Buster T

I didn't know that Fred missed as much as he did. He might have hit one for every 6-7 animals he shot at. He had no problems shooting at animals at 50-60 yards or more, animals quartering to him or running even. He liver shot a lot of animals rather than double lunged them (not intentionally of course). He shot mostly 65# bows. He often had to go 2-3 time before he killed an animal (like moose) and when he went, he hunted for weeks.

He was very, VERY adament about the hunt being the important part of hunting, not the kill. The kill was a very small part of the hunt.

I want to read his field notes ........ this book was Dick Lattimers "Hunt with Fred Bear " - excellent book I thought

LBR

The Adventures of Fred Bear (Fred Bear's Field Notes) is an excellent read, especially if you have seen a few of the videos (you get the truth in the book that is stretched, sometimes a good bit, in the vids).

If Fred were alive today, and hunted today like he did then, most likely he'd be shunned and blackballed. He isn't alive today though, and hunting--especially with a bow--was a lot different then.

The bow and arrow hadn't been proven by "civilized" men back then--it was uncharted territory.There was a lot to be learned about it's limitations and onlyone way to figure themout. Fred and a very few others had an amazing amount of nerve to take on the animals they did with a bow, not knowing like we do that it could--without a doubt--be done.

This was a time before PETA and other ARA's breathing down hunter's necks. Ethics were a bit different. You found out if you could make a shot at a given distance by trying. Fred was a pioneeer in getting the bow and arrow accepted as a viable hunting tool, and was also a pioneer at improving equipment.He's infamous for inventing the "pod"--as best I can tell it wasn't because he was trying tobe lazy, but rather improve the image of the sport and make for a quicker, cleaner kill.

Quite an interesting man.This sport owes him a huge debt of grattitude for his work--'course he managed to make a good living at it too--something I suspect we all wish we could pull off.

Chad

Buster T

I agree to a degree. But Fred and Company were not cave men of bowhunting. I think they full well knew what was and wasn't unsportsmanlike. However, they were bowhunters, there were not trying to please an invisible politically correct crowd. They had no qualms about taking a 50 yard shot at a deer, full well knowing they might miss. They didn't CARE if they missed really - its hunting, it happens, thats the way it is.

Whereas nowdays, we have this feeling that if we miss, or wound, and do it often that we're doing a disservice to the animals. Fred Bear LOVED the wildlife, he trumped it up, that bowhunting was so much better because you got to know the animals up close. But that didn't mean he wouldn't take a frontal shot on a world record ram at 60 yards, you know ?

Different time for sure ........ but I don't think Fred Bear and the people he hunted with were that much different

BobCo19-65

From you're topic post, I thought you wrote a book on him.

Confused - BobCo

Buster T

LOL - I wish I could have known him and asked questions. Him, Hill, Pope, Young, St Charles, Lattimer ......... those guys CREATED what we have today

bigcountry

Did you ever read the story of Saxton Pope, and Art Young lion hunting in Africa with longbows? Wow, they got some bad shots. I was sitting there amazed. Hitting them in the head, and all over at 85 yards. Different time no doubt. Wouldn't fly today.

LBR

I think they were influenced by the old English archers, who shot LONG distances. Like I said, it was a weapon yet to be proven in modern times.

I can't speak for Fred, but I have seen ethics change a LOT in my 37 (almost 38)years. Folks that cared very much for the game, yet did things that we consider very unethical today. Even game laws have changed--lots of things that were common when I was young are illegal today.

I read somewhere (take it for what it's worth) that Fred's preferred shot was the hindquarter, hoping to hit the femoral artery--who does that today? Now we know the double-lung is THE shot for bowhunting, but who was around to tell that to Fred?

Also, he had a job to do on many of his hunting trips--to get film footage of an animal going down. Unlike today, where you seldom see an animal even get a scratch other than on some cheesy hunting shows, those films were family entertainment back then--and Africa, Alaska, etc. were even further (harder to acess)--there was pressure to get something on film (read more about that in Fred's field notes).

'Course all we can do is speculate and give opinions, but based on what I experienced growing up, it was a good bit different back then.

Chad

Buster T

Do you not think it happens today anyway ? Its just not talked about ! I know a lot of compounders push the 60-70 yard and beyond ranges with their bows, especially out west.

Why do we consider it unethical ?

Are there "good ways" vs "bad ways" to try and kill an animal ?

That is all true however the more I read, the more it seems that Fred Bear was very big into the Hunt, and not the Kill, which would indicate to me he had a very high moral standard.


Could it be ......... that we as Hunters have lost something in the wake of the Animal Rights movements ? Are we maybe somehow scared at being a hunter ?

bigcountry

No, stealth, I would like to think we have smarten up quite a bit. And its not all about the kill. I am sure you want to debate it.

Are you saying you want to just let arrows fly without a decent assurance that your arrow will make a kill shot?

LBR

I have no doubts that it happens, but it's not accepted by the general hunting community.

Probably because these dayseven though most still eat the meat, far fewer rely on it and/or will go hungry without it. My grandfather learned to kill rabbits with rocks--and it wasn't for bragging rights. He was raised by an older brother, because his father died before he was born and his mother shortly afterward. They were too poor to be able to afford shotgun shells. Rocks were free, and if you were good enough they would kill a rabbit. Chunking rocks at rabbits these days would be considered unethical, even cruel,and probably illegal in some states.

IMO, yes. As quickly and painlessly as possible, and in a way that the animal can be recovered and utilizedis the right way.

I think he did too, but who gets to define morals in this case? Fred took risky shots, blunted some big game animals just to see if he could get in range and hit one, invented the pod, etc. Even though I wouldn't do many of the things he did, I think he was a pioneer. Some would call some of the things he did immoral.

Some probably are afraid of being labeled as a hunter, some just hold firmly to fair chase rules. Personally, I'm not the least bit afraid or ashamed of being a hunter, or an archer, but I am aware of the impression we give the public. There's a lot of non-hunters whose opinions could be swayed by a slob--and they vote. That's one reason I was determined to defend archery equipment in your other thread--never know who might be reading these boards, and some folks could get the wrong impression.

Chad