bowhunt scotland?????!!!!!!

[moduser]

Stovie, that's why I said most

An interesting point, a group of friends were in Africa last year and one of them is a recurve man.

When doing the shooting test before being allowed out in the reserve all archers were expected to hit a 4 inch disc 9 out of 10 times.

They started at 30 yards. Failure to do so meant they moved forward until they succeeded and that was the maximum distance they were allowed to hunt at.

The recurve friend, a very fine field archer, was limited to 8 yards.

Because the owner knows that when the adrenalin is pumping, the only clean shot is one the archer can do with ease.

David

 

[Scuba Pete]

I was lucky enough to live in Kansas in the US for a year, while I was at uni.

I took the opportunity to learn to shoot (Shotgun) with my friends. I also practiced using a compound bow, they are very impressive. My mate had been using a bow for years and spent many months practicing each year. I have no doubts that in the right hands the bow is an effective method of hunting. He preferred using a bow as there was far more skill involved, (approaching the deer etc).

I understand the fears that numptys would use them, of course it should only limited to appropriately trained people.

Even hunting fish with a bow is illegal. I don’t imagine it would take much training to be able to kill a fish quickly. I mean we do drag them around the water with hooks in their mouths.

 

[Klenchblaize]

I recall seeing Ray Mears re-teach, with just a hint of embarrassment, members of a Rain Forest Community the apparently lost art of fire lighting. Clearly they no longer needed this skill but such brought much joy and pride in their re-discovery of the technique.

I would view the opportunity to loos an arrow at a deer with a similar enthusiasm and understanding that this was once second nature and therefore cannot see the difference between this skill and any other that may be considered to comprise so-called “Bushcraft”. If I’m “barbaric” so be it but the taking of a deer’s life does not at all concern me in the scheme of things - school children having their heads blown off DOES though.

I’m also intrigued by the suggestion that the rifle is so full proof in its ability to slay deer humanely. What would-be stalkers can do “at the target” and even under the stress of a DSC Level 1 “Shooting Test” often translates to very little when they get into the field.

Sign me up for the first bow hunt please I’m heading North!


Cheers

 

[dave k]

I was wondering if the people who called hunting deer `barbaric` are vegetarian's?

 

[gregorach]

Whatever you views on bowhunting, I think you have to realise that this measure is extremely unlikely to ever come into force. Not saying it won't, but don't hold your breath. It's in the same category as the idea of bounties on grey squirrels - something a politician can say to court a specific constituency (or just to get in the news) without having to worry about actually making it law.

As for the ethics of bowhunting... I'm conflicted. I can see the argument that it requires more skill and gives the quarry a better chance. But I can also see the argument that hunting should not be treated as sport - that it's a matter of life and death, which should be treated with the utmost seriousness. At the moment I'm tending towards the point of view that if you're going to hunt, you should do it with the most effective and efficient equipment available.

It's an unfortunate fact that many of the people who come to Scotland to shoot deer recreationally make a horrible hash of it, even with high-powered rifles and scopes. I don't fancy the idea of giving the tweed-clad one-weekend-a-year leisure shooters the option of using a bow, and I'm pretty certain that the professionals have no interest in using them.

 

[Klenchblaize]

gregorach:

Whatever you views on bowhunting, I think you have to realise that this measure is extremely unlikely to ever come into force.

Notwithstanding the unfortunate accuracy of the above statement, and being mindful that Southern England has far more going for it in terms of realistic opportunity to connect with deer at ranges appropriate to a bow – read tree stands and ample cover, the idea of connecting with Scottish deer in this manner is not as implausible as some suggest if you reflect that Scotland is not entirely made up of high and open ground.

To prove my point I had the privilege of writing a two-part article for IPC’s Shooting Times magazine some 2 years ago called “Shoreline Deerstalking”. In one section I describe descending into an enchanted landscape of lichen and bog oak and where shots at sika could be down to less than 25 yards. This location, known as Corranbuie (Cor-an-boo-ey) on the West coast, would be perfect for such hunting and oh what “heart-stopping” times you would have!

Hope you like the picture as just looking at that autumn-cloaked wood, as it falls away to a blue sea, makes me wonder what the hell I’m doing in a London office right now!

Cheers

 

[Montivagus]

I stopped playing bows and arrows when I was about 13 I guess , so I’m sure they’ve come a long way since then.

I’m sure, however, that they won’t have come so far as to rival a firearm in effectiveness at killing deer! Naturally then, being civilised and wanting to keep the amount of suffering inflicted on an animal when we kill it for food to a minimum, I’m sure we can all look forward to no such thing as bow hunting in Scotland before WW3.

While I’m completely pro-hunting…anyone who shoots deer only to have them charge 200 yards spurting blood ought to have their gun licence taken away; they’re obviously no good with it! I’ve never seen anything but clean drops from anyone determined not to shoot unless sure of one. It’s about calm informed use of a tool and not” heart stopping” over-excitement leading to poor judgement and a messy slow kill.

 

[Klenchblaize]

I stopped playing bows and arrows when I was about 13 I guess , so I’m sure they’ve come a long way since then.

I’m sure, however, that they won’t have come so far as to rival a firearm in effectiveness at killing deer! Naturally then, being civilised and wanting to keep the amount of suffering inflicted on an animal when we kill it for food to a minimum, I’m sure we can all look forward to no such thing as bow hunting in Scotland before WW3.

While I’m completely pro-hunting…anyone who shoots deer only to have them charge 200 yards spurting blood ought to have their gun licence taken away; they’re obviously no good with it! I’ve never seen anything but clean drops from anyone determined not to shoot unless sure of one. It’s about calm informed use of a tool and not” heart stopping” over-excitement leading to poor judgement and a messy slow kill.

The day that hunting becomes unexciting is the day I’ll stop.

That we are not all given of nerves of steel should not, in my opinion, be a bar to participation. Further more even the experts, such as FCS Rangers – out on the hill with a rifle 5 days a week, do not always make the perfect shot. As for deer charging “200 yards spurting blood” this is a perfect account of a heart-shot beast as described in the British Deer Society DSC Level I manual and comes highly recommended!

Cheers

 

[BorderReiver]

Given the correct gear and the correct training,bow hunting is no more likely to cause undue suffering to prey animals than firearm hunting.

My reservation is that if it was legalised,every numpty in the country would be out injuring wildlife with totally unsuitable equipment and zero skill,because "it's legal now"

The fact that there would be very strict rules and regulations would pass them by.

Best to leave things as they are methinks.

 

[Hunter_zero]

Hunter Zero, it sounds like you are a rifle hunter....perhaps? I do wonder what your experience has been if you think that .50 calibre is still too light to hunt with

Where have I said that?

hmmm...maybe it would be better just to agree to disagree? I doubt that anything I could say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine

Just one thing.

Which would you rather be shot with, a bow and arrow or a fullbore rifle?

Now ask yourself why.

John

 

[Hunter_zero]

familne,

I would also to some extent dispute hunter-zeros logicof the nature of the kill from an arrow. A properly used broadhead hunting arrow causes huge bloodloss via arterial bleeding and induces hypovolaemic shock.
Red

There can be no doubt that an arrow can kill deer. There can also be little doubt that more deer suffer due to arrows than that of bullets.

Tell me, is a .22rf able to take deer?
Well yes it can BUT it lacks sufficient power to ensue a clean kill, would you not agree?
Yet the little rim fire round can easily penetrate a deer's lungs, heart and brain, so why the hell isn't it used more, after all it can deliver 150 ft-lbs muzzle energy every time and can easily group MOA at 30 yards.

OTOH the arrow also delivers approximately 150 ft-lbs (540 grain arrow / 235 fps) and will never match the accuracy of the rim fire round

Lets compare that to say a .243" delivering over 1700 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.
Makes bows and arrows seem rather childlike in comparison.
Again, no doubt bows and arrows can kill deer

John

 

[Wayland]

There can be no doubt that an arrow can kill deer. There can also be little doubt that more deer suffer due to arrows than that of bullets.

You forgot to mention the damage caused by the cross mounted razorblades that make up a modern broadhead. These cause considerably more blood loss than a .22 round.

Your rather glib statement also fails to take into account the skill of the hunter.

Any method of hunting is cruel if carried out with insufficient skill. It doesn’t matter how big your gun is, if you miss the kill zone you will inflict suffering.

Whatever method you use it is all about the “ethical shot”. If you can’t reliably make the kill, you should not pull the trigger or loose the arrow. No ifs, no buts, no shot.

 

[British Red]

And of course muzzle energy (foot lbs) is an inefficient method to measure imparted energy and trauma. It takes no account of imparted energy vs over penetration (the mythical "blood trail" logic), equally, it doesn't take account of shot placement. The most common method of slaughtering your own animals in certain quarters is the .22RF. It will enter, but not exit, the skull, ricocheting around in the manner of an armour piercing round. A more powerful round will cause a "through and through" causing less trauma.

All these weapons can and do kill. Over equal hunting ranges, a rifle will, in equally skilled hands, result in a more certain kill. Not because of skill, but because of mechanical advantage occasioned by the detonation of the primary charge. Coupled with quality hollow point that deforms on impact, this will occasion a cone impact rather than a cruciform impact zone, causing a higher rate of trauma, imparted momentum and hypovolaemic shock. I say this as a rifleman who has spent 30 years training and who considers himself, at best, inexpert. I have studied ballistics, anatomy, fieldcraft and many other subjects in search of certainty. I have never found it. I agree in theory Hunter-zero. But in my experience, theory and practice don't match up. A truly talented hunter with a compound bow, taking a shot in woodland at 30 yards can probably depatch a deer as efficiently as I can at 100 yards with a .308. I would not deny him the chance. Nor would I encourage a person with buck fever to try. A dichotomy I have no answer to other than to know I have not the skill, knowledge or experience to attempt such a bowshot. With a rifle I am sure of my kill. This means nothing to anyone but me!

Red

 

[Hunter_zero]

You forgot to mention the damage caused by the cross mounted razorblades that make up a modern broadhead. These cause considerably more blood loss than a .22 round..

A hole in the heart or brain will kill, will it not?

Your rather glib statement also fails to take into account the skill of the hunter.
.

Yer okay.

Any method of hunting is cruel if carried out with insufficient skill. It doesn’t matter how big your gun is, if you miss the kill zone you will inflict suffering.
.

Obviously.

Whatever method you use it is all about the “ethical shot”. If you can’t reliably make the kill, you should not pull the trigger or loose the arrow. No ifs, no buts, no shot.

Very good point, well done that man.

John

 

[Hunter_zero]

A truly talented hunter with a compound bow, taking a shot in woodland at 30 yards can "probably" depatch a deer as efficiently as I can at 100 yards with a .308.

Red

And that is my point in a nut shell.

John

 

[Montivagus]

And that is my point in a nut shell.

John

That's no point. the point is at 30yds in woodland the .308 would be more effective!

 

[Hunter_zero]

That's no point. the point is at 30yds in woodland the .308 would be more effective!

Thats right, well done you got the point then!

John

 

[Montivagus]

The day that hunting becomes unexciting is the day I’ll stop.

That we are not all given of nerves of steel should not, in my opinion, be a bar to participation. Further more even the experts, such as FCS Rangers – out on the hill with a rifle 5 days a week, do not always make the perfect shot. As for deer charging “200 yards spurting blood” this is a perfect account of a heart-shot beast as described in the British Deer Society DSC Level I manual and comes highly recommended!

Cheers

Hmmm....I didn’t mean to suggest hunting wasn't or shouldn't be exiting. That would obviously be to deny what is a very primeval instinct and enjoyment. I personally love it!

However, at the moment of taking a shot it is not that excitement that should be at the forefront (even though this is very natural to a novice). It is at that moment that the excitement should be forgotten as opposed to reaching fever pitch. Apart from making for a better shot, should you decide to take one, calming down opens you to the very important option of deciding not to take one because you don’t have to shoot! You’re not going to starve if you don’t make a shot and the decision to take one or not is not well made when (and I repeat) over excited.
Nothing personal, obviously, since I don’t know you…the comment in your post however did remind me of quite a lot of people I’ve seen carried away with the excitement to the point of poor judgement, to the point of thinking they have to make a shot, to the point of wounding and maiming animals they have no skill to track down and so conferring a slow and painful death for nothing.
A bit of nerves-of-steel is called for and I don’t think much of a hunter that can’t show a bit of compassion for their prey.Probably why I hate cats!I wouldn't think much of a hunter who wouldn't choose the most efficient weapon for killing just because they fancied a go at something old timey.


As for the British Deer Society DSC Level I blah blah…well they can’t be much good with a rifle!

 

[Klenchblaize]

Hmmm....I didn’t mean to suggest hunting wasn't or shouldn't be exiting. That would obviously be to deny what is a very primeval instinct and enjoyment. I personally love it!

However, at the moment of taking a shot it is not that excitement that should be at the forefront (even though this is very natural to a novice). It is at that moment that the excitement should be forgotten as opposed to reaching fever pitch. Apart from making for a better shot, should you decide to take one, calming down opens you to the very important option of deciding not to take one because you don’t have to shoot! You’re not going to starve if you don’t make a shot and the decision to take one or not is not well made when (and I repeat) over excited.
Nothing personal, obviously, since I don’t know you…the comment in your post however did remind me of quite a lot of people I’ve seen carried away with the excitement to the point of poor judgement, to the point of thinking they have to make a shot, to the point of wounding and maiming animals they have no skill to track down and so conferring a slow and painful death for nothing.
A bit of nerves-of-steel is called for and I don’t think much of a hunter that can’t show a bit of compassion for their prey.Probably why I hate cats!I wouldn't think much of a hunter who wouldn't choose the most efficient weapon for killing just because they fancied a go at something old timey.


As for the British Deer Society DSC Level I blah blah…well they can’t be much good with a rifle!

I here what you say on a number of points but the problem/reality of “buck fever” is that of how does one (a novice or person with limited opportunity) get past that point? No amount of practice at the target, even when taking part in compitition – read match nerves – will fully prepare the mere mortal for the adrenalin rush that so often comes at the climax of a hunt. The only way then, as with any craft, is to surely practice actually doing it? As the saying goes if you want to get fit for hill walking go walk a hill!

I’ve yet to meet a person, at least here in the UK, who actually wanted to hit an animal in any area other than the accepted kill zone.

Cheers

 

[Roving Rich]

As for the British Deer Society DSC Level I blah blah…well they can’t be much good with a rifle!

Sorry I find that offensive.

I've seen it happen. I thought the Stalker had missed and hit low on the chest cavity. The Deer took off at a gallop, with the rest of the herd, but dropped to its knees within 100 yards, then keeled over. When we gralloched the shot was perfect. Straight through the heart. Only half of it remaining.

As Wayland said :

Whatever method you use it is all about the “ethical shot”. If you can’t reliably make the kill, you should not pull the trigger or loose the arrow. No ifs, no buts, no shot.

Sums up the whole thread for me.

Rich