Bow hunting V Rifle hunting debate;

[howa243]

How can there be a comparison between the US and the UK. I'm sure that there are many excellent bow hunters in the US and I'm sure they have plenty of bow hunters who are rubbish shots. In the UK its illegal to shoot deer with a bow so no comparison can be made.

With respect, the Danish research shows 576 arrows shot the majority from 20 metres and 533 recovered deer ( I think). Is it your suggestion that a similar number of centre fire rounds shot from up to 30 metres would result in fewer recovered carcasses?

 

[mchughcb]

Surprise myself to the extent that I would think it a viable method of dispatch or....?

That it will have far more range and accuracy than a javelin alone. Plus the blades are bigger so they wont just put a pin hole in the target either.

 

[tackb]

My grandad used to have a saying ,there's non so blind as them that can't see !

can't implies that they are not capable , my grandad used the same quote but replaced cant with won't which implies they could but through reasons known only to themselves simply wont consider seeing !

 

[howa243]

Ok so my arthritis is kicking in my shoulder and the days of bothering to pull 50# on a ben pearson recurve are long done. However i also used to hunt with crossbows. The latest compound crossbows look good to ne and capable of outstanding accuracy well past 30 yards. Any reason why someone with basic rifle skills shouldn't hunt deer with one?

If its legal its legal. Would be interested to know why you would choose it over a rifle though?

 

[shakey jake]

post 267?

my appologies i missed that, i still think its a fair comparrison but if you dont want to disscuss ill leave it

 

[howa243]

That it will have far more range and accuracy than a javelin alone. Plus the blades are bigger so they wont just put a pin hole in the target either.

Okay, well didnt know that. Its just as well I wasn't about to attempt to get spear hunting legalised in the UK because it sounds like I have some more research to do on the topic.

 

[Jagare]

With respect, the Danish research shows 576 arrows shot the majority from 20 metres and 533 recovered deer ( I think). Is it your suggestion that a similar number of centre fire rounds shot from up to 30 metres would result in fewer recovered carcasses?

Again i don't see how you can compare. The bow by its nature is a short range weapon. If you compare a rifle shot at a average 100mtrs range at deer i bet the figures would be similar taking in misses and wounded deer not found. Do's the Denmark study say whether the 43 deer were missed, or wounded and not found?

 

[howa243]

my appologies i missed that, i still think its a fair comparrison but if you dont want to disscuss ill leave it

Happy to. Just dont know how to respond. I know of no other way of taking birds on the wing. As I have said elsewhere there are always compromises to make. I am not choosing a shotgun over another weapon (to shoot a bird on the wing) knowing that the shotgun is more difficult to use accurately, just to test myself or for the enhanced enjoyment of doing it. Yes I could find a way of ensuring that the bird was stationary before shooting at it. Are you suggesting that completely missing a deer sized animal from 20 metres is something not to be concerned about or indeed wounding rates of the magnitude mentioned.

 

[nun_hunter]

Oh dear!

Why "Oh dear"? You're basing your entire argument on your opinion a bow is less humane at 30 yards compared to a rifle. Well by that rationale you must only hunt in the most humane way possible as it's unacceptable to use a method that's less humane. So surely you're not hunting with a 243, the "bare minimum" requirement for deer in the UK, you must be using a cartridge with the most deliverable energy and cause the most destruction? Surely things like cost of ammo, availability, recoil etc are irrelevant to you in the pursuit of being so humane? Or do you agree that "being humane" is a sliding scale that depends on a number of factors?

 

[howa243]

Again i don't see how you can compare. The bow by its nature is a short range weapon. If you compare a rifle shot at a average 100mtrs range at deer i bet the figures would be similar taking in misses and wounded deer not found. Do's the Denmark study say whether the 43 deer were missed, or wounded and not found?

Are you saying that we should legalise the use of bows in the UK because at bow hunting ranges that they are provably more efficient?

 

[JTO]

If it's all about the ability to get within 30 yards, why not just use a camera for proof of your skill?

 

[howa243]

Why "Oh dear"? You're basing your entire argument on your opinion a bow is less humane at 30 yards compared to a rifle. Well by that rationale you must only hunt in the most humane way possible as it's unacceptable to use a method that's less humane. So surely you're not hunting with a 243, the "bare minimum" requirement for deer in the UK, you must be using a cartridge with the most deliverable energy and cause the most destruction? Surely things like cost of ammo, availability, recoil etc are irrelevant to you in the pursuit of being so humane? Or do you agree that "being humane" is a sliding scale that depends on a number of factors?

If you shot at a deer sized target with your rifle at 30 metres would you miss it 11 times out 567 shots? Do you disagree with the wounding rates on the research that I posted and if so why? Are these research items my opinion or are they based on someones work that I have never met or even heard of?

 

[jthyttin]

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.

No, we were discussing whether UK stalkers are missing out on the satisfaction that bow hunting probably gives compared to rifle (as per OP).

 

[howa243]

No, we were discussing whether UK stalkers are missing out on the satisfaction that bow hunting probably gives compared to rifle (as per OP).

Oh, yes probably if stalked but not if sat in on a seat. Cannot really see why there would be any difference in enjoyment at aiming a rifle or bow at an animal from a sitting position 30 yards away from it.

 

[BryanDC]

If you shot at a deer sized target with your rifle at 30 metres would you miss it 11 times out 567 shots? Do you disagree with the wounding rates on the research that I posted and if so why? Are these research items my opinion or are they based on someones work that I have never met or even heard of?

Whilst I would agree that the miss rate would probably be lower you cannot know about the wounding rate. My interpretation of the data was that the recovery rate of wounded animals was very high and didn't need the services of a tracking dog in most cases.

But again! the people that go bow hunting enjoy bow hunting. If they had cull targets to reach and were only interested in numbers I doubt that many would use a bow and would use a rifle instead. maybe it is worth noting that the total number of Roe taken in Denmark over the 2016/2017 hunting season was over 106,000. So it is quite a small percentage of the total.

 

[landkeeper]

Again you are comparing apples with oranges !
The Danish study has shown that bow hunting for roe has given statistics comprable with other legal methods
I think if you want to be fair re the distance then a similar number of shots taken by rifle hunters would need to be studied and similar parameters selected
All it would probably show would be a similar % of lost or recovered deer as thats what the danish government have found

 

[landkeeper]

Oh, yes probably if stalked but not if sat in on a seat. Cannot really see why there would be any difference in enjoyment at aiming a rifle or bow at an animal from a sitting position 30 yards away from it.

Just shows your lack of understanding of the subject ,its nigh on impossible to shoot a hunting weight bow sitting down

 

[nun_hunter]

If you shot at a deer sized target with your rifle at 30 metres would you miss it 11 times out 567 shots? Do you disagree with the wounding rates on the research that I posted and if so why? Are these research items my opinion or are they based on someones work that I have never met or even heard of?

Maybe not me using my rifle for 567 shots but 567 different people with different rifles then yes 11 misses is quite likely given all the variables involved.

 

[howa243]

Maybe not me using my rifle for 567 shots but 567 different people with different rifles then yes 11 misses is quite likely given all the variables involved.

OK.

 

[howa243]

Just shows your lack of understanding of the subject ,its nigh on impossible to shoot a hunting weight bow sitting down

OK. Sorry. Would have thought it eminently possible from a high seat. Shall complain to the folks who produced the research.
But okay, I cannot see why standing holding a bow or a rifle would provide any different a level of enjoyment. How is that?