A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer?

[bmac]

<font color="blue"> But I believe spearing, clubbing and bare hand hunting are outlawed in most places. Why? Because the majority of people find those methods barbaric, cruel, </font> <font color="red"> un-sporting </font> <font color="blue"> and inhumane. </font>

MR,

I would agree with all of the adjectives you offered regarding the primitive methods of hunting you listed except un-sporting. Those methods would at least level the playing field a little for the deer. As a matter of fact, I've often envisioned (absurdly, in my warped sense of humor way) that hunting, to be truely a sport, would prohibit weapons of any kind. My guess is the "hunted" would do much better under these conditions.

Obviously, this post does not merit a reply as it was offered solely to humor me and does nothing to address Bob's original concern.

 

[BillyP]

<font color="blue"> Who would enforce this requirement? Who would define the requirements? Who would do the testing? Who would track the results? </font>

I'd think it would fall under the guidance of the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

As far is who would define the requirements. Here in Oklahoma the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation hold several meeting a year, throughout the state, to discuss reg changes. The hunters/fishers have a big say so in what changes are made.

 

[MossRoad]

Hee hee. The deer would have some revenge.

A friend of mine is an avid catch and release bass person. I told him for real sport, he should try catch and release skunk trapping. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[MikePA]

I should have been clearer...

Right now, a hunting license is, by and large, a paperwork process. If a skill requirement is added, where will this testing take place and who will do it, how will it be managed, etc.?

 

[BillyP]

Mike, I don't have all the answers but it could be done something like the Hunter's Safety Course. Probably phased in by date of birth, tested in small groups and in the field. If you pass, you get a certificate and if you don't, you don't hunt.

What I'm saying is there's more to hunting (or should be) than a hunting license and a weapon.

What hunter, in his right mind, wants someone out there who can't hit what he's shooting at?

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> What I'm saying is there's more to hunting (or should be) than a hunting license and a weapon. What hunter, in his right mind, wants someone out there who can't hit what he's shooting at? </font>
Billy, I don't disagree with you. My problem with this idea it represents a net increase in bureaucracy. Additional people would be needed to test, manage and enforce a skills based hunting requirement.

 

[DocHeb]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( My problem with this idea it represents a net increase in bureaucracy. Additional people would be needed to test, manage and enforce a skills based hunting requirement. )</font>

Isn't that the purpose of a bureaucracy - validate the need of their existence and expand to always exceed the budget alloted?

 

[boustany]

The first thought is "thin edge of the wedge"
The second thought is they probably don't have a chance in h*ll of succeeding thankfully.

I've never bowhunted, but I imagine the general rule is that a well placed shot is humane. I personally wouldn't shot an animal unless I was completely sure of a quick death.

Bowhunters I know tend not to take 'pot shots' because their season is usually dependant on one well placed arrow. Some firearms hunters blaze away and leave animals horribly wounded (snout shot off, etc.).

I'm off to Michigan for the blackpowder season on Friday. That's usually 'one shot on kill'

Hey: PETA was trying to get beekeeping banned. These sort are pretty creative!

 

[BillyP]

Mike, I'd bet you could get more qualified volunteers to do the testing than you'd need.

As far as enforcing it, that would be done just like any other law is enforced. For example, if you're out hunting without a hunting license, you get fined. You wouldn't need any more manpower to enforce it than you have already.

The added paper work wouldn't be bad, after the initial setup.

 

[MikePA]

Many laws and regulations start out as a good idea. After all, who could be against a requirement that hunters pass a skills test. Lawmakers do not propose legislation that depends upon volunteers. The vested interests in the state game commission, either the management of the commission, or the employees (or their representatives) would lobby for a larger budget, more staff, etc. By the time the bill came up for a vote, you wouldn't be able to recognize it. Instead of just requiring certification of the completion of a skills test, there'd have to be someone in the game commission who would define the requirements, someone to make sure the requirements remained current, someone to enforce that the testing outfits would be certified, etc.

Multiple requirements for archery;

1. Open sights, peep sights.
2. Compound bow, recurve bow.
3. Different kinds of arrows.
4. Different distances
5. Open field, brush, woods.

Multiple requirements for long guns;
1. Open sights, peep sights, scope.
2. Above .30 caliber and below.
3. Shotgun or rifle.

Pistol requirement, etc.

Hmm, the new archery requirements, as defined by the state game commission (unelected) would be a 2 inch grouping at 100 yards. Sorry, there won't be any archery licenses issued this year. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

The law of unintended consequences in full bloom.