A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer?

[Bob_Skurka]

First off, let me state I am not a bow hunter. Second let me state I have never even hunted deer. My hunting is limited to bird hunting, and the last time I did that was probably a dozen years ago.

But I just read something that astounded me. On November 19 the US Sportsman's Alliance reported in a press release that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Fund for Animals plan to merge their organizations to create a "stronger and better-funded, animal "rights" organization"

Both groups are currently classified as "non-profit charities" but will become a "social welfare program" that will allow them to spend more money on political lobbying.

Reporter Lance Gay, of the Scripps Howard News Service "revealed taht sources within both groups confirmed that the new organization would seek an outright ban on bowhunting as a first priority."

OK, now I am a non-hunter, but I do have a patch of land that is over run with deer who eat everything in sight and still starve when we have bad winters. On top of that, I've already seen about a dozen dead deer along the roadways this fall commuting to and from work. Reports I read, at least in my state, at very least, we pockets of severe over population of deer.

-- <font color="red"> Now here is my question:</font> Is it more humane to shoot a deer with an arrow and have it die (typically in fairly short time) from blood loss, or is it more humane to have them starve to death over a couple months, suffering the whole time?

-- <font color="red"> And the follow up question:</font> Is it more humane to PEOPLE to hit them with their cars, cause potentially a couple thousand dollars in damage to the vehicle, cause potential human injury, cause potential human mental anguish, and not even cleanly & quickly kill many of the deer who are hit?

 

[Cliff_Johns]

Not to join this discussion on one side or the other, but your arguments are against not allowing any hunting of deer, but I think their intent is to only ban Bow hunting. Shooting the deer would still be allowed. I guess they view this as more humane.

Cliff

The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet. -- Dave Barry

 

[Gatorboy]

<font color="blue"> Is it more humane to shoot a deer with an arrow and have it die (typically in fairly short time) from blood loss </font>

I think deer die alot quicker with an arrow than a bullet. These PETA-type people in my book are Whack-o's.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> I think their intent is to only ban Bow hunting. Shooting the deer would still be allowed. I guess they view this as more humane.
</font>

Cliff, I know that both groups formally oppose all hunting and have for years. Fund for Animals has a history of being somewhat more active in their anti-hunting. But the way I read the story, the main focus was a strategy of incramentalism to nibble away at the bow hunters first, then go after the handgun hunters, then the shotgun guys and then the rifle guys.

Again, I am looking at this from the non-hunter perspective, but it seems pretty crazy to me that we (humans) wiped out the natural preditors for deer in most areas (wolves) and so now we have to act to replace them in order to keep the natural balance (which is done by deer hunters) in addition to natural things like weather. So if hunting is banned, the overpopulation will become worse, which will lead to starvation, disease, etc. Am I missing something?

Or are they intending on the reintroduction of wolves and just not stated that yet? I think if they want wolves to control the deer population then they should begin releasing those PRONTO!

 

[Cliff_Johns]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( But the way I read the story, the main focus was a strategy of incramentalism to nibble away at the bow hunters first, then go after the handgun hunters, then the shotgun guys and then the rifle guys. )</font>

You'll have to admit, it's a good strategy for them. Start with the smallest group and whittle away.


</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Both groups are currently classified as "non-profit charities" but will become a "social welfare program" that will allow them to spend more money on political lobbying. )</font>

On this earlier point you made, non-profit organizations are not allowed to lobby as I understand it. Thus the change to "social welfare program," but this may reduce their funding because donations are no longer tax-deductable.

I'm not opposed to reintroducing wolves -- although it can reduce the population of wild Cocker Spaniels and roving bands of Toy Poodles.

Cliff

 

[LMTC]

You are exactly correct They are starting with bow-hunters as the smallest group. It is incrementalism. Same way they started with full autos with the 68 gun control act, and 30 years later you couldn't buy a clip to hold more than ten rounds. First bow hunters of deer. Then black powder hunters. And so on. Handgun Control Inc and PETA wrote the book(s) on this kind of social change through marginally objectionable legislation that impacts relatively small portions of the population with little electoral clout. What Senator fears deer bow hunters? Not enough in any one state to unseat a legislator.

I seem to remember a Lutheran Pastor's lament in WWII...something like, first they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Catholic. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up...

Make no mistake. This will be a well planned/coordinated assault on hunting and weapons.

 

[bmac]

Bob,

As a fellow non-hunter, I stand with you on your assessment of the ultimate agenda of these animal "rights" organizations. I had not read the story to which you refer but I only had to read the topic of your post to know where this was going. As a rule, I don't spend much time reading stories about things like this because it just gets me angry. I cannot comprehend the logic (or lack thereof) of the arguements these groups make against hunting by any method. Though I don't hunt, I appreciate the efforts of those who do as I see the evidence of deer overpopulation daily, as do you. And, you hit the nail on the head regarding the method by which they've come to operate- slowly eroding the rights of others in a seemingly inconspicuous way until we wake up one morning to find out all firearms / weapons have been banned. And, though you were probably making the comments about wolves in jest, it would not surprise me if that were, in fact, one of their solutions. As I see the mindset of these animal rights groups, they place all non-human beings at the top of the social heirarchy and care not what the consequences of their proposals would have on people. OK, now I'm getting angry again so I'm going to stop. Thanks, Bob! I was having a pleasant holiday weekend until you brought this to my attention. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif ( /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

 

[Hakim]

A National Ban on Bowhunting Deer?

Calm down ... not gonna happen.

 

[Cliff_Johns]

There is another sad aspect to this. The Humane Society of the US has done a lot of good things and there are a lot a good people working with them and for them. But as with many organizations like this, the fringe seems willing to work harder and push harder and so the these organizations tend to drift outward toward the edge.

I'd hate to see the good and useful efforts of the HSUS reduced in order to put more effort and more money into objectives such as a national bow hunting ban.

Cliff

 

[Egon]

Bowhunting Deer? <font color="brown"> </font>

Not sure of the ban but it could depend what the Deer are out hunting with thier bows! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Egon /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="BowhuntingDeer?"> </font> <font color="brown"> </font>