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

[Montivagus]

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

Well ideally I guess novices should be out with experienced people who can deliver that control.
And most important, I think, is to put yourself in a position where you can take your time over the shot. If you've stalked right you should have all the time in the world. If you're too close, in danger of being spotted or have half spooked prey you're decision time is much too short. Stalking is something you can practice to perfection without ever having to take a shot. That’s one of the arguments, for me against bow hunting - due to the necessary proximity you must have to shoot I think, more often than not, you will find the shot compromised by some level of discovery. The number of people willing to take their stalking to that level of patience before taking a shot will be very small indeed; if people can't do it with rifles then less so with bows.

 

[dave k]

Well ideally I guess novices should be out with experienced people who can deliver that control.

I think this is why a lot of local police forces are asking for evidence of the DCS course certificate before allowing people to have a license for high-power, deer hunting rifles.

This does make sense - e.g. in order to have the ability to hunt you have to show proficency and knowledge.. This can easily be applied to bow hunting in the same regard. There is no reason why this sort of activity cannot be regulated - it's just down to the politician's knee-jerk reaction's to public events.

As for the ethics of hunting, that's another question

There is no reason to have to hunt in modern day society. However, I do believe that people should be able to get back to their roots and enjoy and understand where food comes from. I would not advocate hunting deer for sport, but I do agree in hunting for food (cull's or wounded death's excepted, of course)

If you are not a vegetarian and oppose hunting for moral reasons, I think you could be called hypocritical. Go into any supermarket and on the meat shelves you'll see far more suffering and animal anguish than any hunt *ever* caused.

 

[Fluxus]

For the bowhunting advocates or opponents who want to vent to Defra about Deer Management regulations - a consultation is open regarding several ammendments to legislation. It's nothing to do with bows but may interest some contributors to this thread.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/deer-management/consultation.pdf
ps. I'm nothing to do with Defra - this just passed my desk for some reason or another.

 

[Klenchblaize]

I think this is why a lot of local police forces are asking for evidence of the DCS course certificate before allowing people to have a license for high-power, deer hunting rifles. This does make sense - e.g. in order to have the ability to hunt you have to show proficency and knowledge.

Proficiency and knowledge though in EVERTHING other than “hunting”! Knowledge of deer is NOT hunting. Putting 5 rounds in a 1” group is not hunting. Being safe with a rifle is NOT hunting. All very useful and, in the case of the latter, possibly the basis for any mandatory minimum requirement to own a firearm, but still most certainly NOT a certificate of ones ability to hunt!

Cheers

 

[gregorach]

Dave's actually raised an interesting point there, one that hadn't occurred to me... You can't but a hunting rifle (or any ammo) in this country without extensive background checks, police involvement, etc. That's an excellent deterent to the numpties - no-one is going to jump through all those hoops without taking the matter seriously.

Conversely, any idiot can buy a bow cheaply and easily. Sure, the law would say that you need a certificate to hunt, but many people probably wouldn't even know that, never mind respect it.

If bowhunting were legalised, it wouldn't suprise me at all if that were accompanied (or followed) by significant changes to the law on buying, selling and possessing archery equipment, to bring it into line with firearms.

So there's a question for you: maintain the current ban on bowhunting, or legalise it but introduce the sort of controls on bows and arrows that we currently have on guns and ammo?

 

[dave k]

Knowledge of deer is NOT hunting. Putting 5 rounds in a 1” group is not hunting. Being safe with a rifle is NOT hunting

HI,

Not sure that you classify all this as not hunting?? I would assume all the above would be a pre-requisite to call yourself a hunter?

but still most certainly NOT a certificate of ones ability to hunt!

Unfornatually you can only specify a minimum level of skill. I'm sure everyone would love only *good* drivers to pass their driving test - this does not happen and bad drivers kill people on the roads. All you can legistate for is a minimum level of skill that you believe is mandatory.

 

[dave k]

Dave's actually raised an interesting point there, one that hadn't occurred to me... You can't but a hunting rifle (or any ammo) in this country without extensive background checks, police involvement, etc. That's an excellent deterent to the numpties - no-one is going to jump through all those hoops without taking the matter seriously.

Conversely, any idiot can buy a bow cheaply and easily. Sure, the law would say that you need a certificate to hunt, but many people probably wouldn't even know that, never mind respect it.

If bowhunting were legalised, it wouldn't suprise me at all if that were accompanied (or followed) by significant changes to the law on buying, selling and possessing archery equipment, to bring it into line with firearms.

So there's a question for you: maintain the current ban on bowhunting, or legalise it but introduce the sort of controls on bows and arrows that we currently have on guns and ammo?

Why, legalize everything I would like to do of course - including handgun target shooting (I used to be quite good before they banned it!

Serious for a mo though, I think regulation similar to the gun requirements should be a good starting point for people to re-consider hunting with bow's. I would not assume that deer hunting would be approved from day-1, but certainly small game should not be a problem - e.g. a phazed approach.

 

[Tipi]

For all of those of you who doubt the accuracy of a bow for taking deer, i have a friend who is and ex-game keeper, so he knows a thing or two about the damage that deer do to some people’s property. I have personally witnessed his accuracy with a bow and its scary, at 30 yard he can get 3 arrows in a 1 inch circle and at 50 it’s in a 6 inch circle!!! He says he’s more accurate with a bow than with his rifle. He goes bow hunting in eurpoe somewhere.
btw, he shoots a compound with all the trimmings you can imagine!

and nobody get me wrong, i love deer (both to eat and to see in the wild) but i also appreciate the damage they can do, and believe that they need to be controlled.

 

[British Red]

Great point tipi...but (and no offense here at all), if he's more accurate with a bow and can manage a 6" grouping at 50 yards, your friend should give up rifle shooting!

I suspect you meant "he's a better archer than rifleman" rather than drawing a direct comparison in terms of group sizes...a good rifle shot can put 3 shots in a 6" circle at a quarter mile and at 50 yards should be keyholing almost every shot. Hunting is different though as, unless your using a laser range finder AND an inclinometer and some pretty fancy figuring, the trajectory is a lot less certain! Then again, you should be engaging quarry at such an extreme range in any case

Red

 

[pothunter]

DMQ gets right up my nose £250 for what.
Certificates for everything.
The best stalkers I know have never had a test of their abilities they are Professional Stalkers, Ghilies and deer managers. It’s about time ‘deer hunters’ were aloud to get on with the job instead of jumping thru hopes to satisfy another bunch of self appointed bureaucrats supported by the spineless bunch of representatives we have in BASC and BDS.
And whilst we are on the subject Bowhunting is being legalised across Europe country by country as it is recognised as an efficient and ethical means of herd management resulting in highly selective culling that can be carried out adjacent to residential areas with the least risk or disturbance to people.
And another thing the only reason bowhunting was banned in the UK was because the well healed don’t like the idea of the peasants having any sport.
That ought to keep the fire burning for a while.

 

[stovie]

Dave's actually raised an interesting point there, one that hadn't occurred to me...

So there's a question for you: maintain the current ban on bowhunting, or legalise it but introduce the sort of controls on bows and arrows that we currently have on guns and ammo?

Actually, there's a logic in there that is hard to argue against...but for crying out loud don't tell a politician

 

[Wayland]

The sad thing was that bow hunting was originally banned because of some idiot using a pistol crossbow.

We all said at the time that real archery needs more skill than a crossbow to hit a target but it made no difference back then.

In those days archery gear was quite a specialist market but these days kit is available off the internet to just about anybody.

Basic "archery" is taught to kids in outdoor centres and village fetes with little real control. Now some of the numpties could potentially be using bows, especially compound bows that need less strength and training.

I said above that I can't see the right to bowhunt being returned and although I do believe it can be done responsibly, in these days it is probably best left as it is unless some control is applied.

 

[Montivagus]

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 :



Sums up the whole thread for me.

Rich

Well in that case I make an unreserved apology.

The comment was partly throw-away and in that sense not worthy.

It was however partly serious in that I have never seen a shot deer bolt in my life or a shot moose or a shot bear! Such results i.e. deer reaching 100,200 (does it say somewhere 300?) yards from the point they were shot seemed totally outlandish to me! This, I think, because the people I've been with have only shot when in the position to take a really good shot.
I made the comment because I would hate to see this sort of description be taken somehow as the norm, as good enough, as somehow a magnificent end for the deer and hence my disappointment with the BDS for publishing it. I think they could/should set a higher standard perhaps.

 

[waylander]

I myself am a recure archer I've been doing it for three years and recently got archer 3rd class, so I do know abit about archery. Saying that the only way I would ever hunt with a bow is if my life depended on it because you can not be as sure of a kill as you can with a rifle.
Arrows loose fletches, so what if one is shot without the archer realising, most likely the animal gets wounded and ends up in distress.
Compound archers typically use release aids which as happended a couple of weeks ago at my club can malfunction sending the arrow anywhere.
Arrows are also more succebtable (sorry about spelling) to wind.
Well thats my two cents on the subject.

 

[Wayland]

Perfectly correct. However all these factors should be carfully considered by an experienced archer before loosing an arrow.

If not they are not taking sufficient care and should not be hunting.

Yes, all other things being equal, a gun is the more efficient method, no doubt about it, but the skill of the hunter in taking the ethical shot is still paramount whatever the method.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

 

[Rob]

Basic "archery" is taught to kids in outdoor centres and village fetes with little real control. Now some of the numpties could potentially be using bows, especially compound bows that need less strength and training.

Do you mean that nobody should be introduced to skills incase they abuse them? Also, I think that it is easier to shoot a traditional bow (or at least get an arrow to leave one). A compound has a peak weight at the start of its draw, whereas a traditional bow can be shot from whatever draw length/power you can put into it.

To my knowledge, most of the accidents that happen in archery involve juniors shooting low poundage bows (10lbs) where the supervising adult is at fault and gets hit.

 

[Wayland]

What I mean is nobody should be taught to use a potentially lethal weapon without being taught how to use it responsibly.

I used to be a GNAS certificated archery instructor and taught lots of people to use a bow.

What I object to is seeing archery taught badly.

 

[gregorach]

I used to be a GNAS certificated archery instructor and taught lots of people to use a bow.

That's good to know - I might need to ask you for a bit of coaching up at Achray next weekend!

 

[Hunter_zero]

It was however partly serious in that I have never seen a shot deer bolt in my life or a shot moose or a shot bear! Such results i.e. deer reaching 100,200 (does it say somewhere 300?) yards from the point they were shot *snip*hence my disappointment with the BDS for publishing it. I think they could/should set a higher standard perhaps.

You obviously haven't seen that many deer being shot.

A direct heart shot will result in a deer running up to 200 yds.
This is fact and not some idea of a mythical end.

In say that I have shot deer in the heart and they dropped on the spot.
Last season I shot a Red stag, direct heart shot and the beast ran full force (over 200 yds) stright at me, dropping less than 20 yds away from me. Dam near gave me a heart attack, I can tell you!


John

 

[Rob]

What I mean is nobody should be taught to use a potentially lethal weapon without being taught how to use it responsibly.

I used to be a GNAS certificated archery instructor and taught lots of people to use a bow.

What I object to is seeing archery taught badly.

Couldn't agree more.

The difference between having a go at a country fair and being given a bow to play with by parents etc is supervision.

There is a point where personal responsibility has to take over - alas, not something that some of the population seem to grasp.