Where do you stand?

[Toehead]

#7571

What is bow hunting to you? Should we define bow hunting by the weapon in your hand? Should we define bow hunting by the challenge that goes into the hunt or the challenge of the moment in time where we must place a broadhead into the vitals of our quarry? Can we really consider bow hunting a primitive means to take game? Should bow seasons be defined by limited opportunities, greater challenges and short range weapons? Who should be allowed to define this for you?

Bow hunting and bow seasons are at a crossroads. Where do you stand as a bow hunter?

[maddawg]

#7804

I stand as a hunter. My personal opinions and the equipment I chose to use our mine. If you are an ethical hunter and choose to develop the skill and knowledge to use that equipment I will respect your choice.

I might shoot wheels but I have a traditional heart.

[SteveMcD]

#11787

I remember on another site, someone stated, “when I really want to eat, I take out my gun!”. LOL! For me nothing could be further from the truth. When I really want to hunt, I take out my Longbow. Truth is although I was an Army Sharpshooter when I was young

I am more competent with my Longbow.

[garydavis]

#12152

I choose to take my limit with a bow. That doesn’t mean I won’t poach with a shot gun if I’m not lucky with my bow. Where I live a lot of folks just take deer. End of story. They don’t apply for permits they just fill their freezers. Wrong or right it’s just how it is here.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#12638

Toehead wrote: What is bow hunting to you?

This could be a long-winded answer, but suffice to say it’s simply my favorite form of hunting.

Toehead wrote: Should we define bow hunting by the weapon in your hand?

Haven’t we done that by calling it “bow hunting?” Of course, at some point, we also have to get into the much stickier conversation of, “what is a bow?” I have my definition, but I also recognize that many would not agree with it.

Toehead wrote: Should we define bow hunting by the challenge that goes into the hunt or the challenge of the moment in time where we must place a broadhead into the vitals of our quarry?

It’s an interesting idea, but I’m scratching my head as to how one would functionally define that?

Toehead wrote: Can we really consider bow hunting a primitive means to take game?

Depends – how do we define “primitive?” My definition might be quite different than someone who is shooting a self-bow, cane arrows and knapped heads.

Toehead wrote: Should bow seasons be defined by limited opportunities, greater challenges and short range weapons? Who should be allowed to define this for you?

I believe they generally are defined as such, though there may be varying opinion about what constitutes “limited opportunity,” “greater challenge” and even what constitutes “short range.” We can banter about these definitions all we want to on an internet forum devoted to traditional archery, but in reality, it’s state fish and game agencies that need the input, and need help making collective decisions. We also shouldn’t expect that we’re always going to get everything we want, when we constitute a very small percentage of total bowhunters.

Toehead wrote: Bow hunting and bow seasons are at a crossroads. Where do you stand as a bow hunter?

Where do I stand? That’s a huge question, and could easily be an essay. I believe that as bow hunters in a world of rapidly-evolving technology, we need to create self-imposed limits, or we risk losing bow seasons altogether, or having them watered down to such a degree that we lose the entire spirit in which they were created to begin with.

I try to constructively promote the above as much as I can, as I find that many younger bow hunters in particular really have no clue about the history of how and why bow seasons came about.

I also don’t think we’re going to accomplish anything by thumbing our noses at all compound bowhunters, like it or not. They represent the vast majority, and if we can’t productively find ways to work with them, rather than coming off as holier-than-thou, soapbox elitists, then we may as well go back to our little trad cave and sulk.

I would highly recommend this video to those who haven’t seen it:

[Toehead]

#12679

Who should define Bowhunting?

I.e. Should it be the Bowhunters?

Should it be the legislative branches of your respective state or provinces? (That’s how we do it in Oklahoma, good bad and ugly)

Should it be the wildlife departments?

Or….should it be the lobbyist with the most $$$ that influence your bow seasons and weapons definitions?

Unfortunately, at least on Oklahoma, the last question is a reality, regardless of my opinion or beliefs.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#12686

In Idaho, “bowhunting” is currently defined by Idaho Fish and Game, which is largely license-funded.

Unfortunately, we also have a Fish and Game Commission that oversees IDFG that has a long history of cronyism, has at times included commissioners who have admitted they don’t even hunt, and who I have no doubt are being approached all the time by those with money and influence seeking to further agendas that are not necessarily in the general interest of the hunting public.

So, “who should define bowhunting?” I believe it should be a collective and transparent decision, facillitated by state fish and game agencies with as much public input as possible, and without manufacturers or their lobbyists being able to unduly influence the process.

However, in my state, I’m far more concerned these days about attempts and popular sentiments to undermine hunting on public lands in general. But that’s a whole different conversation.

[Toehead]

#13106

Don’t get me started brotha. Horse riders now have rights to public land during deer season in Oklahoma ( gee I wonder which representative wants to ride his horse on public hunting lands). We lost bow only, walk in only access to about 3,500 acres of federal land because some rep wanted to be able to rifle hunt due to the number of big deer that were being taken ( let’s not talk about the thousands of state public land across the road literally, that has rifle and 4 wheeler access. I can go on and on but I won’t. The Oklahoma Bowhunter is mucho apathetic.

[Charles Ek]

#13116

Of all places, I stumbled across this in The Economist:

In a dark wood – Can bows and arrows save hunting in America?

“American hunting has thrived because it shuns the elitism and snobberies of the Old World. With each passing year, market forces have delivered weapons and gadgets that allow anyone to play Teddy Roosevelt, big-game hunter, further democratising the hunt. Yet to advocates of primitive hunting, those same forces—faster, easier, bigger—weaken the sport’s Rooseveltian values, and help explain its slow decline. Thanks to bowhunting, recent trends have been on the primitivists’ side. The juggernaut of commerce is now catching up. A very American contest looms.”

[Carl Brickey]

#13208

An interesting article. I will say that having come from an area filled to the brim with poachers and self-professed techno-gadget “rack hunters”, I can see how antis and non-hunters would lump us all together, ethics conscious or not.

I try not to be bleak in my outlook on hunting, but it’s hard not to when the majority of folks are killing for the love of “horn porn”. One thing I try to do as often as possible is profess how much I care about nature and natural processes, (hunting included) and distance myself from the (around here-East TN anyway) “in crowd” of hunting. When I do encounter them, I don’t talk about gadgets or any “stuff”, I ask about the hunts they’ve had and their time spent afield. You can tell a lot about someone from a conversation on time spent afield.

Hopefully more of those conversations are filled with squirrels, bobcats, moss on rocks, and experiences with nature and loved ones as opposed to the ever present phrase “I didn’t see a d**n thing”

My 2 cents.

[tigertrad]

#25967

I stand on the side of hunting, period. I personally enjoy hunting with traditional archery tackle, but don’t begrudge the wheelie guys their fun (kind of think crossbows should be in rifle season, but so be it — at least here in Texas). Main thing is to get out and hunt; we don’t need to stratify the worth of various types of hunting. I just know that I personally find hunting with a recurve more satisfying than with a rifle. Further, within the “traditional” category of hunting it is interesting that Dr. Ashby’s work is turning out to match the techniques used by our ancestors. Saw a recent post where Dr. Ashby said he had actually analyzed Plains Indians’ arrows from a museum and they were all either Extreme FOC or Ultra-Extreme FOC.

[Doc Nock]

#26597

I find it rather intriguing how such discussions rear themselves in varied sites over time.

The idea of what is challenging to one is rather not so to another and would lock some out of the field if definitions are implemented.

Walk in is no longer in my personal capabilities. Should I be locked out of my love of hunting because I can’t hump in several miles due to aging and limitations?

Does that then mean I should be allowed to use a mechanized conveyance?

My one piddly vote would be no to both. I do NOT want anyone else defining what is “challenge” for ME or my hunting brethren.

If I can’t hump into some of the best wild areas, such as I use to navigate easily, living in MT, then I stay home and find other venues.

But the hair stands up when anyone tries to DEFINE what any aspect of outdoor pursuit should be, in order to fulfill a given “DEFINITION“.

I’m not happy that much of today’s archery is predicated on decisions made by vestiges of lobbying to make a manufacturer more money, as in String Guns.

“Hand drawn and hand held in presence of game” was the “DEFINITION” of a bow and bow hunting in my home state…so you can see, DEFINITIONS rankle me for they’re subject to endless interpretation and change…ergo, serve no purpose but to divide when we need to stand together.

NOW? Well, we outlawed draw locks years back from compounds, but (or our Game Commission outlawed, or like SH says, the GC is run by license fees, but truly are governed by Commissioners who are APPOINTED and owe favors to groups, so we now have string guns for anyone..).not like before where a simple Dr. note gave you permission, which also was abused, but it helped…-so we now have Draw Locks with safeties and rifle stocks and scopes… but not draw locks on compounds. Definitions? Not my cup of tea for I hope obvious reasons!

The key is to do what floats YOUR boat. Many here suggest that! Kudos! Some states are better organized among trad and bow hunters and get special seasons. We have a short bear bow only…course, it’s open to all archery gear, but hey… AT least there aren’t guns out there when we go if we want to be out!

As for Doc’s article on plains arrows being EFOC, I’d like to see that article nd all the variables he examined. He’s very meticulous about what he finds and reports… and that statement casts a wide net. Just saying. I like EFOC for my personal use… but …

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#26632

Doc Nock wrote:

As for Doc’s article on plains arrows being EFOC, I’d like to see that article nd all the variables he examined. He’s very meticulous about what he finds and reports… and that statement casts a wide net. Just saying. I like EFOC for my personal use… but …

I’d like to see more info about this as well.

[Doc Nock]

#26664

NOt questioning it exists, just that there may be more contextual stuff and caveats in his reporting than a generalized statement like that.

As I recall, plans native Americans used what was thought were “bird” points when in fact later research realized they had less strong bows early on than E. Tribes and as such, found the smaller heads got better penetration from weaker bows.

I think the article was about shooting bison… I read.

Not Doc’s. But it just makes me curious and reading a lot of Ed’s stuff over the years, he’s very particular to qualify and quantify the data set from which he draws conclusions. “Plains Indians” sounds pretty encompassing…

[Ralph]

#26680

The arrows I’ve seen in museums didn’t have large flint points attached, most were small to medium size. Atlatl points are the larger ones.

I did some weighing of flint napped points and even the medium sized heads might make 100 gr. Most were 70-80 some 90 gr..

Even if a reed shaft with an insert, which in the Plains country, enough water to grow reeds???, it would seem to be difficult to me to get EFOC much less UEFOC.

Everything I’ve read and research leads to the use of the smaller points being used.

It don’t matter how much EFOC one has, if it doesn’t have enough force behind it, it ain’t gonna penetrate.

[tigertrad]

#26696

Referenced material is in a post by Dr. Ashby in the Friends of FOC forum, in a thread titled “Plains Indian arrows” (dated Feb. 6, 2014) Additionally, he addresses the idea of primitive archers using high FOC arrows in a July 9, 2009 post on the “Ashby Reports Reborn” thread (also in the Friends of FOC forum), regarding the Papua New Guinea tribes where he measured “wood shafted arrows with over 40 percent FOC.”

[tigertrad]

#26869

Smithhammer wrote: [quote=Doc Nock]

As for Doc’s article on plains arrows being EFOC, I’d like to see that article nd all the variables he examined. He’s very meticulous about what he finds and reports… and that statement casts a wide net. Just saying. I like EFOC for my personal use… but …

I’d like to see more info about this as well. [

/quote]

Smith: BTW you actually posted on the thread regarding Plains Indian arrows, referenced above (showed pics of r/d bows and EFOC arrows). Post was in wee hours. 🙂

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#26894

tigertrad wrote:

Smith: BTW you actually posted on the thread regarding Plains Indian arrows, referenced above (showed pics of r/d bows and EFOC arrows). Post was in wee hours. 🙂

Must have been the other Smithhammer. 😳

It’s hell getting old…

[Author]

Posts