a wounded animal can cause all sorts of damage easily avoided by not being a luddite
Printable View
a wounded animal can cause all sorts of damage easily avoided by not being a luddite
Going off wiki it seems that it's still allowed in much of the rest of the civilised world and in the US it's up to the states; with it being really heavily restricted in some countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara
Keep in mind we allowed hunting with dogs up until the turn of the century which was considered by some to be a much more inhumane practice (and upper class highjinks and good eugenics by others).
a compound bow with a decent broadhead tip on the arrow and a decent shot will take a deer down no different than a rifle round, it just has to be done closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara
Its easier to be incompetent with a bow than it is to be incompetent with a gun in ways which cause additional suffering is the main point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabandoa compound bow with a decent broadhead tip on the arrow and a decent shot will take a deer down no different than a rifle round, it just has to be done closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara
missused tool cause damage non shocker more at 11.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeckersIts easier to be incompetent with a bow than it is to be incompetent with a gun in ways which cause additional suffering is the main point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabandoa compound bow with a decent broadhead tip on the arrow and a decent shot will take a deer down no different than a rifle round, it just has to be done closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara
From Hansard on the Deer hunting bill 1963:
Quote:
The only thing that I could get from the chairman of the Grand National Archery Society was the very guarded comment that if the bow is to be included as a permitted weapon 891 in the Bill it would have to be clearly defined in regard to the draw weight and the arrow would have to be equally clearly defined as to the size and design of the head.
I should like to suggest to the House that when we come to Committee we should deal with the archers in this way: at the moment they cannot come as a body and say to us that this is the definition, this is the right kind of weapon, this is how we want to conduct our hunting archery, but it should be perfectly possible, at a later stage, if the archers could get together to produce a correct definition of the bows and the arrows that they want used with the blessing of the two governing bodies of archery, to include bows and arrows in the Bill subject to those definitions. I hope that the House will exclude them at the moment. I should add the very strong feelings expressed on this by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
Quote:
There is one point on the use of the bow. There is no doubt whatever that the longbow is a powerful enough, and indeed an accurate enough, weapon, provided that somebody knows how to shoot it off. I am not at all sure that the standard of skill in archery, particularly when shooting at what may be a moving target, is anything like good enough to allow, or even to consider, the bow being brought into action for the destruction of deer.
I do not know whether it would be feasible to license the use of the bow, or whether a system could be devised to test whether the user is likely to be able to hit the target. I imagine that it would be very difficult.
why don't you chase deer with a rock like a real man
Because we can afford better than rocks in the decadent west :troll:Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoR
I can speak to this since bow hunting is pretty popular here in Oregon for both deer and elk. Bow hunting is more challenging because you have to get closer to the animal in question, and the skill required to close to a distance of 25 yards to take a bow shot is significantly more than that needed to close to 100 yards for rifles.
Basically, anyone that's able to take a shot at an animal that close probably isn't going to fuck it up because they've already proven themselves to be competent by getting into a position to be able to take a shot.
Second, the math for killing an animal with an arrowhead is different than that of a bullet. Bullets rely on kinetic energy, it's like hitting someone with a hammer.
An arrow cuts it's victim and causes hemorrhaging, and is reliant on momentum.
A modern broadhead going ~350fps will bore it's way through your sternum and out through your spine with no problem leaving behind a nice inch-diameter hole to see through.
Deer stands. But yeah pretty muchQuote:
Originally Posted by I Legionnaire
If you allowed bow hunting here you'd just have a bunch of rich idiots firing arrows willy nilly around their estates leaving a load of sharp litter everywhere.
Rich people don't really do much deer stalking in England (Scotland different story) it's menial labour for the most part.
A colleague of mine is into shooting/hunting. He's not a toff by any stretch but goes off to do deer stalking in Scotland and goes fox hunting most weekends. He's quite critical of the ban on hunting with hounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradox
'A fit fox would usually escape so it was a good way of culling the weak or old ones who had to rely on 'easy' prey. Now we just shoot any fucker.'
people who hunt for sport are mongs anyway
'sport'
why would you hunt foxes anyway (as long as they don't poach livestock)
Because it makes for good upper class hijinks based on a centuries old tradition that supports the rural economy. Also old/infirm foxes tend to poach livestock.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoR
Foxes do fuck up sheep and lambs something rotten. (brother has a farm with lambs and a few sheep)
Yes. People shouldn't hunt animals.
Unless they are seagulls.
FUCK SEAGULLS.
People can bow hunt and shoot seafucks all day long for all I care.
For a short moment I read that as "hunt shoot and fuck seagulls all day long".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandzibar