# How much draw weight is enough?



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

An old friend of mine once told me of a time when somebody who knew how avid an archer he was kept challenging him as to just how little of recurve bow draw weight could effectively kill a deer. So on my old friends woodlot he set out to prove just how effective the bow and broadhead arrow is. From out of a treestand, and over a well worn trail my friend got his chance. He already had figured what distance the shot would be made at anything beyond that distance would not be chanced no matter what. I do believe the shot was no more than 8 yards max. I know he had razor shaving sharp broadheads and that arrow was heavy. As stated, he had his opportunity and took it, the little very light weight recurve sent his arrow into the deer killing it. That arrow went plenty deep and he had a good blood trail, he did not have to go far and found his deer stone dead when he got to it....I am a little hesitant on stating the draw weight of his recurve, but I do understand folks here would like to know. Please understand this on his part was to prove just how deadly these weapons really are. Also understand this took place along while ago when my friend was in his prime and knew his equipment well, and that this post is not intended in any to promote the use of such a low draw weight for big game. It is simply part of his story of his life as an archer. 
The bow was a target recurve, and the draw weight was just shy of 20# at his draw length. scout4


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

scout4 said:


> An old friend of mine once told me of a time when somebody who knew how avid an archer he was kept challenging him as to just how little of recurve bow draw weight could effectively kill a deer. So on my old friends woodlot he set out to prove just how effective the bow and broadhead arrow is. From out of a treestand, and over a well worn trail my friend got his chance. He already had figured what distance the shot would be made at anything beyond that distance would not be chanced no matter what. I do believe the shot was no more than 8 yards max. I know he had razor shaving sharp broadheads and that arrow was heavy. As stated, he had his opportunity and took it, the little very light weight recurve sent his arrow into the deer killing it. That arrow went plenty deep and he had a good blood trail, he did not have to go far and found his deer stone dead when he got to it....I am a little hesitant on stating the draw weight of his recurve, but I do understand folks here would like to know. Please understand this on his part was to prove just how deadly these weapons really are. Also understand this took place along while ago when my friend was in his prime and knew his equipment well, and that this post is not intended in any to promote the use of such a low draw weight for big game. It is simply part of his story of his life as an archer.
> The bow was a target recurve, and the draw weight was just shy of 20# at his draw length. scout4


1st off...thanks for "taking the risk" of sharing that Scout! :thumbs_up

2ndly?..it's very believable to me for two reasons..

1. Justa sorta put thing into perspective?..i put it in the simplest terms of..

what would happen if i layed down on the ground..then held a razor tipped arrow straight up and against my chest and then?..put a 20# weight on top of it?..and i know it doesn't take into account the KE and all the scientific mumbo-jumbo but still..20#'s is 20#s and razors are razors and?..

2. Just this past week we saw where jimmy blackmon put a wood shaft arrow in one side and out the other with his 40# Titan III and at a fair distance.

Thanks for sharing that and Happy Shooting! L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Before we get too far, it might be useful for you as the OP to define "enough", if only for the purposes of this thread. Otherwise, the ensuing discussion/debate could get to be a little confusing.

Obviously, at the range your friend took his shot, -20# was "enough" draw weight for that deer, and that shot setup.

On the other hand, every state I know of has some sort of minimum draw weight limit for legally bowhunting big game animals, even if its somewhat unclear (for instance, NV's minimum standard is the bow must be capable of throwing a certain weight arrow a given distance on flat ground; my old 30# Pearson Cougar easily meets NV's minimum, plus a bit... but it's not the bow I hunt with anymore, although I've successfully hunted with it many times in the past. I just made double-durn-sure I was well within it's range before loosing an arrow on an animal - 15-20 yards max.)

So, are you asking what draw weight will kill a deer under ideal conditions, or are you asking what other bowhunters here consider to be an acceptable "hunting weight" bow?

Interesting question, though.


----------



## jkcerda (Jan 25, 2007)

Cool. Now bear in mind that some states have a minimum IIRC


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Assuming a decent bow, that would be around 16 or so ft-lbs of KE. Which is around the power of a 32# wooden bow. People have killed a number of deer with bows that light.

Between proper tuning and good shooting, it really makes a bow in the 40-45# range look like a lethal weapon...


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

here's floridas regs regarding it..

*"Hunting methods:

Only bows may be used.

Bows must have minimum draw weight of 35

pounds. Hand-held releases are allowed. For

hunting deer, turkeys or hogs, broadheads

must have at least two sharpened edges with

minimum width of 

⅞

inch."*

and i've seen states that require as much as a 40# min..but..i think all states are behind the curve a bit by not citing limits for both compounds and traditional recurve/longbow...and i believe it's more geared towards compounds where they don't take into consideration the hold weights of each and the accuracy issues that can and do arise..maybe it would just cost too much and be "non-police-able" to explain and teach that..

I'd rather a trad hunter shoot a 30# bow accurately and limit themself to..

*"1/2 The Poundage As Max Yardage For Shots Taken"*

so a 30# bow would have a max effective hunting distance of 15yds...a 40# bow?..20yds..50#'s?..25yds and so on.

But i'd rather have them demonstrate that they can solidly hold at anchor for 3 seconds than mandate that they use a bow that's beyond their physical abilities to consistantly execute well placed shots.

JMHO and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

The obvious reasons for minimum draw weights is exactly the opposite, for people who don't know and understand their equipment well. I once read about a relatively famous South African hunter (don't remember the name) who hunted elephants with a .30-06 - he found he could get more penetration and kill them more quickly and reliably with shots to the head than with slower, heavier cartridges like the .375H&H. Would that be recommended for most hunters? Probably not.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Excellent thread and the scenario is clearly for a demonstration of the lightest possible draw weight in a controlled scenario.

Most people, of course, want to be ready for shots at longer distances, but your post serves a good purpose.

Maybe it will make some of the power worshipers think twice.

I'd be happy (and legal) to hunt deer with my 28 lb. Wing Falcon.

I know from a lifetime of rifle hunting that I can get plenty of shots at 20 yards and less from a tree stand.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> The obvious reasons for minimum draw weights is exactly the opposite, for people who don't know and understand their equipment well. I once read about a relatively famous South African hunter (don't remember the name) who hunted elephants with a .30-06 - he found he could get more penetration and kill them more quickly and reliably with shots to the head than with slower, heavier cartridges like the .375H&H. Would that be recommended for most hunters? Probably not.


well that is interesting..and i own a ruger M77 laminated stock 30.06 i bought new in 1987 and used it to harvest many deer..and while i've never owned one?..i love a .375H&H..but my analogy with your famouse elephant hunter/author there would read something like..

_"I found I could get more penetration and kill deer more quickly and reliably with shots to the head with my .22mag stingers than with heavier cartridges like my 30.06..Would that be recommended for most hunters? Probably not_

:laugh:

so much depends on "life experiences and perceptions" rather than fact when reading the writing of others. 

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Jinkster......better read up on WDM (Karamojo) Bell.



Here (I'll help).

http://www.africahunting.com/hunting-africa/3161-walter-d-m-bell-aka-karamojo-bell-1881-1951-a.html


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Mostly 7mm, or .280 Rigby, actually. Some 6.5 and some 303 Brit.

Read the link above......quite fascinating.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Logos said:


> Jinkster......better read up on WDM (Karamojo) Bell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'Ya beat me to it................Jim


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

LOL, Harper!

I was puzzled by the vanishing post.

Yes, Bell shot far too often to use rounds that were heavy in both carrying weight and recoil.

He also shot whatever ammo was most widely available and often.......whatever he could beg, borrow or steal.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Having prior knowledge of what your weapon is capable of is wise to know before you test it on a living animal.

Thank God....most of that testing was handed down from one archer to the next....1000's of years ago and a test can be simulated now...if an archer has any doubts using materials that may resemble the animal the archer may be pursueing.

It really doesn't take much to kill a deer depending on certain circumstances.

Every aspect will play a roll to some degree or another in the bow and arrow's penetrating potential.

All things should be considered and should be tested if there are any doubts before pursueing an animal with it.

I personally believe that every hunter should use what they have complete confidence in and not purposely push the envelope just because they want to see how much they can get away with before they just end up wounding animals.

My suggestion is to always shoot the heaviest bow you can accurately shoot in every circumstance you may be in.

Ray :shade:


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

Thank you all for your replies I do appreciate it! I guess if this thread is to have a purpose it would be to prove just how deadly that even a very lightweight bow can be. Thanks! scout4


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Logos said:


> Jinkster......better read up on WDM (Karamojo) Bell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Harperman said:


> 'Ya beat me to it................Jim


okay..read it...and all that really means nothing to me other than..

yeah...if ya shoot anything in the brain (including elephants) with a high power rifle it's dead..alls the man did was prove that head shots dispatch more quickly than body shots...duh..same as me saying..

wow...the dude took 15 in the chest from a 9mm but..i took out the other guy with an ice pick in the ear! :laugh:

other than that?..i'd like to punch the much heralded Mr. Bell in the mouth for taking out over 1,000 elephants over greed. :angry:


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

Logos said:


> Excellent thread and the scenario is clearly for a demonstration of the lightest possible draw weight in a controlled scenario.
> 
> Most people, of course, want to be ready for shots at longer distances, but your post serves a good purpose.
> 
> ...


 I had a low draw weight wing recurve, actually had a 40# red wing hunter back in the day. These where both very good bows! The longer lighter weight was real nice to draw and shoot....Why by golly I even shot aluminum arrows from it!...Ha! that was before I knew better!! :wink: scout4


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> okay..read it...and all that really means nothing to me.


What it SHOULD mean is don't make fun of somebody when you have no knowledge of what he's talking about.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

scout4 said:


> I had a low draw weight wing recurve, actually had a 40# red wing hunter back in the day. These where both very good bows! The longer lighter weight was real nice to draw and shoot....Why by golly I even shot aluminum arrows from it!...Ha! that was before I knew better!! :wink: scout4


Yeah, I was lucky to get my beautiful Wings. The first was just by chance and the second was a lucky bid on e-Bay.

Happy to have them and will never give them up.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Logos said:


> What it SHOULD mean is don't make fun of somebody when you have no knowledge of what he's talking about.


I made fun of no one...i simply expressed my opinion in the form of an analogy...have you designated yourself as the person to educate and scold me?...or is this just more rotten smelling bait like the nock point and golf glove episodes?

I'm betting it's the latter...so i'll end your self amusement...now.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Your analogy was both derisive and invalid.

Don't try to shift blame onto me.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I still think draw weight minimums are aren't very good for getting a good idea of how lethal a bow is. I have built and shot some really heavy bows that, even at really heavy weights were no more lethal by simple poor design. 

An example was a D bow longbow I made from oak. It was a but whip tillered, and as a result had some pretty substantial string follow (2 1/2"). It drew around 80# at 29" and stacked like crazy, and would shoot a 600 gr arrow around 150 fps or so. At the moment, my Omegas at 40# will do that or slightly better. 

Now, let's say a fellow was going out moose hunting. He thought he needed a heavy bow, and decided that an 80# like mine here would work. It's of legal draw. It's of low power though. Now, another fellow has a high performance recurve drawing 45#, shooting with more power (and accuracy), but his bow is not of legal draw weight, so he can't take it hunting but the other bow, with more draw but less power, is legal.

Not good sense. That's not even taking compounds into account either, or the type of broadhead being used.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

State of Hawaii says that you have to have at least 30# @ 28 for a compound bow, 35# for a recurve bow and 40# for a longbow.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> I still think draw weight minimums are aren't very good for getting a good idea of how lethal a bow is. I have built and shot some really heavy bows that, even at really heavy weights were no more lethal by simple poor design.
> 
> An example was a D bow longbow I made from oak. It was a but whip tillered, and as a result had some pretty substantial string follow (2 1/2"). It drew around 80# at 29" and stacked like crazy, and would shoot a 600 gr arrow around 150 fps or so. At the moment, my Omegas at 40# will do that or slightly better.
> 
> ...


I think that most game departments, except those like Hawaii, expect you to understand your own equipment. Personally I'm for no rules on weight, caliber, or energy (Hawaii). Hunters should be respectful and responsible enough to know there equipment and their own limitations. It's just a sad state that Daniel boon would hunt with what was adequate for him yet today we tell them what is adequate... and as is usually the case... rules don't catch up with technology or training often enough.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Sounds like Hawaii actually has someone that knows what they are taking about when it comes to hunting with archery equipment.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Logos said:


> Mostly 7mm, or .280 Rigby, actually. Some 6.5 and some 303 Brit.
> 
> Read the link above......quite fascinating.


Actually I believe it was a 275 Rigby which is a 7 mm and I knew you where well read


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> well that is interesting..and i own a ruger M77 laminated stock 30.06 i bought new in 1987 and used it to harvest many deer..and while i've never owned one?..i love a .375H&H..but my analogy with your famouse elephant hunter/author there would read something like..
> 
> _"I found I could get more penetration and kill deer more quickly and reliably with shots to the head with my .22mag stingers than with heavier cartridges like my 30.06..Would that be recommended for most hunters? Probably not_
> 
> ...


The solids Bell was shooting had excellent sectional density and penetrated very well. Bell was an exceedingly good rifleman and came from an era of heavy big bore rifles 

He was hunting at a time when a man would walk into a herd and drop as many bulls as he could and he worked magic with the round as an ivory hunter 

Something not everyone could do

Supposedly he mastered a rear quartering brain shot. Terrible interesting fellow from a magic era


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> okay..read it...and all that really means nothing to me other than..
> 
> yeah...if ya shoot anything in the brain (including elephants) with a high power rifle it's dead..alls the man did was prove that head shots dispatch more quickly than body shots...duh..same as me saying..
> 
> ...


Not to taking this to another topic, but on the subject of Karamojo Bell, what is your beef with him, and why do you say greed?

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

JParanee said:


> Actually I believe it was a 275 Rigby which is a 7 mm and I knew you where well read


Oops, you're right. Memory was a little off. I should read my own links.

(blush)


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

Aaah,...What happened to this thread?...Kind of got side tracked. Kegan seems the only one to actually have understood the whole jest of this post. scout4


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

scout4 said:


> Aaah,...What happened to this thread?...Kind of got side tracked. Kegan seems the only one to actually have understood the whole jest of this post. scout4


And the jist being that what works will, is that it? I agree.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

You've had some excellent responses.

It's all been about minimums and the problems and advantages thereof.

The only thing that hasn't been mentioned is that you said your friend's arrow went in deep.

Maybe one criteria would be a draw weight that would usually result in a pass-through.

More blood.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> You've had some excellent responses.
> 
> It's all been about minimums and the problems and advantages thereof.
> 
> ...


When you start engineering criteria, what do you do when it fails? I'm of the philosophy that you should know your equipment, yourself, and your animal. I am of the opinion (sometimes wrong I know) that hunters are responsible, ethical, and cognizant. I know that there is a temptation to regulate our biases.... for example... some folks don't think a .243 should be legal for hunting... others the .223... and .224... I mean a .22 for deer??? Draw weights... this is the most ridiculous requirement I've EVER seen for a number of reasons. And by the way, this is *my opinion and yer not going to change it.... :grin:* . For just two reasons, one... a draw weight is definable at draw. Beyond that, what are you measuring? Energy? Well again... at what distance?... anyway... you get my drift... you can keep adding in more and more what ifs to make it ludicrous... which in my opinion it is from the start. Guidelines. We measure guidelines by equipment, yet most here won't mind telling you how that particular guideline failed in its mission at one time or another... wrong guideline maybe.

Let's get back to hunting and stop worrying about equipment. If there is pressure on the hunter to do the right thing, like in the old days, you generally got the right thing done. These again are my opinions.... Lets start teaching people how to hunt, and leave the equipment choices up to them.


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

Logos said:


> You've had some excellent responses.
> 
> It's all been about minimums and the problems and advantages thereof.
> 
> ...


You are correct on the responses Sir! They are excellent, and I do appreciate all these replies....I know that threads of this nature here are always going to be debatable and thats just the way it is. Thank you and have a good day! scout4


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

Back in ’76, when Martin purchased Damon Howatt and Dale Marcy was managing the shop, I was fortunate enough to have Dale give me the grand tour…and got to spend a few hours with him, just immersed in archery-speak. Well, conversation started to touch on the 100# plus clubs and then Dale (after stating: “no one is keeping records on how far the arrow goes after hitting an animal”) related the following to me.

One of the elk-hunting states (can’t recall which) was proposing an increase in minimum draw weight for elk (…and please keep in mind that compound bows were still a novelty at that time). The concern of some of the bowhunting community was that increasing the minimum weight would unfairly (…unreasonably, if you will) deny many women the opportunity to bowhunt elk. (That’s what I recall Dale saying, though in hindsight it would reason that the same could/would apply to the young and old…just kinda hard to effectively apply hindsight when a “more recent perspective” of matters might be clouding the picture.)

In order to counter the proposed change, Dale went out with some Fish and Game officials…and using a 27# bow, with a “sharp” broadhead (…he did stress sharp) he put down an elk.

Anyhow…I guess the point to be made (as it was then) is not about how little weight is needed to close the deal, but how such regulations effect every segment of the community…and, simply, not just as applies to individual perspectives, whatever they may be. That said, of course I wouldn’t necessarily endorse making a practice of such things, but whether there is a minimum draw weight in any particular state, or what it might be, is out of most of our hands to decide…and…I doubt that the aforementioned demonstration will ever happen again.

Sure we can express our points of view…and mine is just in practical terms. When my go-to bow was 76#, pushing 2219’s with Howard Hill heads, I was open to taking almost any angled shot into the boiler room of, at least, an average sized whitetail. The past couple of years though, hunting with bows that were 50# plus or minus, I find my “shot opportunities” being much more defined as “square hits” to the rib cage. Too much arrow deflection, even with a well-placed shot, might not give me the location of the exit wound I’m shooting for…and nothing quite ruins my day/month/year like not “ending the chase”, which is the only thought running through my head before the arrow is on its way.

So…I’ll end this with the usual…know your limitations and those of your equipment (exactly what you need it to do)...and know your Game Laws. Good, Safe Hunting to All…Enjoy, Rick.

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/DaleMarcy.shtml


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

What do you do when you start engineering data? When in doubt, build it stout - or a safety factor of 1.5 is pretty standard. So if a 20# bow worked, then a 30# bow (all else being equal) should be adequate. Remember this was a white tail deer at 8 yards - not a bull elk at 40. While there have been deer killed with a .22LR a 30-06 makes more sence (at least to me).


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

centershot said:


> What do you do when you start engineering data? When in doubt, build it stout - or a safety factor of 1.5 is pretty standard. So if a 20# bow worked, then a 30# bow (all else being equal) should be adequate. Remember this was a white tail deer at 8 yards - not a bull elk at 40. While there have been deer killed with a .22LR a 30-06 makes more sence (at least to me).


I certainly agree with you on the when in doubt build it stout... that is why I flew Beechcraft... :grin: Why is it that if a 20# bow worked you need anything else? I think the more appropos questhion would be do you know how to make it work.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Would you use a parachute that was barely adequate or would you prefer a little safety factor?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

centershot said:


> Would you use a parachute that was barely adequate or would you prefer a little safety factor?


This issue isn't about preference. We all have the right to use what we prefer to. This is about "engineering criteria" for you. You're saying that we should use "Danner Boots" instead of allowing one to use moccasins in texas. Here in Hawaii they have a most stupid regulation that is totally unenforceable in that you have to have a firearm capable of developing 1200 foot pounds of energy. The point of that is what?


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> This issue isn't about preference. We all have the right to use what we prefer to. This is about "engineering criteria" for you. You're saying that we should use "Danner Boots" instead of allowing one to use moccasins in texas. Here in Hawaii they have a most stupid regulation that is totally unenforceable in that you have to have a firearm capable of developing 1200 foot pounds of energy. The point of that is what?


I think the point of it is that it will make the most ignorant/inexperienced of hunters use a large enough caliber rifle that certain limitations need not apply, i.e. headshots, minimum distances, etc. In a much less difficult way, it helps weed out those who know their tricks and equipment from those who don't.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> I think the point of it is that it will make the most ignorant/inexperienced of hunters use a large enough caliber rifle that certain limitations need not apply, i.e. headshots, minimum distances, etc. In a much less difficult way, it helps weed out those who know their tricks and equipment from those who don't.


And it restricts me, using that exact reference of yours, of using a most able .41 caliber muzzleloader to go hunting with. So you don't think that folks should know how to use their equipment before they go hunting is what you seem to be saying. Go with the lowest common denominator rather than improve the lot of the class? I presume you want all huntes to have a hunter education class under their belt before hunting too?


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I didn't say that at all actually, and inferring such conclusions with an abrasive, sarcastic tone is unnecessary - I'm not going to get sucked into the emotionally driven internet arguments that seem to happen on this forum.
I was saying that's likely why those laws were instated, via generalized logic of the state. Actually though, on some level I agree with both of those things - that way if a conservation officer catches some irresponsible punk trying to shoot a deer with a .22LR, he can fine them. I'm not saying people shouldn't know their equipment better, but realistically this is not likely for everyone and neither is it enforceable. Likewise, it prevents the ignorant from being able to buy a hunting license on a whim, which I'm quite sure would lessen the amount of wounded animals running around. For the average person wanting to get into hunting, basic education is necessary - many people I know who wanted to get into hunting had no idea what basic firearm safety was, not to mention basic firearm field safety. The system we have in BC regarding works quite well (there's a fair amount of small game that can be shot without a license).
However, this isn't perfect, as like with all laws, one idiot spoils it for the rest. It unfortunately and unnecessarily limits those who do know their equipment well, as well as those who learned the basics of hunting from something other than a state/province appointed course. I don't agree with this portion of it, and that's why I sincerely support reasonable conservation officers. From the standpoint of a governing body trying to minimize accidents and wounded animals, however, it's not the worst system I've seen.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> I didn't say that at all actually, and inferring such conclusions with an abrasive, sarcastic tone is unnecessary - I'm not going to get sucked into the emotionally driven internet arguments that seem to happen on this forum.
> I was saying that's likely why those laws were instated, via generalized logic of the state. Actually though, on some level I agree with both of those things - that way if a conservation officer catches some irresponsible punk trying to shoot a deer with a .22LR, he can fine them. I'm not saying people shouldn't know their equipment better, but realistically this is not likely for everyone and neither is it enforceable. Likewise, it prevents the ignorant from being able to buy a hunting license on a whim, which I'm quite sure would lessen the amount of wounded animals running around. For the average person wanting to get into hunting, basic education is necessary - many people I know who wanted to get into hunting had no idea what basic firearm safety was, not to mention basic firearm field safety. The system we have in BC regarding works quite well (there's a fair amount of small game that can be shot without a license).
> However, this isn't perfect, as like with all laws, one idiot spoils it for the rest. It unfortunately and unnecessarily limits those who do know their equipment well, as well as those who learned the basics of hunting from something other than a state/province appointed course. I don't agree with this portion of it, and that's why I sincerely support reasonable conservation officers. From the standpoint of a governing body trying to minimize accidents and wounded animals, however, it's not the worst system I've seen.


If you can't support your statements without getting hysterical, you should probably refrain from conversation... Here is EXACTLY what you said....


CFGuy said:


> I think the point of it is that it will make *the most ignorant/inexperienced* of hunters use a large enough caliber rifle that certain limitations need not apply, i.e. headshots, minimum distances, etc. In a much less difficult way, it helps weed out those who know their tricks and equipment from those who don't.


It's ok... You think that people are dolts and can't think for themselves. I get it. Let's use a nuke instead of a sniper.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

A lot of people ARE dolts.

That's why we have laws and legal requirements.

It keeps dolts who think they're experts from hunting with marginal weapons.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Getting hysterical? I'm saying your sarcasm and asinine, fallacious inferences are unnecessary. You infer that I think people are dolts, after you quoted me saying that hunters can be "ignorant or inexperienced". Were you not ignorant and inexperienced at one point? Doesn't that make you an idiot by your logic? I'm saying there are people that get into hunting that have no idea what they're doing, and if they weren't in some way made to educate themselves before taking a firearm into the woods and trying to shoot a living thing, there would be a hell of a lot more accidents and wounded animals. Why get so angry at this notion? I didn't say I agree with it fully, I said that from the standpoint of someone in the state making laws, what alternative do they have?
And yes, as Logos said, a lot of people are idiots. I'm not sure how much time you spend around the general public or how much news you watch, but people aren't always terribly sharp. I'm simply stating that this is the easiest method (in my understanding) of preventing said idiots from getting away with shooting at deer with .22's; I didn't say this was the best method or that you shouldn't be able to take your muzzle loader hunting. The ignorant and inexperienced don't belong in this group.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> A lot of people ARE dolts.
> 
> That's why we have laws and legal requirements.
> 
> It keeps dolts who think they're experts from hunting with marginal weapons.


So prescribe equipment rather than skills... gotcha.... I understand that *mentality* completely...


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Explain to me then, what would work better from a governing body's point of view, if you deem mandatory education and minimum laws unnecessary.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> Getting hysterical? I'm saying your sarcasm and asinine, fallacious inferences are unnecessary. You infer that I think people are dolts, after you quoted me saying that hunters can be "ignorant or inexperienced". Were you not ignorant and inexperienced at one point? Doesn't that make you an idiot by your logic? I'm saying there are people that get into hunting that have no idea what they're doing, and if they weren't in some way made to educate themselves before taking a firearm into the woods and trying to shoot a living thing, there would be a hell of a lot more accidents and wounded animals. Why get so angry at this notion? I didn't say I agree with it fully, I said that from the standpoint of someone in the state making laws, what alternative do they have?
> And yes, as Logos said, a lot of people are idiots. I'm not sure how much time you spend around the general public or how much news you watch, but people aren't always terribly sharp. I'm simply stating that this is the easiest method (in my understanding) of preventing said idiots from getting away with shooting at deer with .22's. The ignorant and inexperienced don't belong in this group.


yes... and a 50# bow wouldn't have made a single difference over one that was 20. You think equipment overcomes ignorance. After teaching flying for 40 years, I can tell you all the equipment in the world won't perfect your landings... and to suggest such a prescription is what is wrong with not only hunting, but most of folks who want to find some regulation to solve a limitation in skills.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I'm not suggesting it as a prescription to compensate at all, I'm saying while it's misplaced, there isn't much else a governing body can realistically do, as far as I can think of. I've simply stated why I think it was instated, and why it would limit some types of overconfident/ignorant hunting; I don't agree with it entirely however, as I've previously stated. Again, getting into an emotionally charged discussion here isn't the best use of my time, and so far other than a few sarcastic comments and stating you don't agree with the laws, I haven't read much input into what would be a better solution. I think we're veering far off of scout's topic too, so I'm finished with this. Happy shooting.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> Explain to me then, what would work better from a governing body's point of view, if you deem mandatory education and minimum laws unnecessary.


 Simple... learn your equipment. Know what it will do and know what YOU CAN DO. The goal should be a safe, humane harvest. Not that you need a 40# longbow. My point on education was that here in Hawaii, you have to have a hunters ed card before you can touch a firearm or bow in a hunting area. That is ludicrous. We also require that you pass a test. A written test. Well our 20th century education system here in Hawaii... run by the DOEducation, many kids have a real problem with reading skills. If we read the test to them, many pass, because they understand what was presented in class, they just can't read. You of course want them to just read... just like our administrator of Hunter Ed does. 

You go for equipment, I go for understanding and skill. I'm for letting kids especially go hunting with their Adult family members till they learn about hunting and become infected enough to want to continue on their own and *then* take the hunter education courses so that they can go hunting on their own.

I don't believe in equipment restrictions.. They are pointless.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> So prescribe equipment rather than skills... gotcha.... I understand that *mentality* completely...


Prescribe minimum equipment for the expected standard minimum skills. Everybody is not as expert as yourself.

The government does not have the money to teach or test hunting skills......people must learn it themselves.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Prescribe minimum equipment for the expected standard minimum skills. Everybody is not as expert as yourself.
> 
> The government does not have the money to teach or test hunting skills......people must learn it themselves.


Ok... first off... where did I hold myself out as expert anything? Second... when does having the ability to pull 50# equate to being able to hit the target? The only cogent thing you said here was that people must learn it themselves... so why get the government involved at all then...?? They prescribe 50# but don't check to see if you can use it makes total sense to me too... well actually not... but I understand *your position on it....* like my sonshine once tol me... "of course dad you could use a nuke instead of a sniper".... talking about something entirely unrelated to this... but the sentiment is the same.


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

scout4 said:


> An old friend of mine once told me of a time when somebody who knew how avid an archer he was kept challenging him as to just how little of recurve bow draw weight could effectively kill a deer. So on my old friends woodlot he set out to prove just how effective the bow and broadhead arrow is. From out of a treestand, and over a well worn trail my friend got his chance. He already had figured what distance the shot would be made at anything beyond that distance would not be chanced no matter what. I do believe the shot was no more than 8 yards max. I know he had razor shaving sharp broadheads and that arrow was heavy. As stated, he had his opportunity and took it, the little very light weight recurve sent his arrow into the deer killing it. That arrow went plenty deep and he had a good blood trail, he did not have to go far and found his deer stone dead when he got to it....I am a little hesitant on stating the draw weight of his recurve, but I do understand folks here would like to know. Please understand this on his part was to prove just how deadly these weapons really are. Also understand this took place along while ago when my friend was in his prime and knew his equipment well, and that this post is not intended in any to promote the use of such a low draw weight for big game. It is simply part of his story of his life as an archer.
> The bow was a target recurve, and the draw weight was just shy of 20# at his draw length. scout4


You know I think it would be wise for me to add a few things to this story of my friends. To my knowledge, it has only been in about the past 10 years that pennsylvania has stated in their game laws a minimum draw weight. Prior to this time I really do not recall ever seeing within Pennsylvania's license manual a minimum on draw weight. But there was stated the bow needed to cast a hunting arrow a certain distance with accuracy, and the broadhead was to be of cutting edge design of at least 2 blades and no less than 7/8" wide. My friend is a well educated man, has ran his own business for many years, and was an avid competion archer, and bowhunter. Remember, this took place many many years ago. I am not even certain that the old now vintage Bear whitetail hunter 6 pulley wheel compound was even on the market yet. He knew his bow and his arrows and he knew just what it was capable of. He set out to prove something and knew exactly what he was doing. There is a big reason why he did this. I only stated the very basic story, there where many more factors involved here/ back then. So, thank you all for your replies! scout4


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Ok... first off... where did I hold myself out as expert anything? Second... when does having the ability to pull 50# equate to being able to hit the target? The only cogent thing you said here was that people must learn it themselves... so why get the government involved at all then...?? They prescribe 50# but don't check to see if you can use it makes total sense to me too... well actually not... but I understand *your position on it....* like my sonshine once tol me... "of course dad you could use a nuke instead of a sniper".... talking about something entirely unrelated to this... but the sentiment is the same.


I didn't say you were an expert.

I said others may not be as expert as you.

I didn't say anything about a 50# bow.....no nukes or snipers, either.

Therefore, your post is pretty much unrelated to anything.

That should take care of it.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> I didn't say you were an expert.
> 
> *I said others may not be as expert as you.*
> 
> ...


*Got it*..... :grin:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

You can kill a deer with a brick but that does not mean it is the best tool 

A man with a well tuned light weight bow can certainly accomplish a lot but in general most people are stupid (sorry) and may need the help of a governing body to help them make sound decisions. Sorry


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

JParanee said:


> You can kill a deer with a brick but that does not mean it is the best tool
> 
> A man with a well tuned light weight bow can certainly accomplish a lot but in general most people are stupid (sorry) and may need the help of a governing body to help them make sound decisions. Sorry


Sad, but true.

(All except that you can kill a deer with a brick......that's too difficult unless they have at least three broken legs.)

:wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> You can kill a deer with a brick but that does not mean it is the best tool
> 
> *A man with a well tuned light weight bow can certainly accomplish a lot but in general most people are stupid* (sorry) and may need the help of a governing body to help them make sound decisions. Sorry


Then why can't he? If in fact most people are stupid... (and that is an unqualifiedly elitist statement, by the way) why are you condescending to the inferior? How does equipment make up for inadequate preparation and training.


----------



## keb (Jul 17, 2007)

I'm shooting 40lbs, because I can shoot that weight the most accurate.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Then why can't he? If in fact most people are stupid... (and that is an unqualifiedly elitist statement, by the way) why are you condescending to the inferior? How does equipment make up for inadequate preparation and training.


Rattus 

Go over and hang around the general Bowhunting forum and you will see my point 

I am far from an elitist.........just a realist 

Sorry 

I don't know what hunting in Hawais like , looks great if your into hunting Feral Goats but come to Pa on the first day of rifle season

It's a war zone full of Imho idiotic droves of hunters. Do you know how I know there idiots ? Because no one in there right mind would subject themselves to that onslaught if they were not .

Go to the rifle ranges the day before the season and see the geniuses with mixed shells and even trying to use the wrong shells. If they can even hit paper it's on. If its brown its down is the general motto.

Those same rocket scientists are in the woods bowhunting and there good enough attitude and sloppy ethics show up there also

So yes I have some contempt. 

The day before archery season go to cabelas and watch the flocks buying bows. Picking arrows that should work from the chart. Throwing on some expandable heads because some smuck on tv said they put the smack down on big bucks etc. etc. 

So I'm not an elitist by any mean I'm a realist and what I see is a group of hunters in general that need rules to follow or there would be utter kaos 

When it comes to bowhunting with very light weight bows I have no issue with someone doing that if they know what there doing.

Most do not. Just my opinion. 


Sorry I don't mean to seem like a jerk usually you and I seem to get along fine. But you seem rather argumenative of late

You okay ?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> Rattus
> 
> Go over and hang around the general Bowhunting forum and you will see my point
> 
> ...


:grin: No.... not argumentative, I have control issues.... :grin: I detest people trying to control my life. I'm tired of people trying to run YOUR LIFE.... cuz they'll come after me next. My philosophy on equipment, is you ask someone what would work best for me in your experience. Let someone who can give you proper help help you. Opening day... :grin: Well that is universal isn't it... :grin: If I can do with 30# what you do with 40, do you really wish to impose on me that I use 40#?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Rattus from prior posts I know you know how to tune and set up a bow. I just can't say the rest of the world does so.....regretfully sometimes the many dictate the norm or in this case the standard that needs to be set. 

Show me a fellow with a long draw shooting a tuned 30 pound bow and a sharp broadhead that can put it in the basket at 20 yards and I'll show you a lot of dead deer. 

Show me a fellow with a 25 inch draw shooting a untuned 30 pound bow with dull broadheads and a poor marksmanship and I'll show you a lot of wounded deer 

There has to be limits set for the masses 

Bag limits on game and fish 

Rules on using motorized vehicles in certain areas 

Caliber related 

Bow weight related

How much wood can be harvested etc. 

Because man will always abuse. Not everyone but some.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

JParanee said:


> You can kill a deer with a brick but that does not mean it is the best tool
> 
> A man with a well tuned light weight bow can certainly accomplish a lot but in general most people are stupid (sorry) and may need the help of a governing body to help them make sound decisions. Sorry


Absolutely.....I say something similar from time to time, but my choice of weapon is a Croquet mallet....But, make no mistake about it, a seemingly inferior weapon in the hands of an ''Expert" will still be very adequate for the job, when things go right...Take care......Jim


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> Rattus from prior posts I know you know how to tune and set up a bow. I just can't say the rest of the world does so.....regretfully sometimes the many dictate the norm or in this case the standard that needs to be set.
> 
> Show me a fellow with a long draw shooting a tuned 30 pound bow and a sharp broadhead that can put it in the basket at 20 yards and I'll show you a lot of dead deer.
> 
> ...


I've no argument with you on getting people ready for a hunt. The questions I have are framed in your example. There is enough information about tuning and broadheads, for example, yet you will have some take off with rusted broadheads. You have some who shoot all year with a 145 target tip, switch to a 150 grain or like in my case, 165 grain broadhead and head off to the hills without so much as taking a shot with it???? I hear you! No amount of regulating assures that the regulated are prepared and therein lies my gripe. Sure rules are enforceable from a distance, but on the otherhand, behavior isn't. Ability isn't. Judgement isn't. And based upon all these isn'ts, I can't go hunting with my .410 muzzleloader conical shooter nor my .40 longrifle roundball. Rules. The gentleman in your example has an untuned 30# and it could just as well be untuned 50# with dull broadheads and poor marksmanship, and the result would be the same.... poor! But what have we done... we've let the neanderthal ... and this might actually be a slight on the fellow... the neanderthal I mean... go hunting cuz he bought the right equipment... and the guy who has the skills and the determination to effect those proficiencies can't.

I've never been an equipment minimum proponent by virtue that it really isn't necessary. Those unprepared usually go macho... and exceed minimums... the skillful seem to not only make do with what they have, some step forward and look towards finding the limits with their equipment. More power to them... these are the same types that fly fish for Marlin... with 40# test and the like... or whatever their minimum minimums are... hunting with spears and atlatls... airguns.. deer hunting with an airgun? Our state automatic answer.... NO... Crossbows... NO... but we're working on it... If you can do then please do, is my position... cuz you can... not as a tryout.

My experience has been that for most part, those who are tempted to skate on training *do in fact * go for the heavier rather than the lighter, just by virtue that those who are lazy are less likely to learn stalking, hunting or sharpening skills. They are likely to go to your limits just based upon "machismo". But why limit the accomplished skillful hunter who want to hunt with his 30# Omega longbow and lightweight bamboo arrows and flint?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I agree Rattus but in an imperfect world quide lines must be set for the masses


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

Alrighty Then!!...Did not quite expect such a simple thread to bring out the buggly ugly in some folks, but things can get touchy at times around here! Sorry for anyones increased blood pressure. The whole jest of this was to simply relay an interesting story of an old Gentleman archer more for the fasination of the fact that such a feat was accomplishable by a very well experienced archer...Really kinda not sure how the entertainment of that accomplishment became so sidetracked??...But anyway,...scout4


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

We all have ADD. Wait, what were we talking about?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

scout4 said:


> Alrighty Then!!...Did not quite expect such a simple thread to bring out the buggly ugly in some folks, but things can get touchy at times around here! Sorry for anyones increased blood pressure. The whole jest of this was to simply relay an interesting story of an old Gentleman archer more for the fasination of the fact that such a feat was accomplishable by a very well experienced archer...Really kinda not sure how the entertainment of that accomplishment became so sidetracked??...But anyway,...scout4


No what you did was point out the real world. That we have a tendency in this country, and probably all, to want to micromanage everyone and everything especially with one size fits all rules based upon, usually in my * opinion *, based upon our own ability or bias, where this gentleman you speak provided more effect with less, through experience.... and my position is, :thumbs_up and if he wants to go hunting with a 22# bow and hes confident... go for it. :grin:


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

I could kill a deer with a .22LR but a .270 would be the more responsible cartridge. Likewise I might be able to kill one with a 20# bow out of a tree but that wouldn't be too responsible either. Tree stand shooting gives you a steeper angle the closer the deer is to you and you stand a good chance of hitting high in the upper ribs and loin area. You don't get good penetration there, I know for a fact. The farther out the deer is the 20# bow looses energy pretty quick. Good for your friend but it's a foolish thing to do and most responsible hunters wouldn't even think of it.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Depends on how high up you are in the tree, of course, but......good point.

:cheers:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

reddogge said:


> I could kill a deer with a .22LR but a .270 would be the more responsible cartridge. Likewise I might be able to kill one with a 20# bow out of a tree but that wouldn't be too responsible either. Tree stand shooting gives you a steeper angle the closer the deer is to you and you stand a good chance of hitting high in the upper ribs and loin area. You don't get good penetration there, I know for a fact. The farther out the deer is the 20# bow looses energy pretty quick. Good for your friend but it's a foolish thing to do and most responsible hunters wouldn't even think of it.


Are you saying that no one should ever use a .22 Long Rifle for hunting or killing deer? A 20# bow. Not proper for killing deer out of a tree. Is it ever proper.... in your *opinion?*


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

In a survival situation if all you have is a 20 # bow I guess ya run what ya brung. 

But in a sporting application lets compare it to the guy that wants to catch a Grander on 4 # test  In the quest for challenge and sport. if the fish breaks off he's a bit tired and he has a hook in his mouth that eventually rusts out, hopefully the fish is no worse for ware 

If the guy with the 20 pound bow has things go wrong an animal is left suffering possibly 

Just an opinion


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> In a survival situation if all you have is a 20 # bow I guess ya run what ya brung.
> 
> But in a sporting application lets compare it to the guy that wants to catch a Grander on 4 # test  In the quest for challenge and sport. if the fish breaks off he's a bit tired and he has a hook in his mouth that eventually rusts out, hopefully the fish is no worse for ware
> 
> ...


So no animal has ever been left suffering with 50# bow. I've got it on pretty good authority (capstick) that an elephant was drpped with a 22LR. For the record, thousands of deer have been killed with the 22LR.. and less. It is all about shot placement. It is all about skill. I don't know what minimum energy is required to kill deer, I know that it isn't much.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

22 hornet and a pop bottle has killed a pant load of deer


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I've got it on pretty good authority (capstick) that an elephant was drpped with a 22LR.


I've read Capstick and I haven't seen anything about your elephant. Which of his books was that in?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> So no animal has ever been left suffering with 50# bow. I've got it on pretty good authority (capstick) that an elephant was drpped with a 22LR. For the record, thousands of deer have been killed with the 22LR.. and less. It is all about shot placement. It is all about skill. I don't know what minimum energy is required to kill deer, I know that it isn't much.


Sure they have but I bet if you gave 20 people 20 # bows and 20 people 50 # bows and there main quarry was deer you would have more issues with 20 # bows 

Chapstick thou a talented writer........... was first and foremost just that 

Sure it's about skills but man is not perfect


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I looked through my library and it was in "Safari," but.......Capstick didn't verify the story, just said that he'd heard the story and thought it could be possible if everything was perfect.

Story went that the 40 grain bullet entered just behind the left leg as the elephant stepped forward and made it through the thinner ("armpit") skin behind the leg and so into the heart. 

A very, very hard story to believe. Capstick WAS a writer.

:wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> I've read Capstick and I haven't seen anything about your elephant. Which of his books was that in?


Good question... It was story about he and another PH having drinks one night and being told that an elephant was dropped with a 22. Capstick and the PH... well on their way by then, made a bet and in the morning, so it went, were off. When they came upon the unsuspecting target of their wager, the PH stalked to within a few yards and when the elephant moved forward the soft tissue covered by the leg was exposed and "ding"... right in the heart. Something else I found pretty interesting tonight was this...

http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/22lr/gel22lr.htm

The point of all this for me, is that if we use the argument that we have to assure ourselves of humane harvest, we specify equipment and then walk away saying that we have contributed to the proper outcomes in the field, yet we don't assure ourselves that those who can walk into the field with the proper prescription, know how to properly use it, or track game, or... the list goes on and on... but we'll tell the truly gifted that it doesn't matter how skilled you have to comply with our policy because we know what is best for you. Earlier I read somewhere that one state makes you zip tie your compound bow till you get into the field... What does that say... it says to me that government doesn't trust you... doesn't trust you to do the right thing. Putting minimums out, also means ... they don't trust you. Not for me... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> Sure they have but I bet if you gave 20 people 20 # bows and 20 people 50 # bows and there main quarry was deer you would have more issues with 20 # bows
> 
> Chapstick thou a talented writer........... was first and foremost just that
> 
> Sure it's about skills but man is not perfect


Well the thousands of deer killed with 22's should dispel the capability of the 22. On the other hand... this is just what I expected... put a 20 pound bow into the hands of 20 hunters a 50 pound bow into the hands of 20 hunters who comes back with the more deer. Exactly what I expected. How about you allow hunters to pick up the bow and let them gravitate towards what they feel is right. How many would you think would pick up the 20? But hey... :grin: How many would you have asked to prove that they could hit a target at 20 yards or 30 yards or 10 yards even? This is why all this is pointless... you don't and can't regulate what goes on in the field... so why do you?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> Good question... It was story about he and another PH having drinks one night and being told that an elephant was dropped with a 22. Capstick and the PH... well on their way by then, made a bet and in the morning, so it went, were off. When they came upon the unsuspecting target of their wager, the PH stalked to within a few yards and when the elephant moved forward the soft tissue covered by the leg was exposed and "ding"... right in the heart.


Well, no.

As I said above, Capstick did not witness it, just heard about it.

He believed it possible if only soft tissue was hit, meaning the bullet slid around sinew and bone.

I'm highly skeptical.......as usual.

:wink:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Well the thousands of deer killed with 22's should dispel the capability of the 22. On the other hand... this is just what I expected... put a 20 pound bow into the hands of 20 hunters a 50 pound bow into the hands of 20 hunters who comes back with the more deer. Exactly what I expected. How about you allow hunters to pick up the bow and let them gravitate towards what they feel is right. How many would you think would pick up the 20? But hey... :grin: How many would you have asked to prove that they could hit a target at 20 yards or 30 yards or 10 yards even? This is why all this is pointless... you don't and can't regulate what goes on in the field... so why do you?


I don't regulate what goes on in the field 

But IMHO a 20 pound bow and a 22 long rifle are not ideal hunting tools for deer .. Just my opinion


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> I don't regulate what goes on in the field
> 
> But IMHO a 20 pound bow and a 22 long rifle are not ideal hunting tools for deer .. Just my opinion


Yes I wouldn't either, but why should I tell you what you should / could use? It's not all about me.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Yes I wouldn't either, but why should I tell you what you should / could use? It's not all about me.



Sure it is


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JParanee said:


> Sure it is


Well actually you're right.... it is all about me.... "leave me alone!" :grin:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Funny


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Sounds like a rabid Libertarian.

While it IS funny in a way, it's still a destructive attitude. Without laws to prevent people from doing stupid things......we'd have a helluva lot more stupid things being done.

Sorry, but I applaud laws to help keep people from doing stupid things that harm animals, neighbors and other living things.

:amen:


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Are you saying that no one should ever use a .22 Long Rifle for hunting or killing deer? A 20# bow. Not proper for killing deer out of a tree. Is it ever proper.... in your *opinion?*


Yes, if I were starving to death and that's what I had to work with. I'm not one to encourage borderline minimalist equipment to kill game. Bad things happen to good shots. I've shot 20# bows and there isn't much energy there to propel a decent weight hunting arrow, and I don't mean a 200 grain arrow either. It would be like asking my 7 yo grandson to take out that buck with his 20# Little Bear. Use enough gun, use enough bow, you owe it to the animal.

When my son was growing up I wouldn't let him hunt deer with his small 30# compound even though it met the minimum pull standards. It just didn't have the zip it needed to propel a hunting weight arrow. I made him wait two more years when he could pull 45# and he made a clean kill on a small buck. Am I a bad dad?


----------



## Widow's son (Jul 21, 2012)

In Arkansas the minimum is 40#. I personally hunt with a 45# 1969 Bear Super K. I have a nice 52# '66 Kodiak that I shoot pretty well but here lately I've been developing some bow arm shoulder problems so I'm sticking with the 45# for now. I killed a doe with my 45# a couple of weeks ago and got a full pass thru with a cedar arrow and Bear razorhead with the arrow stuck 3" into the ground on the far side. I believe it was Fred Bear that said 45# was enough to take any game animal in the lower 48 states. It's shot placement and not poundage that kills deer. Shoot what you are most accurate with so long as it's a legal and ethical weight. That being said I hate to think I had to try to kill a deer with a 20# bow. Believe I'd rather use a spear. LOL


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

Man oh man! Have you guys ever done this thread in. Seems a good old timey story got all bent outta shape because just a few twisted the perspective of the thread....Sorry I even posted it. scout4


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

reddogge said:


> I made him wait two more years when he could pull 45# and he made a clean kill on a small buck. Am I a bad dad?


Absolutely not!

He may have only needed to wait 1 yrs. when he could draw 40lbs. but I totally respect your decision as a father.

I think we need laws to some extent or another. God gave us laws to live by...and I don't think it's wrong to have some laws to help govern people that make and take risky decisions that may effect others in a negative way.

I absolutely LOVE all animals and try to do my best to make as quick and clean of a kill as personally possible within the choices I've made to pursue the animals I choose to hunt.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MrSinister (Jan 23, 2003)

Doesn't surprise me at all. I saw the photos on here of the eland taken at about 50lb draw weight. Most wouldn't think that was enough bow for that massive animal but they would be wrong in those assumptions like most are about the need for draw weight. I say shoot the bow you shoot well. Just keep it legal in your hunting state.


----------

