killzonearchery

fred bear was a man that i think everyone should respect more then they do. To me he is one of the best known and the best archer ever. Yes he did miss but everyone does somtime. But he never gave up and that is what him the best and how he hunted for weeks is really cool to.

Talondale

I understand, I think, Buster T's motives for asking these questions and I've had the same questions myself. Why do most of us limit ourselves to 20 and under when many guys we "admire" took 100+ yard shots? I know everyone doesn't have the same skill level but if someone posts that they took a 30+ yard shot you'd think they were pariahs. I've heard the quote "It's not how far but how close." many times and it puzzles me that they can't understand the challenge of being as proficient at your weapon as you possibly can. At the same time I think LBR's explaination is the closest to explaining the reasons. We have elevated the value of animals almost on level with man, and some have put them above man. I think Fred would want to kill as quickly as possible because he was self demanding, had expectations he wanted out of his own skill, and had no desire to be cruel, but in the end I think he would have said it was only an animal. We had a harder attitude towards animals back then than we do today. Mostly because our main interaction with them is only as an entertainment/pet capacity rather than utilitarian.

As for the future of bowhunting, I see some improvements in materials and some methods but I don't see a radical change unless there's a distinct change in form and approach. There's too much inherent limitation in the bow concept to allow significant changes. As for our ethics being viewed in a future light, well I'll be too dead to worry about it but I can see our culture being over-sensitized to the degree hunting is eliminated all together, until a harder people conquer or replace us.

Buster T

Arthur P what we people say when they look back to you and me 30-40 years from now ? What advanaces in technology, or what social changes will affect what they say about us ? Because if we can look to Fred and call his shots unethical by todays standards ........ are we going to be called the same in the future ?

LBR You tell me ? Is the end result justify;s the means ? Did it matter WHAT kind of shot he took, how far away it was, at what angle etc as long as the end result was a dead elephant ?

Thats an extermely important point, because if the end result is all that matters, there are no bad shot, no good shots - just shots that end in dead animals.

I believe that Fred Bear had that belief in a way. I think he and others know that if arrows aren't flying, aint nothing dying. Shocking ? I don't know ....... is it ?

I've taken some very good shots, and lost deer. I've taken some shots that were less ideal, and killed them. So where is the consistancy ? What does it mean ?

LBR Goodness, I'm right there when it comes to the public view, and how it affects everything, you know that. But truthfully ? I don't know that it matters HOW we kill the animals, I really don't. Fred was a great ambassodor to those who didn't knowa thing about bowhunting ....... and he took a lof of shots I wouldn't have. he won a lot of people over, established arhcery seasons, revolutionaized the whole concept of bowhunting. And he took those shots.

Today's ARA's will attack regardless of our personal ethics. When I go into this area, I think about how cattle and hogs are slaughtered ...... vs me shooting a deer in the ham and it bleeding to death. There isn't any comparison, both died, one was wild and died in the wild, the other penned and died in a pen. One was killed assembly style, the other personal and one to one. A clean double lunger, or a gut shot that took 4 hours to die, the wild deer had it much better IMO.

Because of that, I think bowhunters have become a wussy lot when it comes to killing. Its what we do - and sometimes it aint as pretty as we'd like, but its much, much better that what slaughter animals get.


These are very important questions and ideals to me. I've hammered these message boards for years, I know the general "ethics" that are expecte dof bowhunters, then I read about the "great ones" and they didn't follow the silly "ethics" of today. Why ? Because they were out there to shoot and kill animals. Bottom line.

Is it a different world ? yes. Is it THAT different ? I don't know that it is ........

Arthur P

Buster, Buster, Buster.... How many times are you going to ask the same question and ignore the answers you've already gotten? This flagellation of the deceased equine is getting pretty darn boring.

laxdad

Arthur P.....Not that you need any endorsement from me but I usually enjoy your posts. In my opinion you're close on this one but if I may...

First, I started bowhunting in 1946, at the age of 11 with a 27# long bow made for me by a friend of my fathers. Hunted for and killed a lot ofrabbits with that bow. Spent the next 25+ years with "primitive" long bows and recurves. You're right about one thing, we found our comfort zones by trial and error. We shot at animals in different situations to determine effectiveness, not ethics. I learned that 20 yards was my maximum slam dunk range, not because of ethics, but because I didn't want to spend hours tracking and maybe losing an animal. Fred, with hif guide and bearers did not have to worry about it. Point of illustration, I believe in 1959 I was stillhunting a swampy area with a 50# Herter's recurvewith Herter fiberglass arrows and Herter 4 blade BH. That combohad to weigh 1000 gr..Anyway, I spotted and worked within 40 yds of a very large buck so I drew and aimed (instinctively) about a foot above his back. The arrowwould have hit him but he heard the release and calmly backed up about a foot and let the arrow hit the water right next to him. He then walked off. I immediately learned that I needed a new arrow combo because hay bales and deer behaved differently at 40 yards.

So anyway,I grew up during the Fred Bear heyday. I will neither pay tribute to him nor castigate him. I view him simply as a promoter of his products, doing the thing he loved.Trying to lay all of these ethical attributes to him and those that followed (like me) are in my opinion, preposterous. He was a hunter, usually guided (in unfenced areas) to a position where he could kill game that could be photographed and promoted. There was no internet, DVDs, CDs and early on, no TV. We learned by doing and hadlittle thought about what future hunters were going to think of us.Like today, we each had our own ethical standards.

In my opinion, Walt Disney did us the major injustice by humanizing animals via Bambi, Dumbo, etc.. Chidren who grew up learning that lovable Bambi's motherwas killed by a mean hunter began the process of anti-hunter sentiment and has been reinforced by the steady parade of animals in human form ever since.

LBR

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The point being how much better can equipment get? Gear we consider dang-near primitive was good enough to kill an elephant, yet you know as well as anyone even the most up to date bow, arrow, and broadhead can fail on much smaller game.

I never said or implied the end justifies the means.

There's no such thing as a good shot that didn't do the job. The angle could be perfect, the distance could be perfect, the situation could be perfect--but something was very wrong, else it would have resulted in a dead animal. On the other hand, even if the situation is less than ideal, but the hunter is able to make the shot count, it's a good shot. I'm not talking about getting lucky here--and I consider some of the shots Fred got away with to be very lucky.



You don't get out much do you?[8D]

Of course it doesn't matter to the ARA's how a human kills and animal, except they can get more press by exposing "cruelty"--and who is the press meant for? Those who are neutral or undecided--the same ones we hunters need to leave a good impression on, because they vote and can play a role in the future of hunting, whether they participate or not.

It is VERY different today. We have ARA groups with huge budgets and lots of influence to deal with. People today have cell phone cameras, digital cameras, and anyone who cares to can have their own web site and/or post pictures on other web sites. And to re-hash what I've already said, very few people have a clue about where meat really comes from, or ever think about it, compared to not too many years ago when putting meat on the table meant slaughtering it yourself. Around here folks still talk about hog killin's, how the community all pitched in to get the job done, and the meat was often shared or everyone took turns going from one house to another to make the work easier. One of my neighbors plans to have an "old timey hog killin" in the near future, so the younger generation can see how it used to be done.

What hunter's have to deal withto protect the sport has changed a lot. We have to adapt or become extinct.

Chad

Buster T

I don' tknow that the gear is that much better at all ........ wasn't we talking about how we've " grown " as a whole, bowhunters being influenced by ARA's etc now have to do much more in the way of "ethics" that we use to ? Thats not gear related LBR, thats personal choice and how we choose to be in the woods.

No, I'm asking if it does.

Anymore I wonder if thats true. I was in Colorado when bear hunting was banned (spring & dogs). How as it done ? It was a huge lie, propoganda running sows with cubs as being the ones killed. It had nothing to do with the truth behind hunting. You can do everything right ..... and the ARA's will lie, and the stupid public will vote agianst hunting anyway.

What happens on the back 40 when you shoot a buck isn't in the limelight though, is it ?


That book I read recently ........ one of the well known bowhunters of today, and he took a lot of shots that isn't considered "ethical" on the bowhunting forum. You'd get SLAMMED for taking those shots.

And he took them, and he made some and he missed some.

I've taken broadside shots, and made some, and missed some.

Whats the difference ?

This author and I both took shots to kill game. We both had success, both had failure, Fred did too.

Whats it matter what KIND of shots that were taken ?

LBR

That was in response to your comment about how much gearcould advance in the future. I don't see that much room for improvement. If it gets to the point where the shot is a guaranteed kill, it's not hunting anymore, and our sport is doomed.

The end does not justity the means, at least not to me, as long as I'm not relying on the meat to survive.

You make my point again. Of course the ARA's will do whatever it takes. It's our responsibility to prove them wrong, not prove them right or give them more fuel to add to the fire. Not much chance of changing an ARA's mind, but we're both trying to influence those who don't fall intoeither category,hunter or ARA, to vote with us.

Ask some of the well known hunters and celebrities who have been caught up in hunting scandals in the last few years, or even the unknowns who have made the papers. Our ethics shouldn't be determined by who is watching,and these days you don't know who might be watching.


You know better. You know the difference in taking a 15 yd shot at a relaxed animal and a 60 yd shot, or a running shot, etc. You also know that there are archers that are comfortable and confident taking shots that you or I wouldn't even consider--and they can make them.

It's not up to me to tell the next guy what is or is not an ethical shot. Some are no-brainer's, but I don't see me setting the rules by skill and comfort level when the next guy may be much better, or much worse.

Alpha Capo

i think you guys need to give eachother a hug...not a fruity hug...just a handshake and a pat on the back...

Buster T

Alpha Capo I'll hug LBR when he's shooting, doing the splits [8D]

Lets say the legends of bowhunting, Fred Bear, Ben Pearson, Pope, Young, Schafer, Brunner, and the others ........ lets excuse away all their missed shots, questionable shots etc to pioneering modern bowhunting.

What if we found out that the legends of TODAY ....... Randy Ulmer, Chuck Adams, Dwight Schuh, and others ........ what if we found out that they take the very same shots.

Then what ?

I watched a bit of a bowhunting show last night, the guy was full draw on an antelope and the guy behind him says "78 yards" - and I swear he was going to shoot had it not moved.

78 yards ? on TV ?

LBR - for all that we agree on, how does the hunting shows on tv reflect towards hunitng and bowhunting ? Since sportsman of today really have to watch things and be good ambassadors and everything ..........