[David Petersen]

in reply to: Fletching Tool? #51699

Bucky — For years I’ve had a cheap ballistics-plastic Bohning fletching jig, still only about $30. Since I enjoy the process and am never in a hurry to get arrows fletched (I have an attic full already), a jig that fletches three at once doesn’t interest me. And too, I’ve recently switched to four-fletch, which is a simple adjustment with a standard jig. The Blitzenberger is the standard, but in my experience has no real advantages over the far cheaper Bohning and costs a lot more. To each his own and have fun.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: old men #51695

Fallguy — I’d say this fellow at work needs to whip himself back into shape. I’m 66-9/12ths and physically I can still do everything I ever did and still want to do (which doesn’t include running marathons and flying helicopters). In fact it works the other way: what I overdid in my youth is haunting me today: blew out a knee running too much and too fast; blew out a shoulder from lifting too much iron and doing too many Eskimo rolls in kayaks, etc.

R2 — What nobody here seems to understand, or agree with, is that older is better (well, with one major exception called g-i-r-l-s). I’m mostly retired and have most of my time to myself … I get an annual fishing license for $1, I no longer have to comb or wash my hair, I get a free “senior drink” at Taco Bell and 10% off at the liquor store, even people who detest me treat me with a degree of “respect for the elders,” etc. Old is (mostly) good!

[David Petersen]

in reply to: 1st time Colorado Elk hunting! #50553

Troy — I’m not sure it’s so severely depleted as Alex suggests, but it depends on how much land you’re talking about. In the lower 48 we have millions of acres of nicely protected congressionally designated wilderness (except where ATV and dirt bike criminals tresspass around the edges). There are places you can walk for days, even weeks, without crossing a road (if only because the landscape is so steep and rugged you can’t walk far in a day). But even there, horse traffic on trails can be heavy during early hunting seasons, forcing you to bushwhack to be alone in unspoiled country in in designated wilderness.

A second category is undesignated, or de facto wilderness, which lacks congressional protections but has remained largely unspoiled because it’s too rugged for roads, or no good for logging or mining, etc. These roadless areas tend to ring and sometimes connect designated wilderness, at slightly lower altitudes (much of designated wilderness is “rocks and ice”), and can be even better elk habitat. And because roadless areas aren’t named, per se, as wilderness areas are, and hove no trail guide books, they aren’t so often designated as destination. And despite the name, there are a few roads, just not big networks. This would be the prime among prime for elk hunting, these roadless areas, except for the federal land agencies spinelessness in allowing a network of motorized trails for ATVs and dirt bikes. Still, there are places where no such motorized virtual highways exist and these are the places I recommend DIY hunters to explore, as I do my ownself. A relatively tiny number of hunter’s groups, namely Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and in places, Trout Unlimited, are working overtime to save these last best places for the rest of us.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: long shots #50469

Numbskulls!Don’t you know nothin’? CHS is Close Hunting Syndrome. 😛

[David Petersen]

in reply to: 1st time Colorado Elk hunting! #50282

Welcome to the tradbow.com family. Sadly, THE most important piece of advice these days is: Find out where ATVs are allowed to go, and go somewhere else, as the elk do.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: long shots #48507

Mike — For all the many and extreme convulutions that I and others introduce to this ongoing good discussion about hunting ethics and weapons choice, etc., you have just nailed it in the heart in so very few words: traditional bowhunting is the best hunting because it’s about getting close and being sure before you pop the cap. And getting close and being sure, by minimizing risk and chance, are the height of ethical hunter behavior. No “Hail Marys” wanted, as that is not our mission or goal. I guess (I’m obviously indulging in a bit of neo-Freudian self-analysis here) that my unsalvable pain in this arena of life arises from the fact that all hunters don’t share an appreciation for “doing it the hard way.” Which, for us recovering (to use AAA-speak) Marines equate the hard way with the best way. :lol, no matter our losses. But seriously, all hunting ethics discussions must begin and end with respect and, yes, love for the animal as our foremost concern, with personal dignity and self-respect a close second. If not so, then we are willingly if mostly blindly relinquishing the high ground and our harshest critics’ arguments are strengthened. Nobody promised us a rose garden, eh? Semper Fi, young man. 😛

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Cliff Zwickey Head #48287

What Alex is speaking of is called “cultural relativism” in psycho-speak, which in American English refers to a lame philosophical approach popular among a few years ago among some ethics scholars and other apologists. The argument generally comes down to: “You’d have to have lived back then, or be a member of that culture, in order to make valid ethical judgments on their behavior.” Sounds good on the surface but, as Alex stated, reduces us to placing all value judgments and ethical considerations within the fragile glass beacon of a particular culture in a particular time and place … which in turn not only places Culture A’s standards against Culture B’s, etc., but also denies the existence of any beyond-cultural absolutes in the right/wrong category, which is illogical and easily disproven, to wit: Cultures and their specific values come and go, but every sane human is at least vaguely aware, on some level, that certain behaviors just aren’t right, even if the dominant culture at the time endorses them. (The extreme example here is Nazism as the “dominant culture” and the French vichi’s reaction to Nazi occupation vs. the French resistance’s reaction.) Or, closer to home, we can think of it like this: Certainly, in the old days many bowhunters, some who now are considered founding fathers of our sport (mostly, like today, because they wrote about or filmed their exploits), took really long risky shots and didn’t apparently give a hoot when wounded animals escaped. And that, crazy-long shots, was only one element among many actions considered “acceptable” back then, but which most of us are revolted by now and in many cases laws have since criminalized. This untidy history really complicates our desire to celebrate heroes. Indeed. But even as “the group” behaved this way, there were shining exceptions who resisted sinking to the crude group level but rather rose risen mere passing acceptance and answered to higher “universal, inner-driven” self-expectations. Aldo Leopold is a glorious example for his time. Locally accepted ways of judging right and wrong in particular places and times serve free-thinkers not as behavior to be emulated or overlooked “because everyone is doing it that way,” but rather as starting points to figuring things out for themselves and attempting to raise the norm. So yes, we do need to take into account “what everyone is doing” or once did … while avoiding the trap of totally excusing inexcusable behavior. IMHO of course. 😛

[David Petersen]

in reply to: long shots #48121

As the discussion among B&C leadership on long distance shooting and ethics continues, this just came around. For those not familiar with the North American Model of Wildlife Management, there’s an article in TBM (Feb/Mar 2012) … I particularly like the final sentence, below:

Another item that may be of value to our discussion is the fifth principle/pillar of the North American Model.

#5 Non-frivolous Use – Certain species of wildlife can be legally killed under strict guidelines for food and fur, in self-defense, or property protection.

Conservation is defined as “wise use without waste.” Laws will be in place to restrict casual killing, killing for commercial purposes, wasting of game, and mistreating wildlife.

Val is more a scholar on the Model than I am, but just the names “Non-frivolous use, long range shooting, and turning big game species into targets” seems to connect. This might also help to elevate the conversation to a higher meaning, which is what successful educational opportunities are made of.

Keith Balfourd

Director Marketing

Boone and Crockett Club

[David Petersen]

in reply to: long shots #47355

Alex — forgive me if you’ve already explained and I missed it, but what the hey does lyagooshka mean? I much prefer Alex. 😀

By whatever name, IMHO, that’s the best post you’ve put up. Thank you. The real problem with hunting has always been within us, not without. Only recently have we begun to recognize and act on that realization. Of course, once again, it’s not the weapon of choice (other maybe than filthy x-guns) that sets us apart from within, but how we use it. I see zip diff between a rifleman taking a 700-yard shot and a “bow”hunter takin a 70-yard shot. Both are motivated by the same deep subconscious insecurity. Meanwhile, my experience is filled with superbly ethical rifle hunters, for example much of the leadership of BHA (though trad bowhunters have always been strongly, even disproportionately, represented there). 20 yards with a bow, 200 yards with a rifle (and the latter, only then with a rest and high-odds shot), that’s my personal ethical rule, based on very long experience with what works consistently and what works only sometimes. But to replay an old tune, what worries me even more is the realizatgion that what “hunters” do is a pure reflection of what Americans have come to value. To use Riddley Walker speak, “We be in Big trubba.” But hey, let us rejoice that we here are among the number who are not in denial but at least admitting our weaknesses in public and attempting to help by example. Or so he says.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Great Northern Field Bow #46212

Welcome, PTA — As it happens, I just spoke with Jerry this morning myself and agree with your assessment of his laid-back pleasant nature. He is what he is, which is a compliment in my pov. Jerry is also “Mr. Kalamazoo” and we owe him thanks for that as well. The Field Bow is advertised as a “starter” bow, or for children and women. This only because he only makes them only in lower poundages; the one you bought being toward the top end (unless things have changed since I last checked). In turn, I think he only makes them in low poundages to keep them from competing with his other bows. All are very good bows (I’ve shot them at Kzoo), but for the price (and again, I haven’t checked in a good while), I don’t know how you can beat a Field Bow for quality and performance. You done good, IMHO. Dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Fast arrows #46198

Ahh, Jason, I think you’ve hit this person’s problem on the head with your objective observation that “if a person’s experience centers around excessively heavy arrows or inefficient bows.” Right on! Those inefficient bows include Shrews, a Black Widow, a Thunderhorn and several Bears. Thanks for sitting me straight, amigo. 😀

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Facial Recognition #46120

Strait-Arrow said, with my comments in CAPS: “Yes…a very interesting account of your experience with Coues deer hunting,Dave. We’re all (I SERIOUSLY DOUBT “ALL” :P) glad you came out the other end of this hunt with your buck,and pretty much intact (WELL, EXCEPT MAYBE THE MEMORY PROBLEM; MAYBE ONE OF THE PLUGS IN MY HEAD GOT JARRED LOOSE :shock:) when all was said and done.” THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Fast arrows #46073

I don’t know what kind of bows you shoot, J., but I do know you like light arrows, thus, in my experience and talking with others, I think your speeds are higher than average. I recently chronographed a series of 23/64 wood arrows shot from a 53# d/r longbow, to wit:

583 grains = 164

638 = 158

790 = 155

We’ll need a lot more contributions to this question before we have an “average,” which, due to differences in bow weights and speeds I don’t know if exists. And without stating arrow weight speed is meaningless. But I’d say, J., that your low end of 170 is more like high end for most folks, again, depending on arrow weight.

And unless we’re trying for long-range accuracy, speed is rather a moot point in trad archery anyhow: I’ve shot through elk with speeds down to the low 140s. Assuming the same point of impact on an animal, whether heart/lungs or shoulder, it’s arrow weight and broadhead design that count most.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Cliff Zwickey Head #46063

Manufacturers continue to design “tools” primarily to appeal to the buyer’s eye, rather than keeping the focus on getting the job done. And aside from knife designs I can’t think of an area where it’s worse than the broadhead industry. In this case, you’d want to have a really deep hood and foam on your bow quiver to swallow the full barb tips, or it’s some bloody fingers waiting to happen. Make mine plain jane– long, narrow, with minimal bumps, lumps and other “sea anchors” to penetration.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Macaulay Library #46058

Thanks, Mike. That site goes on my “favorites” for future reference. In other words, it’s a keeper. Semper Fi

[Author]

Posts