A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer?

JimR · Nov 28, 2004

( 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.
)

Good point about not following up on a deer hit by an arrow. But I can tell you from a personal experience that once the deer breaks off the arrow, the blood stops flowing and the trail dissappears. The skin closes up where the arrow went in and stops the flow. I looked for a chest shot deer one year for 3 days. I even used a dog and we could not find him. On another note. A friend of mine just bagged a 220 pound 8 pointer in behind my house last weekend with a shot to the lungs with his bow.

Birdhunter1 · Nov 28, 2004

2 things would happen if that law were put into effect in IL (1) that guy woudn't get elected again and (2) there'd be alot of people with citations on that one law alone, if the DNR officers even decided to enforce it hardcore.

eee · Nov 28, 2004

if the DNR officers even decided to enforce it hardcore.

The DNR could not enforce it here,there are not enough DNR officers or days in the year. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Birdhunter1 · Nov 28, 2004

I always hoped my arrow woudl pass through, an arrow still in the deer will plug the hole shut. I've lost a deer once when teh arrow passed completely through right at it's heart, bled like crazy for 100 yards or so then tapered to very litel and 50 yards or so later we were finding nothing. Once the arrow stayed in and left a scant blood trail. Another time the arrow stayed in it sticking out each side and when the deer ran between two trees it snapped off on each side and bled like crazy, of course all the blood pooled up inside and when it finaly had a way out it bled like water out of a garden hose. Sometimes deer bleed alot sometimes very little, I usually give them at least an hour to run of and die before I start trailing and I would say IMHO bowhunters per capita are more ethical/dedicated to tracking a wounded animal than gun hunters per capita.

Hank · Nov 28, 2004

Here in Maryland, rifles are illegal 

Rifles are permitted in rural MD counties. The MD hunting regs even specify a minimum muzzle energy (1200 ft lbs) for rifles used hunting deer.

rmorgan · Nov 28, 2004

I can tell you from a personal experience that once the deer breaks off the arrow, the blood stops flowing and the trail dissappears. The skin closes up where the arrow went in and stops the flow. I looked for a chest shot deer one year for 3 days. I even used a dog and we could not find him 

Bob--I know that such things happen, and do have other bones to pick with this particular bow hunter (out of season and not authorized on our land or any of our neighbors', for beginners). But I've definitely learned something from you and others about the ability of a deer to drag out death by arrow.

Bob_Skurka · Nov 28, 2004

Here in Maryland, rifles are illegal 

 Rifles are permitted in rural MD counties. The MD hunting regs even specify a minimum muzzle velocity (1200 fps) for rifles used hunting deer.


I don't know about all of the states, but rifle hunting has been banned in many states already. Here in Indiana if you want a deer, you use a shotgun, muzzleloader, pistol or arrow. But no rifle. I guess our land is too flat and our towns are too close together. I know in some states that allow rifle hunting deer they limit the caliber to prevent rifles that use .222, 223 and similar rounds.

The fact that rifles have been banned for deer here is evidence that bans can pass, and it is not too big of a step away from banning deer hunting with a bow & arrow. But some folks may continue to think that bans will never happen. Eventhough they already started.

And as I type this, there are 6 deer in the field where I used to have a mini-orchard . . . I guess I should have invested in a fence when I planted those trees.

MikePA · Nov 28, 2004

But some folks may continue to think that bans will never happen. Eventhough they already started. 
IOW, you are equating regulating hunting for safety reasons with banning bow hunting?

EddieWalker · Nov 28, 2004

First you have to realize that these organizations don't actually care one way or another for the welfare of the animals, but are money makeing organizations dependent on using animals as a source of revenue.

Every single animals rights organization has a group of leaders earning six figure saleries, flying first class and staying in 5 star hotels.

The vast majority of their funds come from older female widows. They give the largest amounts of money and the most often. This is a proven resource. If you leave your wife a widow, odds are she will donate cash to one of these groups.

The bow hunting issue is a long standing one used by many anti groups worldwide. It comes and it goes sort of like a fashion. They have little chance of passing any law concerning it, but they will raise millions of dollars by using it as a focal point.

Hound hunting, trapping, bear hunting, mt. lion huning, goose hunting, doe hunts and exotic hunting are just a few of the diferent topics they change from in there normal cycle of raising funds.

Remember, not one anti hunting or animals rights group has actually done a single thing to benifit wildlife.

Hunters are responsible for the reitroduction of species, habitat improvement and management. All proven techniques to improve herds, numbers and health of the animals.

Every hunter knows that you have to protect the animals to keep them around.

Bob_Skurka · Nov 28, 2004

EddieWalker . . . I tend to agree with everything you wrote. There is no question that hunting taxes (license fees), hunters and organizations like the Issac Walton, etc are the actual people who help wildlife. The knee-jerk anti-crowd is probably the most destructive form of group when it comes to overall enviornmental & wildlife issues because they simply forget history and natural predators and balance.

MikePA . . . NOPE I am not equating them, but the net effect is the same.

So while I think logical regulation for safety concerns sometimes create situations where the irrational anti-groups can support those regulations simply because they are restrictive. So while the goals are totally different, the desirable outcome can become the same.

All I am trying to point out in this thread is that 2 very powerful groups, who have already amassed a $95 Million warchest, are joining together with a common goal. Further, I am trying to point out their tactics. Some folks feel they are a future threat. Some folks discount them an nuts. Some folks bury their heads in the sand. Some folks feel that it is not their issue because they don't bow hunt.

As a non-hunting land owner with more than my share of deer damage, I think this is an enviornmental issue in addition to a bowhunting issue. As outlined earlier in the thread by MossRoad, deer virtually destroyed our State Parks. Farmers know what overpopulation costs them. I know what it has cost me in terms of real money, and in terms of grief. I also believe that 5 or 10 years from now many folks will wonder why they can't hunt in their state or county or whatever. Unless they are aware of it now and keep their eye on the activities of these nutball anti-groups.