Bow hunting...Again

Grizzly 45

This came up in a UK group as a discussion and I thought it is kind of interesting for here too?
Does anyone know?

[1] When was bow hunting made illegal in Ireland and under what act or statue? I suspect the wildlife act 1976 and its predecessor?
i
n the UK it was in 1965[?] for deer,but it doesnt seem to be enacted in legislation?

[2] For what reason was it made illegal here in the ROIl? IE was there massive poaching going on or???

No one seems to know the full reason in the UK either?

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[1] When was bow hunting made illegal in Ireland and under what act or statue? I suspect the wildlife act 1976 and its predecessor?

Section 42 of the 2000 Wildlife Act which amends section 34 of the 1976 act says:

............. a person shall not—

“(a) hunt any wild bird, wild mammal or protected wild animal by means of a trap, snare, net, line, hook, arrow, dart, spear or similar device however propelled, instrument or missile

[2] For what reason was it made illegal here in the ROIl? IE was there massive poaching going on or???

No idea really but off the top of my head:

• Probably too many injured animals
• Not clean enough
• The ability to use a firearm more effectively
• Firearms make noise whereas bows are silent, (walkers, people in the area can hear)
• Firearms are traceable but bows, as unlicensed items, would not be which also means AGS know who is hunting deer with firearms but not with bows.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

No idea really but off the top of my head:

• Probably too many injured animals
• Not clean enough
• The ability to use a firearm more effectively
• Firearms make noise whereas bows are silent, (walkers, people in the area can hear)
• Firearms are traceable but bows, as unlicensed items, would not be which also means AGS know who is hunting deer with firearms but not with bows.

Those are all good and valid points.
A few other cane to mind reading them

• Effective modern bow tech allows high power at a low draw weight. But not the norm in Ireland in 1970.
• Bullets retain a degree of forensic evidence from the firearm that fired it. Arrows do not.
• Ireland has a history of firearms. People learned how to safely use and hunt with them from family and friends. That history isn’t there with bow hunting. If it was made legal, I’d wonder where that knowledge would come from.

Feisar

I don't understand why one would use a bow when there is a better tool available. To me and this is purely IMHO, it's playing at hunting and while hunting is a sport for most of us there is a point in that sport where it's not a game and one is taking an animals life. This is to be done as seriously and effectively as possible.

Grizzly 45

After dipping my toe into it in the US, all I can say is;

It is a Hel of a lot more difficult than shooting with a rifle or even BP.
It will teach you proper stalking to get up close, you need to get within 50 feet, or get the animal to come into that range to be sure of a shot. Stuff you get away with rifle hunting IE noise discipline, scent and the rest has to be absolute.
The reason they hunt only with a bow is they consider it more sporting and giving the animal a better chance of survival than someone with a rifle reaching out from 100 meters.
Total different game, and one that is amazing when you meet lads who go bird hunting and drop pheasants on the wing with a bow than some people with a shotgun...Me included.:eek:

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

No idea really but off the top of my head:

• Probably too many injured animals
• Not clean enough
• The ability to use a firearm more effectively
• Firearms make noise whereas bows are silent, (walkers, people in the area can hear)
• Firearms are traceable but bows, as unlicensed items, would not be which also means AGS know who is hunting deer with firearms but not with bows.

Probably,but is there anything on paper to back up these decisions?
Deer only became game species around the early 1970s I think under Irish legislationn so they were unprotected by law and could have been hunted by any method before? So did they have any major discussions with anyone or was there mass poaching [?] [Can you poach something thats, not game?]

It just seems to be like in the UK a "well we will make it illegal because...Reasons!"

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

......... when you meet lads who go bird hunting and drop pheasants on the wing with a bow than some people with a shotgun...

There is the reason we don't hunt birds with rifles, or Bows. A shotgun has a very limited danger zone compared to a rife. As buckshot it spreads quickly and has a very short effective range. While a Bow/arrow will not have the same range as a rifle you have a single, large, projectile and i for one wouldn't be comfortable with it being shot into the air.

What goes up and all that.

cookimonster

I was initially against bow hunting large game animals ( I am still very sceptical about the use of bows on certain larger CPX3 /CPX4 game animals) but with out first hand experience and an awful lot of desk top 'hunting' via the internet my mind was changed.
Correct use of suitable bows and arrow construction can and regularly do deliver fatal wounds on large animals such as Elk resulting in the death of the animal in a timely manner. A 60lb bow shooting an arrow with a combined weight from around 400 to 600 grains will punch threw and threw the thoracic cavity of such an animal as a bull elk.
There are those who will say that many animals are wounded during bow season, but I will counter that with the same argument that just as many animals are wounded during rifle seasons. As the old chestnut says it's all about 'shot placement'.
I don't think 'firearms' (loosely used here by me)control is an issue here in relation to bows, as we can go out and purchase bows without licence or registration here in Ireland. The crossbow came a foul of populists outcry as did air rifles, more Hollywood and media sensationalist clap trap.
From what I can find out deer hunting through out the ages was done with similar implements as seen in warfare (you can reverse that argument, as farm implements transfer over to weapons of war), so daggers, short swords, spears and bows were common place as was the later introduction of firaearms. So too was the common use of dogs in the hunting of deer, a ban only introduced in the UK in recent memory.
The main legislation in the UK steams back to regale times and dealt with the illegal hunting of deer in 'legal forests' and belive it or not covered the hunting of deer by night and by those who had 'painted faces'. So poaching of deer by night goes back centuries.
So infact many of the historic methods of hunting large animals have been banned on welfare grounds, understandable in certain circumstances, but questionable in others.
Modern advancements have been made to traditional methods so as bows, making them more efficient while on the other hand some people wish to push the limits of mediocre methods or equipment, (big can of worms opening here), pushing bullets well beyond there intended use whether it be a varmint round on deer or deer calibres out beyond sensible ranges.

Feisar

I should have said my actual knowledge of bow hunting amounts to SFA, in fact less than that, zero.

I do question if my negative bias stems from it being illegal? Similar to years ago having a few pints and driving was fine however I would see it as morally wrong now.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

There is the reason we don't hunt birds with rifles, or Bows. A shotgun has a very limited danger zone compared to a rife. As buckshot it spreads quickly and has a very short effective range. While a Bow/arrow will not have the same range as a rifle you have a single, large, projectile and i for one wouldn't be comfortable with it being shot into the air.

What goes up and all that.

Different kind of arrow is used for the reasons you said and the fact you don't want to be walking miles to collect your arrows either.:) It's got huge fletching on it that works like a drouge to slow it down in almost the same distances as a shotgun cartridge would carry.

cookimonster

Feisar wrote: »

I should have said my actual knowledge of bow hunting amounts to SFA, in fact less than that, zero.

I do question if my negative bias stems from it being illegal? Similar to years ago having a few pints and driving was fine however I would see it as morally wrong now.

Kinda understandable, but for me it falls into the same lines as the ban on taking shellfish using scuba. Another combination of knee jerk reaction and populists appeasing (more so to a small minority). This stopped individuals taking something for the pot. Why not introduce either a license and tag as seen with fish or a limited as seen in other jurisdictions.

If we were / are right on this ban the question must be asked as how come many other countries are reinstating bow hunting?

Cass

Feisar wrote: »

I do question if my negative bias stems from it being illegal? .

Very good point.

Look at America and their 2nd amendment. I don't think everyone should be entitled to a gun, but that may be born from a lifetime of laws, licensing, restrictions, bans, etc.

Had i grown up in America perhaps i would have a different attitude.

With regard bow hunting perhaps there is a little of that in it for me too, but i still believe in the "better is best". IOW a rifle can do what a bow does only better, quicker and with less hassle. Some compare this to not being as proficient and there is an element of truth, but to become proficient you need practice and you cannot and should not practice on live game.

I know the situation is the same as rifle shooting, but a rifle is so much more forgiving, allows for longer shots (and i'm not talking about sniping from 1000 yards away), i don't ballistics but i'd imagine it a bullet has more impact energy, quicker follow up shot, easier to aim, etc, etc.

kunekunesika

As far as I know, we don't have a recent bow hunting history?????? So when they wote the legislation, it probably wasn't so much to ban something that was happening? but to prevent something that might happen in the future??? If it hadn't be banned, how may of us would have chanced our arm with our own crued versions of bows??? ( think pre internet days??? ) So, it save an awful lot of un-nessecary suffering. Could it be done now, with the equipment that is available and easy access to information....absolutely.
Was it a big thing in the states, (for deer) before the advent of the modern bows?

cookimonster

There is probably some link to the banning of bow hunting to the enactment of legislation giving deer protection under the Widlife Act. Prior to this they were fair game to anybody and any fashion.

Another peculiarity is the UK acceptance and legality of sling shot / catapult hunting. Considering the draconian laws and punishments they had in place for poaching this form of hunting has survived into the snowflake world we live now.

Ref ballistics , IMO theres a different set of circumstances going on here, the arrow shot is to inflict a mortal wound that will kill relatively quickly either due to massive organ damage or loss of blood. The knock down effect a smaller faster moving grain bullet may inflict on an animal may also not ensure a quick fatal wounding. We all know the expressions 'dead on its feet / dead on the run' with an animal running several hundred yards in moments before crashing dead. In reality that animal is not dead on its feet, it just won't survive the wound and will take moments to expire. I have yet to head or squarely neck shoot an animal that ran on, but I've had plenty of animals run on with blown hearts or lungs. Not debating head shots to chest shots more so highlight the fact that even with good bullet placement death is not instantaneous.
Re aiming those that I know that have bow hunted even with high tech pin sights said they found it easier to come up on target, hold point of aim and release then doing similar hunting with fire arms. I would from my limited experience with archery a kin it to snap shooting during rough shooting or shooting active targets.
Take a few hours and watch a good few bow hunting vids with the warts and all footage, then make your mind up.

Grizzly 45

kunekunesika wrote: »

As far as I know, we don't have a recent bow hunting history?????? So when they wote the legislation, it probably wasn't so much to ban something that was happening? but to prevent something that might happen in the future??? If it hadn't be banned, how may of us would have chanced our arm with our own crued versions of bows??? ( think pre internet days??? ) So, it save an awful lot of un-nessecary suffering. Could it be done now, with the equipment that is available and easy access to information....absolutely.

Was it a big thing in the states, (for deer) before the advent of the modern bows?

Do you mean compound bows and other High tech/Low tech devices?
Ralph "papa" Bear is considered the driving force to bring it into the 20th century using the longbow built with modern materials
It was always there in some shape or form, mostly practised by the Ameican Indians, but it took off in the mid 6os with the compound bow, interestingly made popular by William Shatner [Capt Kirk] on a Star Trek episode, where Kirk uses one in one episode, which gave the World its first glance of the compound bow. Shatner was /is an avid bow hunter BTW too.
It came around the time that BP hunting was coming into popularity as well,and people wanted more of a challenge in hunting than just dropping game with high power rifles and had to work for it abit more.

Grizzly 45

cookimonster wrote: »

K This stopped individuals taking something for the pot. Why not introduce either a license and tag as seen with fish or a limited as seen in other jurisdictions.

If we were / are right on this ban the question must be asked as how come many other countries are reinstating bow hunting?

Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, and Slovenia.

Good article as to how bowhunting compares to rifle hunting.It seems to be the perception of "humaneness" and poaching [still hunting] that is the problem with it in political eyes.

https://www.archerypower.com/bow-hunt-in-europe/

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Not debating head shots to chest shots more so highlight the fact that even with good bullet placement death is not instantaneous.

Nor am i debating the merits of bow hunting to rifle shooting, or least not trying to.

All i'm saying is a 500gr arrow from a bow moving at 250fps has about 70ft/lb of energy. A bullet from a 308 has 2500 ft/lb of energy.

Re aiming those that I know that have bow hunted even with high tech pin sights said they found it easier to come up on target, hold point of aim and release then doing similar hunting with fire arms. I would from my limited experience with archery a kin it to snap shooting during rough shooting or shooting active targets.

A bow takes time and dedication to not only use but master. A rifle can be the same but on the range i was handed a few rifles to shoot (all unrestricted and legal btw) and as they were zeroed i was hitting bulls at 100yards from the first shot. IOW idiot proof.

A chap gave me a go of his bow. At 25 yards i shot the baffle with my first one. Hit the bottom of the target stand with my second. Hit the target with my third. I stayed at it for about 30 minutes but didn't hit the centre let alone the bull. IOW takes far more time to learn, let alone master.

Take a few hours and watch a good few bow hunting vids with the warts and all footage, then make your mind up.

I wouldn't watch a few hours, but have watched videos of bow hunting before. I admire the sport and the dedication it requires, but from a newbie point of view if someone asked me i'd say gun over bow any day.

Again only an opinion. I have less than no experience with bows other than the, single, 30 minute course i mentioned above.

tudderone

But arrows don't kill by kinetic energy, they kill by blood loss. The arrow head has blades on it that cut major arteries. When the animal is struck it bolts off leaving a massive blood trail, which the hunter follows after a short period of time. When you consider that deer were only shot by arrows for thousands of years, firearms only being on the scene for a relatively short time, you would imagine there would be some way of doing it here.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

But arrows don't kill by kinetic energy, they kill by blood loss. The arrow head has blades on it that cut major arteries.

You could write my enitre knowledge base of bows and bow hunting on the back of a postage stamp. It'd look something like this - "Nothing".

When the animal is struck it bolts off leaving a massive blood trail, which the hunter follows after a short period of time.

Is that every time?

When you consider that deer were only shot by arrows for thousands of years, firearms only being on the scene for a relatively short time, you would imagine there would be some way of doing it here.

I'm not arguing against bow hunting, but i'll happily go with the times on this topic and say i'll take a rifle any day over a bow.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Is that every time?

As far as i know yes. The arrow is not intended to knock the deer over after doing huge damage to the carcass like a rifle bullet does, the arrow, even a crossbow arrow (bolt) simply doesn't have the power to do that. The arrow uses broad heads, that cut major veins, letting it bleed out. Its not as gruesome as it sounds, and i was watching an old boy on youtube shooting a deer with a rifle recently, it bolted after being shot and ran a few hundred yards bleeding out.

GolfVI

tudderone wrote: »

As far as i know yes. The arrow is not intended to knock the deer over after doing huge damage to the carcass like a rifle bullet does, the arrow, even a crossbow arrow (bolt) simply doesn't have the power to do that. The arrow uses broad heads, that cut major veins, letting it bleed out. Its not as gruesome as it sounds, and i was watching an old boy on youtube shooting a deer with a rifle recently, it bolted after being shot and ran a few hundred yards bleeding out.

While this is the case for larger game, the use of blunt heads is very common for smaller animals like rabbits and squirrels. The blunt head has no point and simply kills the animal by force of impact.

cookimonster

GolfVI wrote: »

While this is the case for larger game, the use of blunt heads is very common for smaller animals like rabbits and squirrels. The blunt head has no point and simply kills the animal by force of impact.

'Thumpers' .. ...... I made a few with some fibreglass target arrows with 308 brass appoxied on the tips. Great for plinking tin cans and wooden blocks around the back garden.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

........... and i was watching an old boy on youtube shooting a deer with a rifle recently, it bolted after being shot and ran a few hundred yards bleeding out.

That, to me, is the exception, not the rule with the majority of deer dropping almost immediately due to the impact of the bullet. If the arrow bleeds them out each time, again to me only, it sounds less effective plus a bloodhound/dog is a necessity not just a luxury (as per the deer stalking handbook).

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Nor am i debating the merits of bow hunting to rifle shooting, or least not trying to.

All i'm saying is a 500gr arrow from a bow moving at 250fps has about 70ft/lb of energy. A bullet from a 308 has 2500 ft/lb of energy.

That is about the energy alright. You need about 60 for deer and 70 for elk and grizzly.

As mentioned, it’s not energy that kills. It’s the wound channel.

There are many head designs but they typically feature multiple very sharp blades. The wounds they create are large openings that drain a lot of blood quickly.

Feisar

Here’s a few I made earlier!

yubabill

tudderone wrote: »

But arrows don't kill by kinetic energy, they kill by blood loss. The arrow head has blades on it that cut major arteries. When the animal is struck it bolts off leaving a massive blood trail, which the hunter follows after a short period of time. When you consider that deer were only shot by arrows for thousands of years, firearms only being on the scene for a relatively short time, you would imagine there would be some way of doing it here.

Knowing a few people who have bowhunted extensively in other countries, apparently it's a lot easier to kill a large animal with a broadhead (has to be sharp) than it is to kill small game with blunts.

With large animals, you have to wait for a few minutes after the hit, let them run (it's best if they don't know you're there at all - less adrenaline). Then you try to track and that's the hard part. Many times there is no blood trail, contrary to many writers and tracking techniques vary wildly, but apparently the oldest way is the surest - let your feet blindly follow the trail with the least resistance.

Seemingly, the large rubber blunts do kill small game by shock, but the flat pointed heads simply skewer the quarry and mostly work by preventing them escaping to cover, unless shot in the vitals which kills quickly, alright.

Siegfried Farnon (can't remember the actor's name) wrote a brilliant book called "The Longbow" and I never forgot part of it -

Some (Danish?) hunter wanted a licence to bow hunt large game in Africa somewhere and came before a native official, who asked him about how the bow kills. The hunter explained that it was by blood loss.

The official asked him whether this hurt the animal, to which the hunter replied that it didn't particularly hurt and that the consensus was that the shot animal ended-up feeling like it wanted to go to sleep, when, in fact, it was dying.

The official immediately stamped the hunting permit after this.

The hunter was a bit perplexed and enquired why he had given the permit so promptly?

The official rolled up his trouser legs, exposing several healed wounds and said "these are from bullets and they hurt really badly, but these were from arrows and they didn't hurt so much, unless you tried to pull them out back ways."

cookimonster

Re how archery kills, there is a link, some what, to the debate of how bullets should perform on larger game animals. Some argue that the bullet should impart (dump) all its energy into the animal causing 'Hydrostatic Shock', while others belive that a bullet should cause a through and through wound that will assist bleeding out and or a sucking chest wound.
I've knocked deer off thier feet with chest shots that have got up only to collapse dead a moment latter. While others collapsed dead on the spot never to stir again. If you shoot enough deer under various circumstances, conditions and in various ways you will see a multitude of various shot reactions. This can be said about bow hunting, there is plenty of video evidence of animals dropping to the shot, literally in thier tracks, others crashing dead within the same typical distances seen with chest shot animals taken with rifles and many with perfect shots never to be found that day or the next only to turn upon game cameras alive and well some time later.

cookimonster

yubabill wrote: »

With large animals, you have to wait for a few minutes after the hit, let them run (it's best if they don't know you're there at all - less adrenaline). Then you try to track and that's the hard part. Many times there is no blood trail, contrary to many writers and tracking techniques vary wildly, but apparently the oldest way is the surest - let your feet blindly follow the trail with the least resistance.

."

If you follow the Elk bow hunters on you tube theres some very interesting information on it. They hunt the bulls during the rut so are able to call them into range by use of cow calls or challenging male calls. For the life if me I couldn't understand why they, the hunting group, would start to frantically call after the arrow struck. I messaged them with my question. The answer ties neatly into your post, often when the bull is struck it doesn't register the strike and it can be distracted or stopped with continuous calling. If the animal runs, as you said, it accelerates the loss of blood, often you'll see the animal piled up down hill or at an obstacle. I have heard this and experienced the same when looking for an animal that may have ran on or into cover, you will often find them at some point, a ditch, gully, wall or obstacle that has broken thier death flight, whether it is the sure excertion of tackling such an obstacle or the distraction that causes the animal flight process to end I don't know, but like you said I tend to look for the path of least resistance and any form of obstacle in it's most likely path.

tudderone

yubabill wrote: »

Siegfried Farnon (can't remember the actor's name) wrote a brilliant book called "The Longbow" and I never forgot part of it -

Robert Hardy, a very intelligent chap and an expert in Toxophily. I believe he was even consulted by the people who brought the ship the Mary Rose up, back in the 80's, as a lot of archers were onboard when it sank in 1545.