Ozbow

Summed up well Dennis.

Jeff

After I posted above, I remembered an incident in my early archery career about 20 years ago which is illustrative of the usual reaction to incidents of archery vandalism prompting calls for licensing.

I was poking around in a bit of what was then State Forest in Central Victoria north of Lancefield and near Pyalong for those who know the area. I had my bow and arrows with me scouting the area for rabbits or foxes, but ended up doing some target practice at 50 long paces into a dirt mound at the butt of a fallen tree. I had walked to and back a good half dozen times already by the time of the following incident.

As I drew and loosed at the mark, a small wallaby darted from a clump of bushes to the left of the target and just in front. In one of those moments which takes a split second but appears to go into slow motion. I watched with horror as my loosed arrow looked as if it was going to strike this wallaby. I had already walked past the bush from which it jumped several times, so I do not know from where it came or how it got there, but there it was.

If it was not for the fact that it was on the downward movement of its hop instead of the upward movement, I am certain that my arrow would have struck it about the level of its shoulder blade. As it was, my arrow MUST have parted hairs.

Here is my point apropos of the various arguments to license bows.

Had my arrow struck the wallaby, I would have had almost zero chance of doing anything about it and it would have escaped with my field-pointed arrow sticking through the skin of its upper back. Had it been found by a concerned citizen and the RSPCA notified, there would have followed a media uproar and condemnation of the callousness of the cruel person who would deliberately do such a thing to an innocent animal. There would follow almost certainly calls for the abolition of bows and arrows or for their licensing to prevent the repeat occurrence of such acts of barbarity. Members of the archery community of all persuasions would support the outcry against such acts of deliberate cruelty whilst distancing themselves and their organizations from such acts. Members of this forum would also agree as they so often have with such sentiments.

The point being that all of the hoo-hah would be based upon the entirely false premise that the act was done deliberately by a person of callous and psychopathic disregard for the welfare of the wallaby.

My further point is that when we all hear of such incidences of arrow wounded animals, how many of them are unfortunate flukes similar to what almost happened to me and how many are proven actual deliberate incidents of cruelty. How many of us in collaboration with the antis support their condemnation and how often are such incidents actually proven to be deliberate rather than assumed to be deliberate?

I have no doubt that there are deliberate acts of cruelty. But how many are not and how do we differentiate. Also, how many of US are willing to ask the question of proof of cruelty?

At my first archery club at Diamond Valley in Victoria, I used to shoot sometimes from the 90 meter FITA mark. Very rarely, but a few times, I nearly struck low-flying birds which crossed the field. I wasn't looking for them, but they appeared suddenly in my field of vision as I was watching my high arcing arrow flight to that far away target. I missed them by a pretty good margin, but that was only by a stroke of good luck and a minutely delayed decision to take flight by the bird over which I had absolutely no control. If any of those few birds took flight a poofteenth later, my arrow may well have collided with one of them.

Before we collaborate in calls for the licensing of bows in reaction to such events and others similar, we should ask the question - how deliberate were these woundings if they were deliberate at all and how would licensing prevent the uncontrollable and unintentional.

We need to make it quite clear to those managing our organizations who would sell us out on such premises that boiling this reasonable frog won't be tolerated.

Stickbow Hunter wrote:I've disagreed with Daryl Venables on here in the past and I most certainly couldn't disagree with him more over his comments in that link - what stupid comments to put up in public!!!

Jeff

I agree that bloke is not worht listening to.

also why do so many people always post this business about licenses on forums ayway.The more you talk about it the more the seed is planted!!!

Of course we need regulation and licensing. It's worked for firearms. We don't have any illegal gun use in this country.... ABA and Game Council? Wouldn't **** on 'em.

Dave

Ah yes, their solution for everything is restrictions, and banning things. A very lazy, superficial solution I think. If people are doing things you don't like and you want them to change the way they act you need to connect with them and influence them positively. More rules and restrictions I think just reinforces the trend of a society that alienates everyone with very little community; the kind of place where there is no one that these people know and respect who can just talk to them about it and say "why are you shooting kangaroos?". Imposition of order equals escalation of disorder. The harder you try to grasp it and solve social issues with brute force, the more it slips away. More people become disillusioned. I don't think it promotes the kind of values and environment where the people locally can make a lasting solution for these problems themselves.
I agree with this idea of education and responsible dealers. Not grasping at straws at the expense of our freedom.

Apologies but I am new to the forum, but this is plain stupid. I am licensed rifle shooter and have been for over 20 years. Both state and federal governments have slowly but surely made it harder and harder to be a recreational shooter in all states. If we go down the path of licensing Bows, it will be the start of continued restrictions, you can count on it!

The nature of our political system is such that more laws means a better society - what a load of clap trap. All they are doing is making a country like Australia a socialistic nanny state - yes that's right the state, the authority knows whats best for everyone. Guys I warn you, this type of thinking will see major restrictions, for no good reason - that idea should be stomped on quickly.