A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer?

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red">
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. </font>

OK guys, my question to you (all who agree with the above statements) is WHY don't you think there is a chance in . . . ?

But before you answer, let's review some things. Anti-Smoking laws. Anti-Gun laws. Anti-clubbing baby seals laws. Charcoal grill bans. Anti-trapping laws. Anti-dog hunting laws (using dogs to track). Drunk driving laws. Speed limit laws. Handgun bans. Woodburning fireplace bans. In various parts of this great country, each and every one of these things is banned already (to one degree or another) and nobody would have ever beleived any of them were possible. All of them were passed as a way of helping the greater good and or preventing the distasteful from happening.

 

[roho]

Here I go again! MY 2CENTS WORTH!!! Maybe there ought to be a license for the members of those type of orgiziations! The 1st qualification is to have to spend a week in one of AMERICAS BEST SLAULTER HOUSES & #2 follow a meat buyer from some of the equine(considered one of americans companion animals)auctions to the Frenches dinner tables! & as far as vegetarions, How many animals die because the land where their vegies were grown has been cleared off!
Bottom line if a person is reading these post, It's like the preacher preaching to the choir! We all have the same basic beliefs and Oh heck that's got to more than 2cents worth! Sorry for ramblin on but I think we all agree on the basic thought "that banning would only cause more problems than not!"

 

[DannyD]

for sure on the qualify, too many hunters each year are killed by errant shots, or by those who get gunny on the first thing that moves.

Eating/not wasting meat is essential to good ethics in hunting. I dont like deer meat as hamburger, but have friends that did when I had some, and plenty of support groups could use it.

 

[BillyP]

Mike,

First of all, all laws and regulations have unintended consequences but we still need them.

Second, a lot of mandatory courses are taught by certified volunteers. Massachusetts Hunter Education Program is one of many.

I'm letting Bob have his thread back. Just thought it would be something to think about and still think it would be a good idea.

PS
Thanks Danny, I'm glad someone agrees with me /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[rmorgan]

For me, the interesting thing about this thread is the commentary on arrows vs. slugs. While I haven't hunted much (and when I have, the deer haven't had much to worry about /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif), I do question the proposition that bow hunting is as effective as firearm hunting, unless the bow hunter is expert and dedicated. Two cases in point. First, a number of years ago, a friend was bow hunting on our land with his teenaged brother. His brother hit a doe and prmptly lost sight of it. My friend, a very serious hunter, tracked it for what I recall as six or seven hours before finding it in order to finish the job. Many would not do this. Second, this past spring, the coyotes let us know about a 10-pointer a couple hundred yards from the house. (The rack and face were intact, so I took the head to a museum-beetle guy, and now have a gorgeous European-mount skull.) When I hauled the carcass up to where I could get the head, I found about 3" of broken-off arrow in his flank. Pretty obvious to me that he had lost the hunter and then rubbed the arrow up against a tree to try and dislodge it, breaking it off--and while there are two sides to the story, my assumption is that the hunter didn't care enough to finish what he started.

I don't know whether either animal would have died faster from a badly-placed slug than from a badly-placed arrow, or whether the buck would have suffered less had the unethical hunter who failed to track him used a gun. But I do think that there must be an objective answer to the question whether bows result in substantially more--or, maybe, less--suffering on the part of the animals. If the purposes of hunting are to harvest useful game for use as food, control escalating wildlife populations, and have fun in the woods, then it's harder to justify a means of killing the animals which is significantly less human than others. I have no idea what the answer is, but our two experiences with bow hunting gone bad have biased me against that method.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Rick, let me summarize what you wrote from the perspective of the Fund for Animals & the Humane Society Basically you are an occasional hunter, and you just said that bow hunting is inhumane based on what you have seen.

Now, put your words into the hands of a skilled manipulator of words, and all of a sudden the anti-hunters have just divided gun hunters from bow hunters. Further, NON-hunters, those who are neither anti-hunters, nor hunters, may well be swayed by foul pictures and descriptions of deer that have died slowly due to mis-placed shots.

It boils down to the fact that divide & conquer is an effective means of winning a war. This thread is simple proof of that. We already see non-hunters and gun hunters lining up against bow hunters. Now most of the folks on this board might not actually vote against deer hunting, but most of the folks on this board are land owners who see deer on a daily basis. But the city folks think deer are just like the cartoon Bambi. Regardless of how you hunt, if you want your kids and grandkids to have the opportunity, then you need to be aware that these orgainizations are nipping at your heels. And from what I read here, I suspect they will someday win that war. (unless the hunters stop bickering amongst themselves and join together to show what happens when deer are allowed to overpopulate)

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> This thread is simple proof of that. We already see non-hunters and gun hunters lining up against bow hunters.</font>
That's your interpretation. What I see are people offering their opinions about which is the better hunting method and not people 'lining up against bow hunters' nor hunters 'bickering amongst themselves'.

To leap to the conclusion that one set of hunters (gun) would align themselves with anti-hunters against another group of hunters (bow) is, to say the least, far fetched. To predict that one group of hunters would idly stand by while bow hunters are singled out is only slightly less so.

 

[rmorgan]

Well, Bob, point taken; however, I'm guessing that if everybody on this board refrained from saying things which others could twist into a pretzel it'd be a pretty quiet place. Plus, what if bow hunting is in fact less humane--is that information not potentially relevant to the decision of each hunter as to how to proceed, each landowner what to permit in their own woods, etc.? I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments--nor do I think that there is the slightest chance that all game hunting will be outlawed, soon or ever. One of the positive things I think is happening now is that many conservation organizations and sporting organizations understand that their goals are not inconsistent. Sierra Club does not oppose hunting; neither do the Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society, the Izaak Walton League, or the Defenders of Wildlife. These organizations recognize that hunters are among the most dedicated users of natural resources and that there is plenty of room in the woods--so long as there are woods and wildife, which are by far the more important issues, and the ones on which sporting groups and environmental groups find ample common ground.

I figure the most inflexible groups on each side cancel each other out and leave a mightly wide swath for the rest of us to look at the facts and reach conclusions regarding what makes a responsible hunter without fear of lending aid and comfort to either extreme.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

MikePA, I'm certainly willing to admit that I am pushing the arguements to the far extreme here. And I am doing it prematurely because these things take years to progress. But they do progress. The evidence of incramentalism is certainly in our history. The tactics of divide and conqure are well established by these groups. Obviously awareness of the situation is critical to stopping the anti-everything extremist groups.

Me, well, I'm not going hunting anytime in the foreseeable future. But I wish someone would take out some of the dozens of deer that I see almost every day. I guess that is up to you guys who hunt . . . for as long as are willing to fight for the privledge.

 

[DannyD]

Morgan,

Your deer with the arrow in it most likely suffered less than if that had been a slug. Fact is the wound healed over and the arrow would have apparently caused little if any damage, or the deer would not have been able to survive. If that had been a slug, the entry wound itself would have become infected, more likely than the arrow wound. Also the animal may have been mamed by the blunt force of a slug, where the arrow did not do this.

A properly placed arrow is just as deadly as a slug, given that both are being used ethically and effectively with relation to range, condition, and atmosphere. There are many out there that will take up a bow, shoot a few in the bullseye at 20 yards and think they have it down, but then shoot at a deer at 60 yards (they can not tell the diff when antlers are used to determine distance). These hunters should be led out and not allowed to hunt till they have proven themselves ethical in the decisions they make.

I hunted all my life till I got to where I could not walk well enough. I would not hunt with just anyone, and would not hunt with some of my friends, due to the way they were hunting.

Back to the thread, bowhunters, gun, pistol, whatever, you can bet these people with an agenda WILL do whatever to make themselves a noted part of the process to eliminate the sport. I still remember the times when hunter were harrassed in the field by these that wanted to disrupt ethical hunting. These people are basically crazy enough to take an arrow for the cause. Be careful out there.

As I said before, the very best thing anyone can do for conservation is to buy a hunting license and a deer or whatever tag and they dont even have to use it.