Faulty arrows.
There is nothing special about compound bows that mean they can't be shot with wooden arrows. I've done thousands of times. If the arrow is damaged or too weak for the bow poundage, then it can break, yes, but this applies to any bow.
UK Bowhunting laws
- Thread starter JimN
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
There is nothing special about compound bows that mean they can't be shot with wooden arrows. I've done thousands of times. If the arrow is damaged or too weak for the bow poundage, then it can break, yes, but this applies to any bow.
I would agree with you there...woods were used quite a lot by the Guys I used to shoot with years ago when componds were not a common place...
Santaman
I'm not going to get into a water temperature semantic discussion; yes deer are 'lost' with all methods of taking them. But the loss rate appears ( not is - because I do not know ) higher in the case of arrow v bullet. Reading the follow-up books will underline this. A lost dead animal is still a waste on so many levels and something all ethical gatherers seek to avoid........
Of course you bring up a very relevant observation - the ethical gatherer trains to a high level for follow-up and the wise one has access to a suitable dog should it be required.
Yes. Up to a point. But then all of us who hunt aren't always "gatherers."Lots of things we hunt are for the sake of ridding them (feral hogs come to mind) There's no way anybody could "gather" several hundred of them per day, and I'd be perfectly happy letting their carcasses "waste" in the woods as many hunters do. That said, I'd prefer to hunt them with full auto firearms. http://youtu.be/G57XiMA5HWY
Unfortunately, those aren't legal during bow season. Niether are dogs at that time.
Last edited:
Hence I chose the gatherer word. But I would be reluctant to apply the name hunter to an exercise in extermination.
I've redrafted this several times and still haven't found the right words - I'll ponder it and try to revert more cogently at some point. also still pondering if I've missed an element of 'tongue in cheek' - my apologies if that's the case.
But I have to say that - for me - the use of fully automatic fire on an animal has no element of respect, speaks rather poorly of those involved on several levels and, regardless of your definition of 'Bushcraft' - would hopefully be an anathema to most members on a forum such as this.
About the only platform of agreement I have is that after treatment like that the carcase would be poor eating!
I've redrafted this several times and still haven't found the right words - I'll ponder it and try to revert more cogently at some point. also still pondering if I've missed an element of 'tongue in cheek' - my apologies if that's the case.
But I have to say that - for me - the use of fully automatic fire on an animal has no element of respect, speaks rather poorly of those involved on several levels and, regardless of your definition of 'Bushcraft' - would hopefully be an anathema to most members on a forum such as this.
About the only platform of agreement I have is that after treatment like that the carcase would be poor eating!
Maybe so. I'm not so sure of it myself when used on the large scale. But the bowhunters are obviously on a much smaller scale and less of a "production."
Respect? No, absolutlely none. The animals in question are considered vermin.
Definition of "Bushcraft?" So what? I suppose they could resort to poisoning them instead, but then, that's far less discriminate and would effect many other species.
I've eaten feral hog on occasion and generally, it's poor eating no matter how it's killed.
Last edited:
I generally keep out of these debates simply because I do see both sides and it's never a happy outcome.
I know archers who I would trust to hit everything they aim at....and that's to within a mark smaller than my palm, and I have small hands.....every single time.
I also know a heck of a lot of complete and utter cretinous idiots who think that shooting a crossbow at ducks and swans in the river is 'fun' the RSSPCA and the RSPCA would be happy to supply statistics if asked.
I also know a heck of a lot of people who feel themselves to be capable when in reality they lack the practice and skill to be accurate, but would be best described as 'haunless'.
At heart I think it's a problem of a mostly urbanised population in great numbers on a restricted landmass.
Bluntly not everyone should have access to any projectile weapon.....and I'm not really sure why there's a link to a youtube carnage by an automatic gun purporting to be 'hunting' on the thread.......but then we have the huge issue of who and why and where and when, re the allowed folks.
I don't know the answer; I suspect that it might come through clubs and education and qualifying certification. I can also see major rammies about that too though. Who decides who qualifies others however ? The stalkers perhaps ?
or the police ? who pays for that though ?
When I make clothing for reenactors I measure the armscye while asking them to make the movements of heaving a rope, of drawing a bow, of throwing a spear, of using an axe, of digging with a spade, of pulling on an oar, or climbing onto a horse, and if the measurement girds anywhere it needs to be adjusted. I take for granted that bows are part of life for humanity for most of our 'humanity', iimmc. There's a lot of fun to be had going roving and it's amazing how quickly some can become very, very, skilled.
I do know though, from very clear archaeological evidences, that even those who only had the bow as their sole hunting method, that many animals are not killed outright, or quickly, or cleanly, and that even those hunters lost badly injured quarry.
Can't see that going down well with a mostly non hunting population, can you ?
Good stalkers make a decisive point in finding injured beasts and finishing the job cleanly when they are unfortunate enough to have a poor shot as a client.
I have no issue with good archers; I do have issue with cretins given free access to any projectile weapon in our overcrowded islands. Ah, but, y'see, that's my definition of cretins, I can bet that it wouldn't be their's.
It would be appreciated if the topic could be kept to the bowhunting laws of the UK please. It's contentious enough a topic as it is.
atb,
Toddy
I know archers who I would trust to hit everything they aim at....and that's to within a mark smaller than my palm, and I have small hands.....every single time.
I also know a heck of a lot of complete and utter cretinous idiots who think that shooting a crossbow at ducks and swans in the river is 'fun'
the RSSPCA and the RSPCA would be happy to supply statistics if asked.I also know a heck of a lot of people who feel themselves to be capable when in reality they lack the practice and skill to be accurate, but would be best described as 'haunless'.
At heart I think it's a problem of a mostly urbanised population in great numbers on a restricted landmass.
Bluntly not everyone should have access to any projectile weapon.....and I'm not really sure why there's a link to a youtube carnage by an automatic gun purporting to be 'hunting' on the thread.......but then we have the huge issue of who and why and where and when, re the allowed folks.
I don't know the answer; I suspect that it might come through clubs and education and qualifying certification. I can also see major rammies about that too though. Who decides who qualifies others however ? The stalkers perhaps ?
or the police ? who pays for that though ?When I make clothing for reenactors I measure the armscye while asking them to make the movements of heaving a rope, of drawing a bow, of throwing a spear, of using an axe, of digging with a spade, of pulling on an oar, or climbing onto a horse, and if the measurement girds anywhere it needs to be adjusted. I take for granted that bows are part of life for humanity for most of our 'humanity', iimmc. There's a lot of fun to be had going roving
and it's amazing how quickly some can become very, very, skilled.I do know though, from very clear archaeological evidences, that even those who only had the bow as their sole hunting method, that many animals are not killed outright, or quickly, or cleanly, and that even those hunters lost badly injured quarry.
Can't see that going down well with a mostly non hunting population, can you ?
Good stalkers make a decisive point in finding injured beasts and finishing the job cleanly when they are unfortunate enough to have a poor shot as a client.
I have no issue with good archers; I do have issue with cretins given free access to any projectile weapon in our overcrowded islands. Ah, but, y'see, that's my definition of cretins, I can bet that it wouldn't be their's.
It would be appreciated if the topic could be kept to the bowhunting laws of the UK please. It's contentious enough a topic as it is.
atb,
Toddy
Seems fair enough Mary. The sole problem is that UK law seems pretty straight-forward: Don't bowhunt! Obviously that reduces the discussion to "why" or "why not" change the law? (and of course the side discussion on the odds of that happening) And that in turn leads to comparisons of the success or failure of bowhunting elsewhere as examples.
I sell bows during our have-a-go archery sessions and would not regard the parents OR children we sell to as cretins. Nor would I wish to see England go down the path being followed by Scotland of ever more restrictions.
Note we only actually sell to their parents, never a child alone.
Note we only actually sell to their parents, never a child alone.
Reply to both Santaman2000 and Boatman.
We know the law says, "Don't Do It"; that in no way precludes our discussion of bowhunting or the legalities of the why and wherefor.....note bowhunting, not automatic rifles, please.
Selling bows is one thing; knowing what the buyer will do with them is entirely another. Cretinous behaviour isn't exclusive to those who aren't mummy's little darlings.
Scottish restrictions (or potential thereof ) to firearms and airguns isn't the topic under discussion. The law in the UK precludes hunting with a bow.
M
We know the law says, "Don't Do It"; that in no way precludes our discussion of bowhunting or the legalities of the why and wherefor.....note bowhunting, not automatic rifles, please.
Selling bows is one thing; knowing what the buyer will do with them is entirely another. Cretinous behaviour isn't exclusive to those who aren't mummy's little darlings.
Scottish restrictions (or potential thereof ) to firearms and airguns isn't the topic under discussion. The law in the UK precludes hunting with a bow.
M
Yeah. And TBH, it would seem that the odds of that changing are "slim to none." As you and BR have both said (at least I think he mentioned it too) you have an urbanized population that's unlikely to support it.
Did anyone here in the UK actually hunt with a bow in the 1960's though ? Anyone who hunted just used a rifle or shotgun....or a puntgun Boys still used catty's but very few hunted with them for the pot.
Urbanised society, and that was very distinct in the 1960's.
My father hunted, but he used a rifle and he refused to use a fishing rod. He would use a net or guddle, but that was 'unsporting' as he was told
That's another aspect we're inclined to overlook; hunting in the UK is 'sport' and the laws are very heavily biased towards that. Not food procurement, but sport. Hunting with a bow, like guddling for trout, was considered 'unsporting', and archery was for Olympic games and Robin Hood type pageants.
M
Boys still used catty's but very few hunted with them for the pot. Urbanised society, and that was very distinct in the 1960's.
My father hunted, but he used a rifle and he refused to use a fishing rod. He would use a net or guddle, but that was 'unsporting' as he was told
That's another aspect we're inclined to overlook; hunting in the UK is 'sport' and the laws are very heavily biased towards that. Not food procurement, but sport. Hunting with a bow, like guddling for trout, was considered 'unsporting', and archery was for Olympic games and Robin Hood type pageants.
M
Unnecessary to use such a phrase as "mummy's little darlings", just who are these supposed to be, some sort of over-indulged Southerners? Scottish restrictions are relevant because of the controversy over have-a-go archery and the sword legislation along with police actions that some might regard as heavy-handed such as seizing someone's stock of arrows for sale or raiding a souvenir shop. At the least this suggests that part of the UK would be totally unsympathetic to allowing hunting with the bow
I confess I still have not heard why, since we permit the hunting of various creatures in this country - from Rabbits to deer - why it is that we think people shouldn't hunt them with bows. I have some buddies in Australia who bow hunt and are highly ethical about it. I can't see why, if there is a demand, why people shouldn't do so here.
Clearly arrows do not fly as far as bullets - so it isn't a public safety issue.
Many countries have competency tests and licenses - so we could have something similar - so it isn't an animal safety issue.
Now sure an idiot could buy a bow, ignore the law and go hunting. But they could do that now if they are prepared to break the law. So its a not an "idiots could get bows" issue.
There just seems no rational reason to prevent it?
I don't bow hunt. I have no wish to bow hunt. But if someone is willing to prove themselves competent to the authorities, has land to hunt over, and legitimate quarry, then all I can see is that it requires great field craft, is quieter than most firearms, and carries more energy and lethality than, for example, an air rifle pellet. So why shouldn't they bow hunt? I think laws banning things should be based on logic and I cannot come up with a logical reason to ban bow hunting.
Clearly arrows do not fly as far as bullets - so it isn't a public safety issue.
Many countries have competency tests and licenses - so we could have something similar - so it isn't an animal safety issue.
Now sure an idiot could buy a bow, ignore the law and go hunting. But they could do that now if they are prepared to break the law. So its a not an "idiots could get bows" issue.
There just seems no rational reason to prevent it?
I don't bow hunt. I have no wish to bow hunt. But if someone is willing to prove themselves competent to the authorities, has land to hunt over, and legitimate quarry, then all I can see is that it requires great field craft, is quieter than most firearms, and carries more energy and lethality than, for example, an air rifle pellet. So why shouldn't they bow hunt? I think laws banning things should be based on logic and I cannot come up with a logical reason to ban bow hunting.
Pretty much the same here in the 60s. There were some bowhunters but then they were rare. It only took off later.
D...... My father hunted, but he used a rifle and he refused to use a fishing rod. He would use a net or guddle, but that was 'unsporting' as he was told
That's another aspect we're inclined to overlook; hunting in the UK is 'sport' and the laws are very heavily biased towards that. Not food procurement, but sport. Hunting with a bow, like guddling for trout, was considered 'unsporting', and archery was for Olympic games and Robin Hood type pageants.
M
ironically, that's the opposite here. Gun hunting in the 60s was, and still is now, for various reasons: sport, food, or species control, etc. Bowhunting in the 60s on the other hand was almost always (not quite, but almost) for the sport of doing it in a more difficult manner. That didn't change substantially until the bowhunters had their own separate season and the pot hunters added a bow to increase their hunting time.
Climb down off your horse; no comment was made about Scottish vs UK laws on bowhunting. Have a go archery happens up here too, I know of four archery clubs and one site that offers public roving in a fenced off area.....and I don't do archery, I am sure there are many more.
Virtually all Scottish Meets have archery too.
Parents who buy bows/airguns/catapults for children and then have no interest in overseeing that the child uses them responsibly. "My child would never....", are at the heart of many of the concerns that people have about them.....and that's true UK wide.
Raiding stock of arrows offered in a public market place ? yep, happened at the European market in Glasgow a few years back. Armour piercing bolts for sale there..... I have no issue with the police removing them. The trader was also offered quarrels made from steel rods, and I have no idea what they were intended to kill.
The sad thing was that the trader also had for sale some truly beautiful long bows and excellent leather work.
Culture and legalities and potential for breach of the peace....three things the Trader ought to have borne in mind before offering for sale.
Toddy
Similar threads
