 

[BryanDC]

Bryan

From a distance of up to 30 metres, 11 were missed entirely and 32 wounded and not recovered ( I think). So 576 shots and 533 recovered. A loss rate of 7.4% from 30 yards!!!! Can I assume that if you lost that many from 30 yards with a rifle you would take up a different sport? Would you miss a dear sized target at 30 yards with a rifle? On the basis that you would be unlikely to do so, why would you take the risk?

Yes 11 were missed entirely. of the 32 wounded, 4 were assumed to have been wounded as the arrow could not be found. It's a little unclear but it appears that tracking dogs were only called out 4 times in total. If that is correct I would assume that in all other cases the hunter was able to follow up and despatch the animal without the need for a tracking dog. It is a legal requirement here that a tracking dog is called out and will search for up to 6 hours if any trace of blood is found. I can tell you from experience that it is done. It is a free service and it is used.

The question of would I miss a deer sized target at 30 yards with a rifle is meaningless. As pointed out by me and others you cannot compare the two. Why do people shoot deer at 300m in that case? If it is purely for control of numbers than yes I agree that a rifle notwithstanding unusual requirements will probably be more effective, but people go hunting for different reasons. I have already said that bow hunting is not for me but I am not about to slam someone for wanting to prove themselves with a bow as long as it is done with best practice. That means the appropriate equipment used against the appropriate animal (no hippos or elephants) with appropriate ranges and enough training to ensure they can hit the appropriate killing area. But these same things are also paramount when hunting with a rifle.

 

[howa243]

The question of would I miss a deer sized target at 30 yards with a rifle is meaningless.

Well I guess that is the end of that then. I thought we were discussing how one might best dispatch an animal at a distance where a bow might be perceived as being an acceptable.

 

[BryanDC]

Again go and read it properly
Also if you do note the comments on shot placement
It would also appear that bows were used during drives !!!!! Not ideal in my opinion ,anyway the danish goverment have concluded that bow hunting roe deer was a comparable method and therefore was an acceptable method .
Reading the next page to the one you linked shows an ever growing list of countries permitting now hunting as a legitimate method ,and in fact one state body had used it as a cull method in a sensitive public enviroment.

The drive hunting is something I have not heard about. They may be referring to a form where the deer are pushed more gently. It's called a trykjagt. The deer will tend to move quite slowly in this case and give more time for a shot with a rifle or bow but I am guessing a little. I have just never heard of bow hunting moving deer.

I have just read an interesting point that it is now a legal requirement for any bow hunter to fill in a form for each and every arrow that they fire, regardless of the outcome. This is part of the assessment of hunting larger deer with bows. The minimum power and arrow weights have also been increased.

 

[landkeeper]

The drive hunting is something I have not heard about. They may be referring to a form where the deer are pushed more gently. It's called a trykjagt. The deer will tend to move quite slowly in this case and give more time for a shot with a rifle or bow but I am guessing a little. I have just never heard of bow hunting moving deer.

I have just read an interesting point that it is now a legal requirement for any bow hunter to fill in a form for each and every arrow that they fire, regardless of the outcome. This is part of the assessment of hunting larger deer with bows. The minimum power and arrow weights have also been increased.

Nor have i heard of that method ,but if you look at the tables shown .the driven colum makes up a sizable percentage of shots taken
And the angle of shot taken also shows a higher than expected number of forward quartering shots taken ,both things in my opinion are interesting to note given the honesty and accuracy of the participants reporting

 

[mereside]

Well I guess that is the end of that then. I thought we were discussing how one might best dispatch an animal at a distance where a bow might be perceived as being an acceptable.

you would follow up with a team for best results, again it comes down to shot site evaluation before going in, bow hunters already have this in there mentality and in europe it is required by law this is why recovery rates are high for either rifle or bow, after every shot fired regardless of if you think its a miss a team always goes in to prove whats happened, weather your on your own ground sat up in a seat under the moon or stalking even driven hunts, once a shot is fired and there is no animal it is always followed up.

 

[BryanDC]

Taking the life of an animal is really not about your satisfaction to be honest. To make it. More difficult than it needs to be to satisfy your own needs is pretty poor to be honest.

I guess this goes back to your first statement. People hunt for different reasons and yes for some of them it is enjoyment and for some of them that means using a bow. Hopefully as I have already said as ethically as possible and with the skill to do a good job.

 

[finnbear270]

I would have lost money in the bookies, ...
Hee hee we edge ever closer to the old "Thread Closed" sign.

 

[landkeeper]

I would have lost money in the bookies, ...
Hee hee we edge ever closer to the old "Thread Closed" sign.

Ahhh i hope not ! Its good to discuss things other than brexit