bigcountry

I have to disagree there. I think its not so much its rare you get answers from people who know why they believe what they do, but its extremely apparent to me, its answers you don't like to hear. Or you can't understand them and need more detail. I see you especially do this on political matters. Somebody will reply back to you, and you bombard them with more and more of your rants saying they dance around an issue, when thier answer makes total sense to me and should have been very sufficient to answer your question.

To answer your question, in detail, I feel Fred Bear was a great guy in bowhunting. He paved the way. But I feel he took negligent shots, so did Saxon Pope and Art Young. I can't say I have seen in video Howard missing very much. sometimes we put people on pedistals, to knock them off. For instance, I saw Brian Ferg miss several targets at a show. I read his books, I took direction about his form. I thought of the guy as a legend. But after i saw him shoot, I was disappointed. Now, everybody has an off day. Just the way it is. I expected more more out of Brian, and I shouldn't have done that. He's still incredible. But has faults and bad days. Same with Fred Bear, I am sure he has taken poor shots, maybe behind the scenes, unethical shots. But he had a reputation to uphold. I am sure we don't know all the dirt on him.

Buster T

bigcountryahhhhhhhhh, the politcal forum is a different critter altogether !

I would love to know how many animals Fred Bear wounded and missed. I would like to know why he took the shots he did. I'd like to know how accurate he was on targets. I want to know if the shots he took were "good" and they went "bad' for some reason.

Many questions ....... few answers .........

Arthur P

This is 2007, not 1915, not 1935, not even 1957. Like Chad has been TRYING to point out, ethics and public attitudes are very different now than they were back in those days. The groundwork those old timers laid, the mistakes and successes, is the basis for our code of ethics today. Some folks need to open their minds and at least try to let that soak into their thick skulls.

Anyone who really wants an education about how our modern ethics didn't apply back in the old days, read "The Witchery of Archery" by Maruice Thompson.

Fred Bear was out there promoting bowhunting. Since he wasn't a feakin' IDIOT, of course he used his own products. His primary goal was to popularize bowhunting. His secondary goal was to make a little coin by selling his products to those new bowhunters. He richly deserved a little income from his efforts because he and a few others like him are the primary movers and shakers that got the states to open up bowseasons in the 50's and 60's. If it weren't for them there wouldn't be any bow seasons today.

Buster T

Absoluetly, I agree. The 16 or 18 patents he holds, they were vital to bowhunting becoming what it is today from what I read, and he never recieved royalties off any of them !

So we agree Fred was quite the intelligent man, he was quite the inventor, businessman, a writer and producer etcetc. He was also quite the bowhunter, he was accomplished as a field archer and as a bowyer. He killed a lot of animals with rifles. Later, he killed many with bows. He hunted for the Hunt, he didn't glorify the kill, he loved the wilderness that he hunted and the animals in it.

We credit him with all that .......... and then ponder that he took unethical shots, shots he didn't think he could make, and write it off as simply a different day and time ?

Arthur P

Not entirely. The shots he took were NOT considered unethical in his time. It truly was a different day and a different time. Different mindset. Different circimstances.

It's patently absurd to judge bowhunters of yesteryear by applying today's standards to them. The whole process of bowhunting was in it's developmental years and - once again - what they learned then is a huge part of what has formed our code of ethics today.

The rest of our code has been formed by the anti-hunting establishment - a group of well financed complete idiots that no hunter ever had to deal with before the 1980's. We've had to really tighten up on our behavior to keep from feeding them ammunition.

In that way, the anti-hunting movement has been good for hunting.

Buster T

If that is true ......... then you can expect in 30 years people to look back on you and I and say the same thing ?

LBR

It is true, and although Ifigure there will always be those that look down on hunting in general, I don't expect the same things to be said. Thanks to Mr. Bear and others we've learned a lot, and there's no reason to repeat the mistakes he made.

Chad

Arthur P

Oh for Pete's sake! If I had a crystal ball that told me what would be happening in the future, I'd be filthy, stinkin' rich and be too busy hunting and fishing on my very own private preserve to be messing around on a forum.

I don't know what ethics are going to be like in another 30 years. Bear didn't know what ethics would be like today. All we can do is play by the rules as best we can under the ethical guidelines of our times and if someone in the future doesn't like it... screw 'em.

Buster T

LBR that doesn't make sense at all does it ? What you're essentially saying is that Fred Bear and Co lived int he pirmitive, early stages of bowhunting and that where we are at today is the cusp of bowhunting - we as a bowhunting society are as ethical and straight lined as we'll ever be, can't possibly get any better ?

Don't you think thats what was thought 20 years ago ? 40 years ago ?

Can you imagine (I can) in 30 years, where technology might be ? The bows are 500 fps. They have a self stabilizing system to the arrows then gaurantee perfect arrow flight. Technology in the broadhead assures blades will open, be ultra sharp, and never bend or break. Maybe a tracking system for hit deer to gaurantee recovery ?

In that world they'll look back at us as ........ what ?

Is it possible that bowhunting will evolve so much as to make it almost not hunting at all ?

Arthur P

Buster, at first I didn't think you understood that point. Now I think you're just arguing to hear your head rattle.