|   hunting and biking | R.O.K
Oct 4, 2002 6:10 AM | | Does any one have do deer hunting on a mountain bike before, and is legal. |
| Huh?--nm | fattirewilly
Oct 4, 2002 6:27 AM | | |
| it's harder for sure | mr_spin
Oct 4, 2002 6:37 AM | | It's tough to ride and shoot at the same time, so it could be a long day, especially if you are also trying to drink a beer.
It's worse for the deer, however. Deer aren't made for riding bikes, and they have a huge disadvantage in that they don't have opposable thumbs. Grip shift is impossible for them to use! Most deer stick to single speeds. Still, those cloven hooves can't grip the bars all that well.
Hopefully, hunting deer on mountain bikes is a fad that will quietly disappear. The deer have formed a lobbying group with a questionable name, Mountain Bikers for Hunting Deer, and are lobbying Sen. Barbara Boxer to get it outlawed. |
| I really hope you are joking | NoBonk
Oct 4, 2002 6:51 AM | | |
| As long as the gun points toward yourself on the DH sections. nm | Locoman
Oct 4, 2002 6:58 AM | | . |
| ignore the smart asses above.... | turbotoad
Oct 4, 2002 7:57 AM | | They all sound like lame attempts at being funny or just being smart-asses. Yes, I believe hunting can be done with (not from) a MTB. I would much rather see hunters use MTB's to travel to their blinds than those ATV's that a lot of them use. The MTB can get you deep into the woods (following trails of course) quickly and has the added benifit of being fairly quiet. I've even seen some gun and bow racks that could be fitted onto a MTB. As for the legallity, you should check with your state DNR office and ask if MTB's are a "legal" means of transportion to and from your hunting blind and what the requirements are for carrying a gun on the bike (empty chamber, ammo stored seperate from the gun, etc). I've often thought about using a MTB to get to my hunting locations but elected to keep hiking in instead. You can be a lot quieter and see more around you when your not moving too fast down a trail or through the woods. |
| No, LAME is.... | Lowlander
Oct 4, 2002 9:41 AM | | ... someone who tries to sully the good name of mountain bikers by being sad enough to want to cycle around with a rifle shooting defenceless animals .... go get your OWN life, rather than creeping about taking that of some deer... |
| What's absolutely pitiful is... | Toddy Too Hotty!
Oct 4, 2002 10:07 AM | | listening to people list the rules of how one can use a mountain bike, as if they were appointed to set the rules for the world to follow. I would deduce from your comments that your post has nothing to do with mtn biking, and more to do with the fact that you don't like hunting.
Bikes are for transportation, and if someone wants to use it to haul themselves and a firearm into the woods to legally hunt, all the power to them.
Lowlander, do you get upset at the Sierra Club for wanting to remove mtn biking from some lands, due to their impact on wildlife? I have never seen a post here supporting the Sierra Club's stance, so I will assume you don't. If you strongly believe what you wrote above, what would you say to a SC rep who said:
"Lame is someone who tries to sully the good name of outdoorsmen/athlete/mtn biker (just pick one) by being sad enough to want to cycle around through the woods scaring, and endangering defenceless animals .... go ride around in your own home, rather than creeping about in the home of the animals." |
| Toddy Talks Potty! | Locoman
Oct 4, 2002 10:45 AM | | Personally, the last thing I'd like to see is the gun & mountain biker niche develop.
I'm not totally against hunting because I realize some populations need to be culled at times to keep them healthy (sometimes when I read certain posts I wonder if this applies to the human race....but i digress). |
| I believe that niche has developed a lot more than you realize. | Toddy Too Hotty!
Oct 4, 2002 10:59 AM | | First off, good header.
Secondly, I am on the eastern side of the US, and have ridden in the northern and southern parts. I find there are many bikers that do shoot, hunt, or have no problems with guns. It may be different in parts like CA, but out here, I would say that niche is established.
I am curious, why would you not want to see that niche develop. I have never seen or even heard of a gun loving mtn biker taking a gun with him for a mtn bike ride. |
| The more bullets shot, the greater chance of getting shot. | Locoman
Oct 4, 2002 11:05 AM | | And I ain't talking about those from Santa Cruz.. |
| The more bullets shot, the greater chance of getting shot. | Toddy_Too_Hotty!
Oct 4, 2002 12:18 PM | | Sure, but what makes you think mtn bikers who like guns are going to take them with them on every ride? I wouldn't want to have a handgun in my camelbak, wreck and land on it.
Seriously, with how much fuss mtn bikers make about weight, why do you have this fear that they would all start toting guns with them on the ride. That is extra weight. |
| some people depend on the hunt | KL
Oct 4, 2002 11:57 AM | | to supplement their family's needs.
Kevin L.
non-hunter |
| I hear that.. | Locoman
Oct 4, 2002 9:18 PM | | Supplementing needs is a different issue. I'm talking about the person that shoots for fun. Apples and oranges.
My gramps tells me stories all the time about hunting so his family could eat.. |
| Agreed | Toddy Too Hotty!
Oct 4, 2002 9:53 AM | | I have been thinking about using my mtn bike to take some old logging/fire trails into a public land. Most hunters park by the road and don't want to walk more than 1/4 to 1/2 mile into the woods. Getting deeper into it without owning an ATV is troublesome, but a bike could be the answer. It would be nice to hunt in a desolate area without a lot of pressure. Most of the hunting regs for each state are online, so I would start there.
Enjoy! |
| I do it all the time.... | Dirt Pilot
Oct 4, 2002 11:50 AM | | ....I chase them down on the bike to wear them out. I then leap off the bike, grab them by the antlers and wrestle them to the ground and beat the hapless beasts into a delirium with my fists.
This all seems very inhumane but it's better then shooting them, they always wake up in a couple hours...bruised and shaken of course...but they're alive to romp in the woods another day.
I don't particularly care fo the flavor of venison or I'd drag the beast home and butcher it. I do this purely for the thrill and sport of the hunt, sort of like tossing the fish back in the lake. |
| Usually the laws are pretty strict | Jeff_from_boulder
Oct 4, 2002 1:29 PM | | You will have to see what the local laws are for transportation of firearms while on a bike. Generally, I have found them to be fairly strict. In Colorado for instance the gun must be permenently attached to the bike to legally carry it. Not much use in hunting in that case, but other states may have laws that allow it. Also to some of you others, what is so bad about having a gun with you on a ride?? Especially a handgun, several hikers carry them in case they run into wildlife that attacks them (not all that common I agree but still a valid reason). Why should it be any different for a person on a bike? Or is the real problem that you haven't been around guns enough to understand and respect them? Often the people most scared of a gun have never even held or fired one (in my opinion). How about some others feelings on this matter.
Jeff |
| It's fine with me.... | Toddy Too Hotty!
Oct 4, 2002 3:55 PM | | as long as it is legal for the individual to own the gun. I too find that most people who have a fear of guns have never fired, held, or even seen a real gun. But they saw it in a TV show and a bad guy had one, so guns must be bad.
As a side note, people should learn that it is a fact that the states with the highest gun ownership and citizens with concealed weapons permits have the lowest crime (e.g. Maine, Vermont, NH, PA, WV), while the states with the most restrictive gun laws (NJ, Maryland, CA) have the highest rates of violence. If you don't believe it, go to Vermont (least restrictive in nation), and go to DC. |
| It's fine with me.... | Earwicker
Oct 6, 2002 1:14 AM | | Which way does the causation go though? Is the crime high because the level of gun restriction is high? Or is the level of gun restriction high because the level of crime is high? BTW, I don't know the answers to these questions (not an American), I'm just pointing out that statistics are useless without interpretation. Also, the country I live in has a far lower crime rate than the US, but has extremely strict gun control. |
| All of the data shows... | Matno
Oct 6, 2002 6:35 AM | | That crime drops immediately AFTER gun laws are relaxed and climbs immediately AFTER stricter gun laws are implemented. Those changes usually continue at their lower/higher rate for as long as the laws are in effect. It's difficult to compare US to other countries because most of them actually enforce their gun laws. Here, we have powers that be who want all guns banned eventually, and they do a good job of making current gun laws seem inadequate. For example, everyone is ecstatic to point out how many thousands of people are supposedly stopped from buying a firearm by the Brady Bill (which requires background checks to check for mental illness and criminal record). Their figures range in the hundreds of thousands nationwide. What they don't mention is that virtually NONE of those people are prosecuted (if a convicted criminal to attempts to buy a firearm, that's a FELONY). Literally, out of the 60,000 or so that Bill Clinton bragged were prevented from buying a handgun in the first year after the bill was passed, less than 100 were prosecuted! There's logic behind this, but it isn't rational, and the goal it's trying to achieve is not a good one. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I think a lot of people have unconsciously bought into this one, and it's a doozy. |
| Check this out | pedalAZ
Oct 4, 2002 2:32 PM | | http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1863241278 |
| Absolutely! | Matno
Oct 4, 2002 3:15 PM | | Biking to a good hunting spot is an ideal way to get there quickly and quietly (assuming your bike is quiet). I've come up on deer MANY times on rides where they didn't hear me until I was within 20 feet. Riding a bike while hunting is not any different (legally) than riding a bike, so if the area you hunt allows bikes, you're good to go. I would recommend leaving the gun's safety on though. Personally, I just strap it on my back just the way I normally would when hiking--with a sling. It works just fine for normal riding, and I don't usually do super technical stuff when I'm just trying to get from point A to point B. Make sure to wear lots of orange! Maybe even attach a bell for the parts of the ride where you're not concerned about making noise. (Which can actually help get the deer moving if you plan it right).
As for those who seem to think that carrying a gun and riding are incompatible, they would probably think that carrying a gun and anything are incompatible. The only reason anyone would think that is because they buy into the patently false anti-gun rhetoric, which requires major ignorance of facts (statistics relating to gun use, that is) and a complete unfamiliarity of firearms. Guns are not inherently dangerous. Putting a handgun in your Camelback is not going to hurt you in a crash any more than putting any other hard object in there will (such as a camera). I've done it plenty of times when riding alone in remote wilderness areas. Not really for protection from 4 legged creatures though, there are other much more dangerous threats out there. Only problem with the Camelbak is that it doesn't allow very quick access... |
| Yup, JAMA, Police...all spreading false rhetoric... | Locoman
Oct 4, 2002 9:27 PM | | Facts about Keeping a
Gun in the Home
Fifty-seven percent of handguns are stored unlocked, and 55% are kept loaded.
Source: Cook P., and Ludwig J. (1996) Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on
Firearms Ownership and Use. Police Foundation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty percent of all gun owners said they keep their
guns unlocked and loaded, while 30% of handgun owners keep their guns unlocked and loaded.
Source: Cook P., and Ludwig J. (1996) Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on
Firearms Ownership and Use. Police Foundation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although many gun owners keep a gun in the home for
protection, studies show that risks of keeping a gun in the home out-weigh benefits. For instance, a gun in the home is actually used for self-protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes.
Source: Kellermann A et al. Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes. JAMA. 1995; 273: 1759-1762
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be
involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense.
Source: Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45
(2): 263-267
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk of suicide of a family member is increased by
nearly five times in homes with guns.
Source: Kellermann A., et al. (1992) Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New England Journal
of Medicine. 267, 3043-3047.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having one or more guns in the home makes a woman
7.2 times more likely to be the victim of a domestic homicide.
Source: Bailey, J. (1997) Risk factors for violence death of women in the home, Archives of Internal
Medicine. 157(7), 777-782. |
| JAMA--Hah! | Matno
Oct 5, 2002 4:52 AM | | Did you actually quote the AMA seriously? As a member of the medical profession (and consciously NOT a member of the AMA) I can tell you that very little that the AMA says any more has anything to do with fact and everything to do with politics.
As for the statistics about guns being unlocked and loaded, I would have to refer you to my previous post. People who think that a locked and unloaded gun is somehow safer than one that you can actually use when you need it simply haven't been around guns enough. If those statistics you quote are accurate, that means that there are a lot of useless guns being locked up. (Of course, that doesn't take into account the fact that most people who own multiple guns only keep one of them loaded at any given time).
"A gun in the home is actually used for self-protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes." That's a perfect example of skewed statistics. The number is low because the vast majority of home invasion crimes occur when nobody is home. The percentage in which guns were used as protection when someone was actually home is much higher. Furthermore, the Kellerman "study" was highly inaccurate. They also claimed that a firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. Now, here's a look at reality:
The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state, "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."
Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted.
How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude, "The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst. This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument. --David K. Felbeck, August 10, 2000
I know there is nothing I can say that is likely to convince someone like you, because you have already demonstrated that you subscribe to an irrational fear based on faulty science. But the facts should at least be presented so that people who only read mainstream (leftwing) media can form their own unbiased opinion. |
| Bottom line: A gun can shoot you..but if there is no gun... | Locoman
Oct 5, 2002 6:20 AM | | There has to be a correlation between the fact that guns are highly prevalent in our (US) society and the higher rate of murder associated with guns (in this country).
Less guns in the hands of civilians in Western Euroope, less murders via guns. Coincidence? |
| Bottom line: A gun can NOT shoot you...if you want to talk crime | Matno
Oct 5, 2002 8:12 AM | | People commit crimes. Guns do not do anything on their own. If you want accurate crime stats, read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr., a law professor from the U. of Chicago who studied crime stats from all 3000+ counties in the U.S. for nearly 20 years. ("the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws.") See also studies by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State who showed that there are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. Professor Kleck is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He had expected the research involved in that writing to infer negatively on gun ownership. He discovered a vast amount of violent crimes were prevented by firearms usage. Even though this was contrary to his original premise, he had the integrity to stand by his research. Although that book was awarded the best book (of 1993) on criminology by the American Society of Criminology it was largely ignored by gun control advocates such as most medical journals and our Government's Justice Department and Center for Disease Control.
As for Western Europe, consider the overall crime rate. Not just crimes committed with guns. England now has the strictest gun laws in Western Europe. Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City? Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the U.S.?
Joyce Lee Malcolm , who just wrote "Guns and Violence The English Experience" (Harvard University Press ) blames the rocketing rates of violent and armed crimes in England on "government policies that have gone badly wrong...Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant." During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban (a total ban on all private handguns in England), the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose by 53 percent. In addition, she points out that "the English police still grossly underreport crimes. . . . The 1998 British Crime Survey found four times as many crimes occurred as police records indicated."
Come on, you need to do some homework. All of the irrefutable evidence lies on the same side of this argument (and it isn't favorable to gun control).
The risk to children of dying from car accidents, drowning, fire, and even bicycle accidents far exceeds the risk of dying from gun accidents. Maybe we should ban bicycles too. Heck, if you really wanted to reduce crime, a total ban on alcohol would get rid of more than 90% of it (if you could actually get rid of all alcohol).
The real bottom line is that gun ownership is not a privilege, it is a right. As Americans we are fortunate enough to have a Constitutional Amendment that specifically protects this right. Note, the 2nd Amendment does not create the right, but rather it protects an inherent right. Hunting may be a favorite pasttime to some people (including me), but it isn't the reason that we own guns. |
| Bottom line: A gun can NOT shoot you...if you want to talk crime | Zyzbot
Oct 5, 2002 10:59 AM | | Here's a few links with info to consider:
http://www.downunderwebsites.com/britishguncrime.htm
http://www.stats.org/statswork/britgun.htm
"It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their right to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature." |
| Here are a few reasons why that may be true... | Toddy Too Hotty!
Oct 5, 2002 5:04 PM | | 1.) our culture - throw out all of the gun deaths in this country, and there are still more non-gun murders in this country versus all forms of murder in the western Europe countries.
2.) They do not have the violent drug war that we have in our country. According to the FBI, 70 or 80% of all crime in the US is drug related....so that implies a lot of the murders are too.
As a side note, did you know earlier this year the UN released a report which said the US is no longer the country where you are most likely to be the victum of a violent crime? It is now Britian/Wales, where it is illegal to own a gun. Handguns are illegal and only hunt clubs can own rifles/shotguns, and they must reamain at the hunt club.
Like I said before, if guns are the problem, why is Chicago the murder capital of the US (where handguns are illegal), and places like Vermont, NH, Maine, PA, WV, VA, CO , and so forth not? |
| Christ, I'm convinced.."lock n' load"..."b|tch! Where's my 9?" | Locoman
Oct 5, 2002 8:10 PM | | . |
| Locoman - you are wrong | third day
Nov 6, 2002 11:12 AM | | The presence of guns is NOT what causes a lawless society.
There may seem to be a correlation between the number of guns in the US and the number of violent crimes. But there are many countries where the opposite is true.
I know what I'm talking about.
I lived for many years in a third-world country with a horrendous crime rate. We lived behind 6-foot razor wire fences and concrete walls with bars on our windows and guard dogs and armed guards. People even chained their cars to the posts supporting their house. It isn't safe for anyone to go out at night and it isn't safe for a woman to walk the streets alone even in broad daylight. The Police force is corrupt and powerless. This country has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. The gangs of thugs roaming the streets don't need guns. They use knives and also they make their own homemade guns, which, although crude, are certainly effective. What could we do to defend ourselves? Nothing. Decent, law-abiding people weren't allowed to have guns for any reason.
Guns are safe when used properly. I don't carry a gun when riding, but I usually do when camping or backpacking. Fortunately I've never had to use it, but I prefer to have the option. |
| Thanks, Matno, finally someone who makes sense (nm) | third day
Nov 6, 2002 10:35 AM | | |
| What I've heard about "bike hunting" | Benno
Oct 5, 2002 11:02 AM | | My brother-in-law, an avid hunter, told me this tale:
A game preserve near here was off limits to vehicles - most hunters would only walk in a mile or two to hunt. One individual, however, decided to bike several miles in and was rewarded with a big buck. To transport the animal he first eviscerated it, lowered his seat, and lashed the animal to the bike with the seat in the abdominal cavity and the front feet tied to the fork. The cyclist then sat on top of the deer (which was on the seat) and pedaled back to home base. Apparently it caused quite a stir when he arrived back at camp. A good reason to never buy a used saddle! |
| That's awesome! | Matno
Oct 5, 2002 12:17 PM | | Probably never would have thought of that one. It could work... That's definitely a good time to have some extra orange stuff or a bell with you though. A relatively upright deer moving quickly down the trail could certainly attract some "negative" attention! :) |
| |
