bow hunting in eire? come walk on egg shells with ivan

ivanthehunter

WARNING STOP! This contains possible debate that maybe demeed controversial by some hunters. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED:DI want to post this am i allowed??

---

Archery/Hunting:
How to change or challenge the law in relation to bow hunting..??

i believe that with an accurate xbow rabbits can be humanly killed or at the very least killed just as humanly as a fenn trap. I further more believe that bow hunting can provide a much sporting chance for the quarry than a rifle with the most powerful sights that money can buy and bullets to boot. Surprisingly this form of hunting is common place in the U.S and in my opinion requires a much higher level of skill and temperament and understanding of the hunters quarry. Ambush is easiest of all bow hunting with stalking with a bow prob the hardest stalk you,ll ever have,
I intend to drop in the statute reg on the wild life act 1976 section 34.
http://193.178.1.79/1976/en/act/pub/...#zza39y1976s34
And show that the section where it says"snare, tarp,arrow,dart,spear or any similar device etc etc".
I intend to openly attack the wording with reference to "spear or any other similar device" and i intend to show that "similar device" in the context refers only to "similar to a spear" and not similar to a trap!!.
With that covered i will clam that there is no reference to a bolt, ( a bolt is the object fired from a xbow, it is not an arrow as arrows are built with different physical requirements ie they have nocks, cock feathers and are built to different degrees of spine(strength)to aviod archers paradox) contd: i will claim that there is no reference to a bolt in this section 34 and as such this could be argued in a court of law.

As weight for this argument i put it to you that a xbow is now a firearm and we all know that people who hold firearms dont use them in a manner that brakes the law.. So legislation has once again saved us from ourselfs
The reasons for the introduction of the xbow to the firearms list in the first place was in my opinion, the easy at which such an accurate weapon could used/purchased. In letters between Mr E.Stag T.D and another minster??? Stag wanted the lot banned to the restricted list, by all i mean long bows and compound bows. The only hard facts which kept these two weapons off the restricted list(firearms list?) was the difficulty in any one concealing such a thing under their coat and the difficulty in any one actually using these weapon with any degree of skill in order to threaten human life.. Stag believed totally that these would be used in post office robberies etc and that they would generally replace the xbow in the hands of thugs....
As in as far as the wildlife act goes, i can only imagen that the powers that presided at the time seen the arrows as a crud and harsh method of mammal demise!(protected or unprotected)
The other factor in this was the availably of xbows(all bows at time of 1st print), they where openly for sale in any shop to any person of any age(i bought one)and the wild life people had to consider that they were going to allow the use of an un-licensed weapon(all bowes at the time of print !st print) in the pursuit of game if they got their wording wrong.(which i beleive they did (bolts)and they believe they didn't)
however now that the xbow are FAC controlled, I believe that a change in the law would only produce responsible hunters.. I personally think that the air rifle legislation would work well with xbows.
I see xbows as a true form of sport hunting as i find it hard to see a field of rabbits being wiped out by a xbow in a night or 2 but the old.22 cleans out the place pretty quick..
Dont judge this till you have looked in to bow hunting in the U.S.
DeV
maybe its to soon for this one but i feel that these debates are good for hunters as each one now knows the law a little better. :cool:

dresden8

No. No. No! Ivan you say.

ivanthehunter

this is genuine debate here.. the laws were challenged five years age with the temporary act and a successful out come was had for the man in the street..
law is made here in Ireland in 3 way 1 by precedence,2 by lobbying,3 by challenging it.. maybe there are more.???? but i challenge it:mad:

It wasn't me!

You're welcome to contend it. I suggest asking your local TD's to make your representation to the Dail. Personally though, I would suggest that the energy of a crossbow quarrel might be questionable for humane dispatch. Open to correction, but is it going to match a good hollow-point round for killing power?

ivanthehunter

some arrows weigh in at 300grain and move off the string at over 330ft per second.. they have been well documented as going clear through their target , ie deer

It wasn't me!

That's not really the objective though. Will it provide the impact energy for a clean kill?

ivanthehunter

its not about impact energy with an "arrow or bolt" the "arrow or bolt" does not disintegrate as in the case of a rifle round.. What bow hunter depend on is the style of the arrow/bolt head. ie Broad heads or triple heads.. they depend on these being broad and sharp to cause the most amount off deep organ bleeding.

It wasn't me!

Does it kill as humanely as a rifle bullet though? Is it going to impart the shock damage and energy? If it doesn't, in my opinion it doesn't have a place in hunting, as it's causing unnecessary suffering.

ivanthehunter

do duck die instantly when shot with shot gun!!! i would saw no.. I also think that rats(still one of god creatures) aren,t killed instantly with poison or traps.. there death is secured but not necessarily instant.. And what of the christen symbol, the fish it drowns sloewly... Agh but drowning is a lovely death:rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

But we try to minimise it. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't try to make your appeal, but I personally would disagree, and would find it hard to support, for the above reasons.

ivanthehunter

I see a valid thought process in you concerns and i would say to you that the intention here is not to convince you that this would be suitable for deer as i wrongly hinted at in my first response, but rather this would be suitable in the same regard as an air-rifle, ie rabbits fox mink gray squirrels even rats if arrow/bolt retrieval wasn't an issue

It wasn't me!

No be honest, my concerns still remain. I don't think it has the energy to deliver a humane kill.

ivanthehunter

ivanthehunter wrote: »

do duck die instantly when shot with shot gun!!! i would saw no.. I also think that rats(still one of god creatures) aren,t killed instantly with poison or traps.. there death is secured but not necessarily instant.. And what of the christen symbol, the fish it drowns sloewly... Agh but drowning is a lovely death:rolleyes:

The Government are only concerned that an animals death is secured.. lets be realist here if you were shooting fox(which you cant really stalk) you have to call,em tight or ambush his run, in both cases you,d be aiming for a 30-meter shot max.. A 1 inch wide broadhead at 270ft/sec(out at 40m) is not going to stop for bone.. Aim for the heart and the beast will drop in seconds if not straight away.. the only thing that happens on a lung shot is a small run, a sit down and a long sleep..End of.. The problem arises when hunters break cover on a poor shoot. the animals run away on adrenalin.. So hunters must stick to there cover and some time the art of tracking will be necessary.
perhaps it could be allowed under a competency test of your shooting ability or you record on the boards:rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

The government is concerned with unnecessary cruelty here. The death may be assured, but a fox's death is assured if a poor hunter blows off a jaw or gets a serious intestinal hit. The fox will die, but it will not be quick, and is to be avoided. The use of bow as a hunting tool, I feel does not measure up in terms of its potential to secure a humane kill except in the most unfortunate of occasions, and therefore shouldn't be allowed. That's my belief. If you want to change it, lobby your local TD's and local council and such. I'm not shifting on this, and I can't help you, so there's little point staying here to talk to me.

ivanthehunter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The government is concerned with unnecessary cruelty here. QUOTE]
If the gov are so concerned about animal welfare and instant death rates form suitable cal weapons, why are you allowed shoot a fox with a reg .22 if you want. And what about the fox hunt and the poor fox get ****** to bits.. Agh sure lets stop the Red deer Hound hunt thats carried out yearly in Meath.... :eek::eek::cool:
:pThere is more than one type of bolt at the shooting range these days:o

It wasn't me!

.22 still imparts more energy than a crossbow, in a more efficient way. We've had the fox-hunting debates. I'm not going into those again, go read them if you want the information. Really, a bow or a crossbow is not an efficient tool for killing and hunting. If you want to use one, for whatever reason, lobby your TD's, really, but if you want to hunt more efficiently, use a gun. Either way, I don't think you'll get much support here. It's been civil thus far, but I'd drop it now if I were you.

ivanthehunter

bring it on..I,m sticking to the point here old chap and thats it:cool:

Gerri

It wasn't me! wrote: »

.22 still imparts more energy than a crossbow, in a more efficient way. We've had the fox-hunting debates. I'm not going into those again, go read them if you want the information. Really, a bow or a crossbow is not an efficient tool for killing and hunting. If you want to use one, for whatever reason, lobby your TD's, really, but if you want to hunt more efficiently, use a gun. Either way, I don't think you'll get much support here. It's been civil thus far, but I'd drop it now if I were you.

Bows are used in the US for all kinds of hunting so I think your statement about them not being efficient for killing is way off. Perhaps if you were to watch a few bow hunting videos it might enlighten you. The type of bow or croosbow Ivan refers to is not the type that you may make with a piece of string and a sapling from a tree but a very engineered piece of kit with specialised arrowheads. In the US they have a bow,muzzleloader,shotgun and rifle season for deer, also what methods were used for hunting deer before the invention of firearms? Pointy sticks and bows with arrowheads. In fact there are still spears manufactured for use by beaters on boar hunts in Europe in case they get charged by a wounded boar. I suppose because it would be too dangerous for firearms as they would possibly be shooting towards the hunters in these circumstances. Perhaps a little more research is needed before you dismiss Ivan's opinion.

Here's a link http://www.bowhunting.net/

Mellor

Gerri wrote: »

Bows are used in the US for all kinds of hunting so I think your statement about them not being efficient for killing is way off. Perhaps if you were to watch a few bow hunting videos it might enlighten you. The type of bow or croosbow Ivan refers to is not the type that you may make with a piece of string and a sapling from a tree but a very engineered piece of kit with specialised arrowheads. In the US they have a bow,muzzleloader,shotgun and rifle season for deer, also what methods were used for hunting deer before the invention of firearms? Pointy sticks and bows with arrowheads. In fact there are still spears manufactured for use by beaters on boar hunts in Europe in case they get charged by a wounded boar. I suppose because it would be too dangerous for firearms as they would possibly be shooting towards the hunters in these circumstances. Perhaps a little more research is needed before you dismiss Ivan's opinion.

Here's a link http://www.bowhunting.net/

Prehaps is you learnt what efficient means before you quote where bows they are used. Nobody is suggesting that a bow or xbow ia not able to dispatch relevant quarry. But it not efficient at doing so. Efficiency is based on stadard levels (applies to everything not just hunting) and the standard level for this stuff is seen as a rifle. A .220 rifle is able to kill a deer, but its not consistant enough to be allowed. A bow is able, but is also is not consistant to be allowed. US law is different.


I'll respond to Ivans comment now.

It wasn't me!

Precisely. I don't think one should use tools unsuited to the job when far more suitable ones are available. It doesn't make sense.

Mellor

Hows things Ivan, up yo youtr old tricks.
I'm always up for a bit of debate. so i'll give this a shot.

ivanthehunter wrote: »

i believe that with an accurate xbow rabbits can be humanly killed or at the very least killed just as humanly as a fenn trap.

As humane as a fenn trap, probably, But aren't fenn traps illegal on this basis

Surprisingly this form of hunting is common place in the U.S and in my opinion requires a much higher level of skill and temperament and understanding of the hunters quarry.

I agree, to be good with a xbow you need to be very skilled. To get to a level of consistant accuracy you need to be good. This is one reason why it is not allowed. If they were allowed for hunting people could use them for hunting without the required level of skill. This would results in poorly placed shots while the hunter was learning. The results of poorly placed shots is either misses, which is acceptable. Or non-fatal hits such as grazing shots, limb hits etc. These are not acceptable as they do not kill quickly. These shots would be far more common with a xbow than any other because the xbow requires a much higher level of skill (as you said)

..... the wild life act 1976 section 34. ......

And show that the section where it says"snare, tarp,arrow,dart,spear or any similar device etc etc".
I intend to openly attack the wording with reference to "spear or any other similar device" and i intend to show that "similar device" in the context refers only to "similar to a spear" and not similar to a trap!!.

It could be argued that arrow covers bolts. I agree that they are not the same. But similar does not apply only to spear. They are plenty of things not mentioned, fletchlets and sabots for example. These are covered by similar. If you want to argue that similar applies only to spear, then I point to the full wording of the section.

Wildlife Act 1976 wrote:

hunt any wild bird or wild mammal by means of a trap, snare, net, line, hook, arrow, dart, spear or similar device, instrument or missile, or birdlime or any substance of a like nature, or any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying bait,

I have highlighted above missile, which you left out. A bolt or quarrel from a crossbow is a missile and therefore covered in the Act.

With that covered i will clam that there is no reference to a bolt, ( a bolt is the object fired from a xbow, it is not an arrow as arrows are built with different physical requirements ie they have nocks, cock feathers and are built to different degrees of spine(strength)to aviod archers paradox) contd: i will claim that there is no reference to a bolt in this section 34 and as such this could be argued in a court of law.

See above

As weight for this argument i put it to you that a xbow is now a firearm and we all know that people who hold firearms dont use them in a manner that brakes the law.. So legislation has once again saved us from ourselfs

There is nothing to prove that people who hold firearms do not break the law, in fact I believe the opposite is true, some people who hold firearms legally, do break the law.
If you want to disect every letter of the law a xbow is not a firearm.
But is was included as a firearm for registration purposes only.

The other factor in this was the availably of xbows(all bows at time of 1st print), they where openly for sale in any shop to any person of any age(i bought one)and the wild life people had to consider that they were going to allow the use of an un-licensed weapon(all bowes at the time of print !st print) in the pursuit of game if they got their wording wrong.(which i beleive they did (bolts)and they believe they didn't)

as previously shown, bolts are covered in the act.

I see xbows as a true form of sport hunting as i find it hard to see a field of rabbits being wiped out by a xbow in a night or 2 but the old.22 cleans out the place pretty quick.

Thats true, but it is not reason to allow it. Hunting with a hand fired projectile such as a spear or hacket isn't going to wipe out a field, but there is no reason to ever allow it.

Dont judge this till you have looked in to bow hunting in the U.S.

I approach everything with an open mind. and I believe that xbows could be safely used for hunting in the right hands, but the average person will nit be at this level, and I imagine that only a few people in the whole country are.


I await your comments, debate is good for broading understanding

packas

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No be honest, my concerns still remain. I don't think it has the energy to deliver a humane kill.

I had a compound hunting bow a few years ago.From what I've read the idea of a broadhead (usually a pyraimd with 3 really sharp blades) is to casue massive blood loss leading to a quick death. A big broad head travelling at over 350fps (about 350 grains including arrow shaft) is a very effective instruement to cause massive Hemorrhaging. If a deer is not spooked by a hunter he may not even know he's been hit. If you've ever accidently cut yourself with a really really sharp balde by accident you'll know what I mean. It takes a while to feel it but the blood loss will be great.

note:
I never used my bow to hunt/kill animals. It was only for target shooting with standard target tips (just in case someone thinks I was out there doing the old Rambo thing:D)

check out http://www.crossbow.com/

It wasn't me!

I still wouldn't have faith in it to be honest. The thing about the rifle round is the shock damage it imparts on impact, leading to an effective wound channel. I just think, that when the alternative is available, we shouldn't resort to inferior means to do the task.

Mellor

I don't think its the ability of the crossbow thats an issue, but the abilty of the hunter

If a deer is not spooked by a hunter he may not even know he's been hit. If you've ever accidently cut yourself with a really really sharp balde by accident you'll know what I mean

This is not right imo. The principal is completely different.
When you cut your self with a sharp knife, either accross the top of a finger and out, or sliced and through. You don't notice as the blade passes through with no resistance (as it is so sharp). Basically your finger doesn't react to to the blade, and friction is minimal.

With an arrow fired directly at a deer, even if super sharp. The arrow will come to a stop embedded in the deer. This means that all of the arrows energy is transfered to the deer, and the deers mass reacts to equal this. He is going to feel this. As the blade is sharp it will lose speed slower, but it still transfers energy.

The energy of a 350grain arrow at 350 fps is probably less than a 40 grain .22lr sub-sonic round

eoinkildare

i've never been bow hunting nor do i know any technical data on them as ivan seems to, but from the countless videos i've seen on youtube about bow hunting for whatever quarry, i've NEVER seen a clean kill. it always seems to involves chasing after the animal and eventually finding it in the woods somewhere, sometimes still alive. compare that to the videos and real life experience i have of hunting with rifles, i've only ever seen one rabbit that i shot need a second round to dispatch it. deer i've seen shot were with one bullet kills, and the same for foxes.
i don't accept that bow hunting is a good efficient way of hunting. sure it's way more of a challenge, but the argument here is about efficient kills, and to me, there is no argument at all really
eoin

bogteal

A good friend of mine does a lot of bow hunting for deer in the us, they do not stalk the deer its up in to a high seat and wait for deer to walk under them 5 to 10 meters is the kill zone and anything out side that and no shot. Its not the type of hunting i would like but every one to there own.

meathstevie

Suffise to say that I'm considering getting rid of the .22 hornet as it's on the weak side for foxes. Considering upgrade to .223 or .243 for the simple reason that they pack more power and deliver a greater shock. Bow and arrow purely relies on wound characteristics and delivers virtually no shock, not a good idea imo. Agree that it's a very purist form of hunting allright.

ivanthehunter

eoinkildare wrote: »

i've only ever seen one rabbit that i shot need a second round to dispatch it. deer i've seen shot were with one bullet kills, and the same for foxes.
i don't accept that bow hunting is a good efficient way of hunting. sure it's way more of a challenge, but the argument here is about efficient kills, and to me, there is no argument at all really
eoin

Sorry mate(s), the argument is a debate and the debate is its about the legality of bow hunt..
And if you think that deer hunters kill out right with one shot on kill- well take a trip to wicklow hill some week day night and listen to the bang,,,,,,BANG,,BANG Thats them midnight joes sticking a few extra bullets in after firing their first round badly.. But i dont go crying about:(

maglite

shotgun???

would that account for "bang,,,,,,BANG,,BANG"

Also i know of peopel who double shot deer, two shots from different guns at the same time to ensure a kill

It wasn't me!

You would need a basis on which to legalise it though, and to be honest, when there's a superior alternative available in the form of a rifle, I don't think the powers-that-be will be too willing to legalise bow-hunting for its own sake.

ivanthehunter

maglite
i wish i had a pair of rose tinted glasses as well..

The sportsmen in the jeeps driving down the road with suspect head lights that must be broken as the dont shine on the road.... Will I fax you over a picture :rolleyes: Maybe i start a new thread on the difficulty of a driver firing out the driverside side of a jeep with large cal weapons:rolleyes:
Or would it be better if i wrote about the "merry hunter" i met in the pub before the nights ??hunting?? had even started..
i wish i had a pair of rose tinted glasses as well..

It wasn't me!

What you're doing is crudely defaming hunters, painting with a pretty broad brush there. Might want to narrow your strokes. We know irresponsible hunters and poachers exist. We do not condone such things. Part of not condoning irresponsible hunting is discouraging the use of unsuitable equipment for the task. This ranges from discouraging wild pot shots with .22lr's on foxes to discouraging the use of a bow entirely, as it is not suitable.

ivanthehunter

You are starting to sound like a tree hugger to me.. You think its ok to keep the same old same old.... but let me be the first to tell you this , there are a group of people out there that want it all stopped they'd even be happy to see fishing banned as hooks are sharp.. You should be trying to see ways of either increasing the powers of hunters rather than just being content.. That other crowd will keep chipping away every day all day every year.. until we all convert to Buddha

It wasn't me!

Hell now, there can be wounds in a fox the size of my fat goddamn head, as long as it's a humane death, as humane as possible, but I do not want to see irresponsible tools used. I think it would put hunting in a far worse light and draw unfavourable attention to us. As I said, your option is to lobby your local TD's and council, but there's little point debating it further here. I'm not a "tree-hugger", just someone who advocates thought and responsiblity.

ivanthehunter

I dont need to lobby anybody as it not stated anywhere that the use of a crossbow is restricted.. The argument about the def of a missile is week as a bullet is also a missile. and any comments about arrows will not be taken seriously as xbow fire bolts. Really i just need to apply for a FAC with hunting permit and thats that.... I have it out with brother in law.. oops i mean the super soon enough,, ha

It wasn't me!

Fair enough, whatever you like, but I'd like to reiterate that I think it is irresponsible practice and should not be allowed. If you were ever prosecuted for firing an arrow/bolt/quarrel/spear/hedgehog at a rabbit, by a ranger or a Garda, I don't think your argument that "It doesn't say bolt" will hold any water, but if you wish to proceed, then roll on.

ivanthehunter

:D:D Chew on this for a while and give the child back his soother:D:D:D
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0620.html
approved trap, this makes a joke out of and statement which claims traps snares and nets are illegal


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0034.html#zza39y1976s34
certain uses of traps and snares prohibited, This one claims that all missiles are not prohibited,:eek:what about bullets! And i have said it before arrows are not bolts.. try telling the super that there is no difference between .308 and .22:p

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0033.html#zza39y1976s33
restriction on the use of certain types of fire arms: no restriction of crossbow which are to be considered as fire arms

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0029.html#zza39y1976s29
licenses to hunt with firearms: again no restrictions here:cool:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0012/sec0004.html#zza12y1990s4
addition of xbow to FAC: fancy that a crossbow is a FAC controlled weapon, and as such is subject to those rules:p

Mellor

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I dont need to lobby anybody as it not stated anywhere that the use of a crossbow is restricted.. The argument about the def of a missile is week as a bullet is also a missile. and any comments about arrows will not be taken seriously as xbow fire bolts. Really i just need to apply for a FAC with hunting permit and thats that.... I have it out with brother in law.. oops i mean the super soon enough,, ha

A bolt is a missile
You can't fire a missile at any wild bird of mammal.
This is clear cut regardless of the weither or not a bullet is a missile. You obviously agree as you left it out of the original. You are sticking rigidly to the fact that a bolt is not an arrow, so you should be consistant are stick rigidly to the fact that a bolt is a missile and listed as such. The fact that a bullet is also a missile is not related to a bow or xbow. I imagine that guns are listed somewhere in the acts as being permitted.

I wonder if you stick to rigidly to the fact that a xbow shoots bolts and not arrows if arrows were listed as allowable for hunting


As for a hunting permit. The hunting relates only to shotguns, rifles and crossbows each have other boxes to tick (2 for xbow) neither of which include hunting

Mellor

ivanthehunter wrote: »

:D:D Chew on this for a while and give the child back his soother:D:D:D
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0620.html
approved trap, this makes a joke out of and statement which claims traps snares and nets are illegal

Not at all, the act says that traps and snares are illegal. Then lists approved traps. This kind of exemption process is common in law.

http://193.178.1.79/1976/en/act/pub/...#zza39y1976s34
certain uses of traps and snares prohibited, This one claims that all missiles are not prohibited,:eek:what about bullets! And i have said it before arrows are not bolts.. try telling the super that there is no difference between .308 and .22:p

Link not working
I think its the previous section htat notes missiles being not allowed.
As for bullets, they are included in other sections permitt them to be used. As I said, blanket restriction and named exemption is common in law,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0033.html#zza39y1976s33
restriction on the use of certain types of fire arms: no restriction of crossbow which are to be considered as fire arms

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0029.html#zza39y1976s29
licenses to hunt with firearms: again no restrictions here:cool:

I think this proves that you either are taking the piss or that you don't really understand the acts.
The two links above are from a 1976 act. Why would crossbows be mentioned. In 1976 crossbows were not included in the legal definition of a crossbow. It was only included in 1990. You can't back date additions to an act of your choice. If you were careful when you read the act you would know that section 33 lists restrictions on each type of firearm (as defined in the act of 1976, the current act at that time)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0012/sec0004.html#zza12y1990s4
addition of xbow to FAC: fancy that a crossbow is a FAC controlled weapon, and as such is subject to those rules:p

Addition of crossbow means it is FAC controlled, but to suggest that the above now apply is wrong. The above clear names shotgun and rifle,

It wasn't me!

Give the child back his soother? I've tried to be accommodating, but now you're being quite rude. I'd appreciate if you directed your bad attitude elsewhere.

ivanthehunter

( a ) hunt any wild bird or wild mammal by means of a trap, snare, net, line, hook, arrow, dart, spear or similar device, instrument or missile, or birdlime or any substance of a like nature, or any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying bait, or
This is what it all boils down to then, a couple of word which are not watertight. Dont worry about the fact that some fool designed a form wrong-- Sure its common knowledge that even the garda dont know the Law, Sure how could the Know it all..

Spear or similar refers to a proper spear or perhaps a sharp stick::p

instrument is any object which is held in the hand or carried by the body some how perhaps a base ball bat::p

A missile is any object which is thrown,dropped or otherwise projected at a target:eek::eek::eek::eek: but this would include a rifle round. So Very Sorry You'll All Have To Stop Shooting.. this is open to ridicule as a crossbow is also a firearm and according to the statute book there is nothing to stop a sane person applying for a hunting licences.... Must go shopping today



An arrow is designed for a bow. .308 not equal to 12 gauge
The physical design of arrow mean that they are susceptible to the crosswinds at longer ranges, but are considered to be accurate in the hands of an expert at shorter ranges. The wind problem steams from their great length:cool: This length allow the arrow to rest on the forefinger knuckle of the archers hand at full draw so as to facilitate aiming. The length of the arrow also allows the archer to harvest all the potential power of the bow.
Bow aiming at the best of times is scant as a bow held at full draw is said to be 3/4 broke, You could assume that all self bows are shoot by the instinctive method, similar to shotgun shooting.
The Fletching on a hunting arrow is about 6 inches long This is a must as to counter balance a large hunting Broad head and weather cock the arrow during flight:rolleyes:
Flight is the word here, the center of gravity is placed as far back as is reasonable possible such as not to interfere with stability and this places the centerer of weight closer to the fletching and this makes arrows fly further and flatter trajectories, This flight feather of arrows worked well with/on the rank and file of the French
Bow Training began at the age of 5 and you were not considered trained till your late teens, and that was training every-sun and public holiday. The rapid shooting rate of a long bow(war bow) is what gave it its success. Its down fall was the years spent training..
xbow is designed to take only a bolt:p i'm looking for Sahara conner...:cool:
The crossbow started life about 5000years ago. In Europe in 1139, pope innocent II banned its use on Christains:p. It sufferer a bad name for a long time much as the AK-47 or any rifle or weapons do nowadays as any low life could shoot a man of standing, and even through amour.. The weapon required only a few hour practice to achieve a reasonable level of skill.(still the same with the boom boom sticks to day....plug and play or point and shoot 1 2 3 look at me:p)
The xbows were again banned during the Magna Carta but this time there use was banned in battle. The reason for all the fuss was simple these weapons were mega dangerous some tillers(stocks) had windlass fitted to wind the string back, These were capable of bow weights of1200lb:eek: compared to the long bow max of 150lb for a giant man..Arrows which "went the distance" were no use here. Stronger projectiles were required and the came in the form of bolts
A bolt was short sharp and to the point. points were fitted out with 2.5ounce heads and bolts carried no tapers on better models. The recess in the tiller would have been tapered as to only make two points of contact on the bolt as it left the bow
Bolts were made of iron or timber and carried no nocking point..
Modern xbow are very accurate out to 50meters due to the high level of engineering in their prods with gear pullers and cams, this gives them a suburb cast with lower poundage.. As far as hunting goes Cast is the ballistic co-efficient of bow-hunting. and with scopes to match the best of them and bolts made to the nth degree in term of finish and weight and strength these are weapon which over 70+ could shoot into a four inch circle..

ivanthehunter

firearm" means—

[GA] ( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged;

[GA] ( b ) an air gun (which expression includes an air rifle and an air pistol) or any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which metal or other slugs can be discharged;

[GA] ( c ) a crossbow;

[GA] ( d ) any type of stun gun or other weapon for causing any shock or other disablement to a person by means of electricity or any other kind of energy emission;

[GA] ( e ) a prohibited weapon as defined in section 1 (1) of the Firearms Act, 1925 ;

[GA] ( f ) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or of causing a shock or other disablement (as the case may be);

[GA] ( g ) save where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, for the purposes of this definition, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts as aforesaid.

[GA] (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

[GA] (ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e).

[GA] (2) The following provisions are hereby repealed:

[GA] ( a ) the definition of "firearm" in section 1 (1) of the Firearms Act, 1925 , and in section 1 of the Firearms (Proofing) Act, 1968 , and

[GA] ( b ) section 2 of the Firearms Act, 1964 , and section 2 of the

Where do you see shot gun? And LOOk [GA] (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and:eek::eek:(c) huh a xbow fitted with a hunting device.. crossbow is a firearm.. same as a gun

It wasn't me!

You're not telling us anything. What you are trying to say is that you think you're allowed hunt with a crossbow, so grand, go out and do it. What I'm saying is that it's an inefficient tool, and should not be used. You also resorted to some pretty crude and insulting methods in your defence of hunting with crossbows, so if you want to behave like that, you'll find few enough friends and supporters here.

ivanthehunter

stick n stones-- who has done anything yet still searching for answers.. if i was going to do it i'd at last like to know if i was in the right...

It wasn't me!

Then consult a good solicitor. My opinion is that you won't get away with it. Others have expressed similar opinions.

ivanthehunter

if if if................... i bang my head against the wall.. And if its legal i'd do

fathersymes

This Thread is ridiculous and AGAIN a bad athmosphere has been created, Bow Hunting is not within the Irish culture of shooting and not relevant on this board.

Dev, please ban Ivan.

It wasn't me!

Look, if you want to find out whether it's legal, get a solicitor to run through the firearms acts with you. No-one here is going to do better than that. You've already seen that nobody's willing to endorse your efforts, but if you still want to make them, that's fine. Post the results of your chat with the solicitor too.

ivanthehunter

fathersymes wrote: »

This Thread is ridiculous and AGAIN a bad athmosphere has been created, Bow Hunting is not within the Irish culture of shooting and not relevant on this board.

Dev, please ban Ivan.

did you not read the op if your not interest dont join in:mad::mad::mad:.. your some clown, oh please dev oh please dev.. dont let ivan ruin my day:mad: What do you know about culture. the only bloody culture you,ve was on a spoon. Do you really think you clever with your insults and remarks.. you sound like a west brit to me. mate. arrows are shoot old pal!! and guns are fired by ones servent.. tally ho..

fathersymes

ivanthehunter wrote: »

did you not read the op if your not interest dont join in:mad::mad::mad:.. your some clown, oh please dev oh please dev.. dont let ivan ruin my day:mad: What do you know about culture. the only bloody culture you,ve was on a spoon. Do you really think you clever with your insults and remarks.. you sound like a west brit to me. mate. arrows are shoot old pal!! and guns are fired by ones servent.. tally ho..

I rest my case!

maglite

ivanthehunter wrote: »

. you sound like a west brit to me.

personal insults,

how unexpected


would this not be suited to the archery forum??

they would hve an understanding f bows and such, i think this boards is cencerned with the legal methods of hunting