Well, if I was suddenly in a situation where I had to fully rely on my bow for whatever reason, I probably wouldn’t have a job, or a lot of other things to worry about anymore, so there’d certainly be a lot more time for practice. And nothing motivates like imminent starvation.

Would my hunting ethics change in a situation where I had to depend on it for my livelihood, i.e. – survival? I’d be lying if I said “no.”

Hi Nate, Ive also pondered this and my belief is that the ancients had a much broader skill set and hunting is not a very efficient way of getting fed so the bow may have been a tool of opportunity.

Much more productive to run a trap line and net rivers, I’m sure they would have taken shots that we would consider unethical and then follow up with dogs.

Poisoned arrows may have been more widely used and hunting may also have been a more social event allowing groups to hunt larger animals and possibly for safety.

Some of the early African and European cave paintings show herds being pursued by archers and spear men.

Nice to speculate but we will probably never know the whole story.

Mark.

Nate,

Great question. I have a slightly different take on the ways out ancestors may have looked upon us. Not from their disadvantages, but from their advantages, as it relates to the bow.

As a quick answer, no. In a survival situation, I would probably dust off the old .308. But depending on the situation, the stealth of a bow may prove handy. As for ethics, I would have to say yes, but… Ethics as it relates to the game, definitely. Ethics as relates to game laws, seasons, hunting times, etc, I am not so sure. Not is a true survival situation.

Now, back to our ancestors, and us. Here in Pennsylvania, we cannot hunt on Sundays. Also, most everywhere, there no hunting from dusk to dawn. Our ancestors did not face those limitations. I mean, theoretically, it is possible to count tines (at bow distance) in a field on a full moon. And the day of the week really has nothing to do with the animal being hunted. Same thing for hunting seasons. Our ancestors could do all that, but being a part of nature, did not take any more than they would need.

It would be interesting to see what someone, from the time of when the stick and string was a “modern” hunting tool, would have to say.

Alex

🙂

I assume by ancestors, you mean native Americans, or native Europeans, depending on where ones ancestors came from. Mine are a mix of both continents.

That said, based on stories handed down through my family, the only ethics involved were of taking something that did not belong to you, in otherwords killed by another hunter.

Any edible species, any sex, any size, was fair game.

If it was for food, squirrels, deer, possoms, rabbits, were the common fare.

if for clothing, any large animal would work. There was no greater value placed on male vs female. A buck deer’s only advantage was the use of antlers for tooling, but food was food, and young deer were preferred over old.

Not what some will say, but my ancestors were concerend with survival first. Use of whatever tool gave them the greatest advantage, was the ONLY consideration. Firearms, when they bacame available, were used for only the larger animals, due to cost of using them.

Living off a Bow?? Would be almost impossiblle to do in one spot and stay within the current game laws, especially if feeding a family year round.

I believe game laws would not be worth the paper they are printed on.

I for one, would not follow them.

I think my ancestors, and the previous inhabitants of the land I am, would be proud. I love this prairie and all its life forms! Never before has this subtle land been faced with the volume of predators it now houses. Eight generations ago, people here could not imagine a life that restricted, out of necessity, hunting seasons.

Providing well for a family within the constraints of the place and society we inhabit is complicated.

To take what we have learned, adapt it efficiently to our lives, and watch our children do the same: what more could a parent want?

-Ben

I doubt very seriously that if it came to a true live or die situation that any person would let ethics or rules and regulations be a reason to stand by and watch as they and/or others starve to death. It’s called survival. Hopefully things will never come to such for us. In the Corps it was “Do what you gotta do to get back”!!! A general statement that if you read between the lines says a lot.

As far as surviving by bow only? Some places one probably could nowadays as game is pretty abundant, in some metropolitan areas as a matter of fact. Other places, well, people in the past and the present in some areas of the world eat some pretty strange things in order to survive (that key word again). When your hungry a “book buck” wouldn’t mean squat.

Anyway, good points to consider and think on.

The way life is now, I’m glad we have ethics and rules and regulations (up to a point on the rules and regs:D)as we need them for the future of what we have. For the sake of our next generations.

Just my thinkin’ Ralph.

Nate Bailey wrote: Something quick to add– the bow is the one thing that unifies all races, colors, and creeds. If we ALL look into ancestry we will find the bow. From Modoc to Turk, Turk to the famed English War Archers, the Bow has been there. It dominated most of history, for thousands of years archers have been honeing their skill. We as archers of the old way have stepped through this modern age, into a linieage that is beautifully rich.

Yes,,, and it always will be. A bow and arrowis easily constructed and makes for a suitable close range/long range weapon/food gathering instrument.

I agree, interesting question..

By forefathers, are you referring to “native”, or “modern”

To me, my forefathers were the Thomson Brothers, Art Young, Saxton Pope, Chester “Chet” Stevenson, Kore Duyee, Glenn StCharles, Fred Bear, etc..

They all made their own equipment, and shot animals at some increadable distances, with the beleif that a large heavy broadhead,and a heavy arrow, anywhere within the body was a decent hit, and released arrows in what today would be considered “unethical” circumstances.

Fred Bear was so concerned about a bear he shot and did not recover that he advocated the use of poisoned arrows.

Ethics ?

They only count as what you do when no-one is watching, and I have met far too many in the archery community that are only concerned with results, not the purity of the sport.

As far as native.. If I carried my bow 365 days a year, and could shoot anything I wanted, I would have little problem feeding my family, but season restrictions put that in a whole different perspective.

I use a bow to hunt because it gives me a feeling of compleatness, I hunt with a recurve because I choose to avoid the technology of “modern” Archery, but I do not need the meat, I like to take my bow out hunting, and just “take a walk in the woods” it is all about my own personnal gratification, not subsistance, I feed my soul, before I feed my belly.

I let legal deer eat my garden at home, and drive 60 miles to hunt them, seems silly, but to me, it is about something else than just “hunting”, and I feel my forefathers would approve.

Amoose,

You make a very interesting point about ethics. I know that’s not where the original post began, and I don’t want to go off topic, but I just wanted to comment on “Ethics” as (I feel) it relates to P&Y, Hill, Bear and the likes, versus “Ethics” today.

You mention distance. Was Hill’s 185 yard shot “Ethical”? Not for me. But it was for him. A big difference between today and back then is how people actually were able to “live” their hobbies. Hill is a great example. He took that shot because he KNEW he could (and did) make it. I don’t shoot beyond 20 yards. But I’m not Hill.

You mention the poison arrow. Not making a judgment, just wondering the reason behind the suggestion by Bear. It seems it was to not have a wounded animal suffering in the wild. Compare that with Uncle Ted (from the “Nugent, redux” post).

Again, great points. I have been “taking my bow for a walk” since I started hunting. So far, I have nothing to show for it except great memories, fresh air in my lungs and a workout to boot. Somehow, I just can’t consider all those times anything but total successes. And I didn’t even have to gut or clean anything 😆 .

Alex

It’s easy to imagine that paleolithic hunter-gatherer cultures had no sense of “ethics” as we know them, but… I have had the privilege of spending a lot of the with the Bushmen of the Kalahari who live that lifestyle as close to anyone on earth today. Remarkably, they have elaborately codified rituals regarding the “right” and “wrong” of hunting in various ways. From a Western point of view, analysis suggests that these boil down to ways of avoiding conflict, maintaining game populations, and so on… but perhaps that’s how “ethics” came to be in the first place? Interesting question… Don