bow hunting in England????

[British Red]

Yep madness indeed - just like here

I really don't understand legislating tools. Wounding an animal is cruel. What tool you deploy to do so is irrelevant. Shooting rats with a bow is illegal. Poisoning so that they die slowly die over days and their poisoned bodies enter the food chain is okay. Makes no sense to me.

Legiclation should be about actions, not possessions imo. I have no desire to bow hunt, but I am informed enough to realise that tool is quite humane in skilled hands. If those hands are not humane, well, whatever tool they use is likely to wound.

 

[mrcharly]

I used to live in Australia and hunted with a bow. Never shot anything larger than geese, although had many friends who hunted game up to the size of water buffalo.

Even on duck-sized animals there are no 'instant kills' when using a bow and arrow. The greatest archer on this earth can't guarantee to hit the brain of a small animal (the animal can move during the time the arrow is in flight). So you shoot for the centre of the body; heart, lung area. Even if you manage a heart shot with a razor sharp broadhead it takes tens of seconds for an animal to die.

Sure, an animal shot with a firearm can go through similar suffering. But not from a good shot. With a bow, even a very good shot can at best pull off a heart shot.

 

[ged]

From post #13 on your linked thread: [snip]

Of course you notice the red clauses stating it's illegal to hunt with any bow or crossbow. But look at the next clause immediately below that. it states that it's illegal to kill an animal (or bird) with "....any missile which is not discharged from a firearm....." That would seem to make hunting with a slingshot or catapult illegal as well? However I remember more than one thread on here saying the opposite.

It's illegal in Northern Ireland, where the laws are different.

The issue with bows is that there isn't anything like the same energy released in the target as there is with a firearm. The hydraulic effects of stopping a high velocity projectile cause a massive drop in blood pressure which renders the target unconscious immediately. At best an arrow simply causes the target to bleed to death, quite likely remaining conscious for quite a while.

 

[British Red]

To be fair, many animals do not die instantly from firearms either. There are several classic aim points - on larger prey like deer, the "boiler room" shot (behind the shoulder taking both lungs and heart) - this cause death by asphyxiation since oxygen can either not be gathered or pumped or both. Derr with both lungs and heart taken can, and do, run for hundreds of yards.

Another point of aim is the "neck shot" severing the spine. This will shut down the creature instantly meaning it cannot run, but not necessarily equating to instrant death.

Brain shots on large prey are notoriously difficult and uncertain - often offering a greater chance of wounding without killing.

I personally do not believe that an effective bow shot causing an animal to "bleed out" is any more cruel than a heart shot meaning blood cannot be pumped. I don't want to bow hunt - I lack skill and inclination - but I am unconvinced that it is cruel per se.

 

[Oblio13]

Contrary to Hollywood, there's no such thing as an instant death from either an arrow or a bullet, unless it's from a hit to a small part of the upper central nervous system. And such shots are not usually advisable, because it's a tiny target and heads tend to be moved often and abruptly. The goal of a hunter is usually to put the bullet or arrow through both lungs. Relatively large and steady aiming area, and surrounded by other vital organs - heart, liver, spine. Death will occur quickly, but even with heart and lungs completely destroyed, a brain, and therefore an animal - or a person, for that matter - can continue to function for ten or fifteen seconds. And while high-velocity bullets do have a hydraulic effect, broadheads and low-velocity bullets do not. They are still very effective, although via different mechanisms. Every deer I've shot with a bow, the arrow zipped right through and stuck in the ground on the other side. All jumped and ran, none went far. One stopped and looked around, like "What just happened?!", actually took a couple bites of browse, then wobbled and keeled over. With arrows, the key is to use razor-sharp broadheads (dull ones will push blood vessels and organs aside rather than cut through them), and to put them forward of the diaphragm. Sounds gruesome, but it's a far better way to go than coyotes, wolves, cold, hunger or disease, which are the "natural" ends to deer. Wild animals don't die of old age.

 

[santaman2000]

To be fair, many animals do not die instantly from firearms either. There are several classic aim points - on larger prey like deer, the "boiler room" shot (behind the shoulder taking both lungs and heart) - this cause death by asphyxiation since oxygen can either not be gathered or pumped or both. Derr with both lungs and heart taken can, and do, run for hundreds of yards.

Another point of aim is the "neck shot" severing the spine. This will shut down the creature instantly meaning it cannot run, but not necessarily equating to instrant death.

Brain shots on large prey are notoriously difficult and uncertain - often offering a greater chance of wounding without killing.

I personally do not believe that an effective bow shot causing an animal to "bleed out" is any more cruel than a heart shot meaning blood cannot be pumped. I don't want to bow hunt - I lack skill and inclination - but I am unconvinced that it is cruel per se.

Quite right BR. I have seen ONE deer die near instantly when shot with a rifle. But ONLY ONE in 56 years of hunting. And yes! Most (though not all) of the others were hit with good solid shots.

 

[santaman2000]

Probably the same one that restricts deer hunting to heavier calibre rifles, and saw hunting with dogs made illegal here.

A good shot 'can' take out a deer with either a smaller calibre or an arrow.....statistically few do it well.....

So what's the minimum caliber legal there?

 

[British Red]

Species specific and momentum based. Large species its .240 and 1700 ftlbs of energy (.243 Remington and a decent barrel ammo combination for all practical purposes). Smaller species a .223 is acceptable. No shotguns.

 

[santaman2000]

Species specific and momentum based. Large species its .240 and 1740 ftlbs of energy (.243 Remington and a decent barrel ammo combination for all practical purposes). Smaller species a .223 is acceptable. No shotguns.

Thanks BR. Much the same as here then. So it's not really a "heavy" caliber at?

 

[British Red]

Relative to a .22LR? Yep

Relative to .338 LM? Nope

 

[santaman2000]

Relative to a .22LR? Yep

Relative to .338 LM? Nope

Relative to ANY centerfire. 22LR's a squirrel, rabbit, and snake gun. And a damned fun plinking gun!

 

[British Red]

I take your point. I personally think .223 is "not enough gun" for Roe, although its Roe legal in Scotland - okay on CWD and Muntjac though - a .308 is certainly overkill on the tinies. Its all relative. Our largest quarry deer are Red Deer - big enough but nothing to a moose or elk. Nothing in this country really needs more than a .243 - but I would prefer something a little heavier on the largest deer we have.

 

[Oblio13]

"Too much" is better than "not enough" obviously, but bullet technology has come a long way in the past few years. Even small calibers are becoming giant killers. Started using monolithics made of pure copper a couple years ago, and they amaze me. They blossom into flowers with sharp petals, stay in one piece, and penetrate very deeply and in a straight line. A few years ago, you could have expansion and energy release, or penetration. Now you can have both. There are five recovered monolithics on my desk right now, they're so symmetrical and whole that they look like jewelry.

 

[Toddy]

Gentlemen please.....my inbox is already filling up with comments on yet another UK bow hunting thread becoming a comparative discussion on American armaments

Nothing wrong with your information or having an opinion; just go do it on another thread.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[boatman]

Always worth repeating that bowhunting is illegal in the UK. Did an archery course today and some on the course did not know this.I have argued with people who think think it is OK on their own land and tried very strongly to say it is not. The problem is that bows and archery are on a knife-edge in danger of controlling legislation, we all know how quickly bad cases can make bad laws.

 

[Toddy]

There was a European market in Glasgow a couple of years ago where a Polish (think it was that, certainly central European anyway) girl was running a stall selling bows, arrows, and really beautiful leatherwork.
The police came along and confiscated all the arrows and bolts as offensive weapons

cheers,
M

 

[santaman2000]

Gentlemen please.....my inbox is already filling up with comments on yet another UK bow hunting thread becoming a comparative discussion on American armaments

Nothing wrong with your information or having an opinion; just go do it on another thread.

cheers,
Toddy

Sorry Mary. Didn't mean to do that. Rather we meant to compare guns (those that are indeed legal for hunting) to archery for the same purpose. The drift was accidental while trying to determine just what guns are legal to hunt with.

 

[boatman]

There was a European market in Glasgow a couple of years ago where a Polish (think it was that, certainly central European anyway) girl was running a stall selling bows, arrows, and really beautiful leatherwork.
The police came along and confiscated all the arrows and bolts as offensive weapons

cheers,
M

Hope she insisted on getting them back as the police had behaved illegally.

 

[dwardo]

There was a European market in Glasgow a couple of years ago where a Polish (think it was that, certainly central European anyway) girl was running a stall selling bows, arrows, and really beautiful leatherwork.
The police came along and confiscated all the arrows and bolts as offensive weapons

cheers,
M

Would love to have seen that, the bows and leatherwork rather than the poor lass being and her work being taken off.

 

[Corso]

I think its just as likely there wasn't representation/consultation with an active bowhunting organisation when the legislation was drawn up than any other reason.

most legislations is drawn up by the uninitiated after all...