A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer?

[DUMBDOG]

My personal preference is running them down, but as I get older it is getting harder to do. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

No matter how one will hunt, be it with a gun, pistol or bow, it is up to the skill of the hunter and shot placement that will determine the disposition of the animal. As far as any pain to the animal, I do not believe that any of the methods that we use are completely pain free, but it is up to the hunter to be as accurate as possible with their shot to make the end come quickly.

The argument of the sharp blade of a broadpoint not being painless is somewhat not believeable as the animal has to bleed out for it to die. My personal preference is a high powered rifle that when it strikes the animal the impact of the projectile along with the bullet itself will cause the animal to fall down dead and not even know that it had been hit.

But no matter how one would hunt it is a personal preference on the method, but the act of hunting itself goes back to the time that man first figured out how to do it.

There will always be someone out there trying to curb our rights to hunt, fish or trap. It is our obligation to protect these rights for the future generations.

 

[Gatorboy]

<font color="blue"> But, I think the problem with bow-hunting is that its not as accurate. Deer get shot in non-lethal places in the body, thus causing more suffering. </font>

Bow hunting is not accurate? Have you seen the Olympic Archery events on TV? I shoot field archery, and you would be surprised at how ccurately you can shoot an arrow.

The longest target we shoot at is from 80 yards (alot farther than the 25 yards or less distance you would hunt from), and most of my shots fall within 2 feet of the bullseye. This is with using a 5-pin site. Those using scopes get even better results. If you are talking strickly longbow, or bows wthout any site at all, then I would agree with you.

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue">A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer? </font>
A National ban would have to happen in the US Congress and, as such, would override the existing laws in 50 states. Talk about a state's rights issue. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Ain't gonna happen.

Plus the questions you've asked are not new. They are the same, old, tired question asked in every argument about hunting.

<font color="blue"> So for those folks who think that a ban can NOT happen, then all I have to say is that you are wrong. </font>
To prove us wrong, please explain how a national ban could happen?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike, I would suggest it would be a long road, but it would start with a few states banning it and eventually lead to a national ban. It would be simple incramentalism.

Take a look at No Smoking laws. They started local.

Take a look at Handgun restrictions. They stated lcoal.

The concept of banning Fox Hunts in England was consisdered silly a decade ago.

 

[DannyD]

Hunting seasons are a form of a ban, licenses are, permits, tags, etc.

When my father was a boy, his idea of breakfast was the game he got with a single shot rifle on the way to milk cows, now with seasons, you can not do that. Seasons are good for control and conservation etc, but they are a form of ban.

And those that want to ban whatever want you to THINK it will never happen. That is just the time that it will happen.

As mentioned on here before, this is nothing but activists chipping away at our privelidges to suit thier silly desires and agenda.

 

[DocHeb]

Bob, I think you're right.

First they will do it in one or two states like California. Then it will spread. In another 20 years a whole generation of hunters will be gone, and will be replaced by people raised to think that crabs named Sebastian sing "Under the Sea", and Nemo really was looking for his father. Increased anthropomorphism (see "Bambi" as the initial foray), and an education/media system that supports a liberal bias will raise another generation whose only exposure to hunting will be history texts.

Of course it can happen here.

I remember a TV special about gun control in England - they showed old farmers turning in their 80 year old shotguns, and the police would chop it in half with a metal chop saw right in front of the guy. There were tears in the eyes of several of the old gents. Ask them if they ever thought "it could happen there."

If you think it "can't happen here", "they" have you right where they want you - not on the defensive and unaware of the storm gathering behind you.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Chris . . . California is a liberal state and may go for it, especially with the urban influences of LA & San Fran. But also consider small urban states like New Jersey. Or states like Hawaii.

On this thread I see a few things that are interesting:
#1) Confidence: "it can't happen here"
#2) Denial: "it can't happen here"
#3) Division: gun versus bow = humane vs inhumane

Points #1 & #2 work very well together, some people just put their head in the sand and don't see the efforts . . . other people simply believe that it won't happen. But the net effect of both points 1 & 2 is that neither group of people will even begin to become involved until well after their enemy is deeply established.

Point #3 it very powerful in that it brings the fight down to virtually insignificant numbers of peoples. So if just the bowhunters are attacked and the muzzleloaders and shotgunner and riflemen don't fight along with them then the bow hunters will lose. Then the next group will be attacked.

I don't have a nag in this race, but for those of you who do, remember that your opponents are well organized, have a $95,000,000 warchest amassed already, and are willing to win the battle with a series of very small victories. Think of it as if it were cancer. It starts with a single cell. If you don't fight it early and fight it hard, you've got a real problem.

 

[plumboy]

I think the the prob with bow hunting is it takes alot of practice and time spent actually shooting instead of hanging out in wallyworld on friday night shopping for things that will get them that trophy when they head to the country saturday morning.They can buy an endless amount of arrows so missing or gut shots are just practice.I'm sure there are people that have respect for what hunting meant through evolution and dont treat it like a video game so a nationwide ban might not be for the best.What is needed is to figure out who should fill their freezer in the woods and who needs to go to the piggly wiggly.My place is a no hunt zone unless I need to for whatever reason.I do know bows are deadly and accurate but not as deadly as a gun for the average hunter.

 

[BillyP]

I got a question for you guys.

Don't you think one should have to qualify (hit what you're shooting at) with the weapon of choice to be able to hunt? Just because one has a bow or rifle/gun, does not make a hunter.

I'm also a firm believer in eating what you kill. Not just the best parts but the less meaty too. If you want that big tough trophy buck, you need to eat it also.

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue">Don't you think one should have to qualify (hit what you're shooting at) with the weapon of choice to be able to hunt? </font>
Who would enforce this requirement? Who would define the requirements? Who would do the testing? Who would track the results?