Ian,

I would be interested to know what they are basing their interpretation of the law on although I do appriciate that Scottish law is different in the detail to English law and there are probably loop holes in both. I, have for instance, read a very good case that the .243Rem is not actually legal for deer in England and Wales...

With regards bowhunting, I used to be pretty neutral on the subject untill a couple of years ago. What happened then was that I started exchanging mails with an avid bowhunter from Texas. This guy had been at the game for years and came across as a real gentleman. However what i found surprising was that he advocated using a "pod" for bowhunting deer. In case you don't know this is a small device which delivers a very potent poison to the target. This poison is very fast acting and paralyses the beast as well if I understand/remember correctly. It also breaks down completely when the meat is cooked. Anyway when I first heard about the pod, I was aghast. But this gent explained that tests had shown that no matter how good an archer you are or how fast your bow is, deer have such good reactions they can "jump the string" on hearing the arrow being released. He did not claim it happened every time, but suggested the studies showed it happens more times than most bow hunters like to admit. The implication of this is that the chance of the deer moving at the critical second means there is a far higher chance of a none lethal hit. He went on to describe how the pod eliminated this chance of wounding and losing a beast and in his opinion was therefore more ethical. He told me that the pod was actually developed by a very famous American bowhunter of the old school for the reasons mentioned; I want to say it was fred bear, but my memory is not that good.

The other problem I see for bowhunting in the UK, is that typically even beasts which take a lethal hit tend to need extensive blood trailing and tend to travel much further than a comparable hit from a firearm. Personally I don't want a deer to go in excess of 200 yards into thick sitka spruce "as the norm "as I am sure it will increase the number of deer lost. I have read of stories on these boards of tracking bowshot deer 1/4 to 1/2 a mile and that is often with good shot placement. Down south, that could very well mean the beast ends up on someone elses property and all its associated legal problems....

I am aware that there are poor stalkers who use guns, but with our fairly liberal seasons I don't see the need for bowhunting;if someone wants to take his deer a 20 yards there is nothing stopping them doing it with a rifle...

Regards,

Pete Posts: 630 | From: North Wales | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

So what is your point in posting that bunch of BS here?

cengel:
I don't know how many bowhunters you have known, but I can assure you it is not like that for all- or even for that matter the majority. I have bowhunted since 1984 and have known a good number of hunters like me. The fact is, no matter what you use, the weapon is only as good as the user. I have taken elk with my bow that went two steps before falling dead in their tracks. I have taken several deer that went less than 40 yards; some way less. The bottom line is one has to be efficient and proficient with the weapon of choice and most of the time it will result in a clean harvest. If one thinks that a bow cannot efficiently put down game consistently, then one hasn't seen the whole picture. A bow is very lethal when properly used!!

Gentlemen:

I was pointing out a misconception that our European friends may have about the bow. That's all. I posted it here so that bowhunters would know of it and clear up the misconception.
Regards,
Chris

Oh I see.