Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24385
MontanaFord wrote: I was able to find a well-drawn diagram of a whitetail deer’s anatomy. If you look at it, you can see that the shoulder blade is actually quite high on the deer. Basically clear up against the spine. Who’s going to shoot that high on purpose anyway? So by aiming farther forward than the crease behind the shoulder, WHY NOT aim farther forward and put your point of aim closer to the center of the vital mass? Here’s the diagram. Let’s see if it’ll actually work for me or not.
Excellent diagram. The other is a perfect example of why quartering-toward shots should be avoided.
in reply to: Broadheads #23784longbow4 wrote: Does anyone have advise for a new traditional bowhunter ?
Are the simple 2 blade broagheads (zwickey, magnus)as effective for deer or would the bleeder blade type be better.Thanks
That’s one of those discussions that’s probably been going on since long before any of us were born and will continue long after we’re gone. There are valid pros and cons for each type. It’s probably best to read everything you can on the subject and decide for yourself which one gives you the most confidence.
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #23742Ed,
Again I’ll take a pass on the rifle hunting discussions. I’ve never used a shotgun on anything bigger than a goose, or a rifle for bigger game than a squirrel (and that was almost ten years ago). Honestly, I’m not interested in what type of rifle it takes to kill an elephant. I’m discussing bowhunting, not rifle hunting.
Some folks seem to have great difficulty accepting that there are arrow setups which CAN reliably and consistently penetrate through heavy bone.
I can’t speak for others; only myself. I’ve hit numerous off-side shoulder/upper leg bones on mature whitetails and never had one stop an arrow. But that doesn’t mean I would ever intentionally aim at those bones on the entrance side. Personally, I’ve never been desperate enough to kill an animal to do something that irresponsible. Like you pointed out earlier, nothing is absolutely certain, so why stack the odds even further out of my favor by doing something like that? Perhaps if we’re going to advocate overkill in our arrows, we should apply that same logic to our shot selections.
In the end, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not trying to shoot a healthy big game animal through the pelvis or shoulder blade with an arrow is a responsible idea. It seems to me there’s really no ethical argument for needlessly putting heavy bone obstruction between one’s arrow and the vital organs to be penetrated, especially in the context of a discussion about reducing wounding losses. You may disagree, as is obviously your right.
in reply to: New TBM, question for Don Thomas #21538Chiloquin wrote: Might I add, I worry about the future of our lifestyle, as the trend is to make hunting a SPORT, something that is won. People who deal with Nature as a “game field” have missed the point! If our lifestyle turns into mere sport, along the lines of MMA, Hunting will turn into something dark.
I haven’t received my copy yet, so I haven’t read the editorial. But I wanted to respond to the above quote. Chiloquin, if I could reach through the computer screen and shake your hand, I’d gladly do it. Well said!
While we’re on the subject of Don’s writing, I think he summed up my feeling quite well in a piece of his years ago. I’ll have to paraphrase it from memory, and I hope he forgives me if I butcher it, but it was something along the lines of bad things happen when people bring copetition to bear on pastimes where it doesn’t belong.
Heaven help us if bowhunting ever turns into the circus that bass fishing has become.
in reply to: Source for Goose Feathers #21311Around here, I used to pick primaries up by the hundreds in the local parks when the geese were molting, usually around late June. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any commercial source right off the top of my head. You may want to Google “Rainbow Feathers” and see if they carry goose primaries.
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #21112MontanaFord wrote: I don’t believe that Ed, sapcut or anybody else is saying that it’s perfectly OK to try shooting big game up the butt or through the shoulder blades.
My purpose with this is not to call any individuals to the carpet, which is why I’ve refrained from reposting specific examples. But I’ve seen numerous instances where folks bragged about taking those very shots, many complete with photos. It actually got so bad on TradGang that they had to delete numerous threads and post a sticky message telling people that such things would not be tolerated.
MontanaFord wrote:
That’s where the high FOC and internal/external footed arrows come in. More “oomph” equals a better outcome in the end, for when things don’t go as planned.I suppose that depends on what you hit when things don’t go exactly as planned, which is another topic where different people have different and equally valid points…and no one ever seems to change each other’s minds. That’s why I don’t get into those discussions. 😉
in reply to: Number decals for arrows #20422You may want to try Lancaster Archery. If they don’t sell them, I don’t know who would.
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #19775Jason, I could and should have worded that statement better, but you are misinterpreting the meaning.
In one of your updates, you made mention that in your experience as a hunter and guide, “perfect shots are as rare as feathers on a frog.” The only thing I can say is that my photo album is full of frogs that needed a good plucking,and there’s a reason for that. 😉
Effective shots and shot placement will always be a subject of dispute among hunters. Take that hip shot you mention. It was one of Fred Bear’s favorite shots. Fred claimed it was faster and a more certain killing shot than was one into the thorax.
Yes, Fred Bear is credited with coining the phrase “Texas heart shot.” Howard Hill killed an elk at 185 yards too. Hunting ethics with regard to shot selection has changed (rather, improved) a lot since that time. There was an excellent article in TBM not long ago about that very subject. Needless to say, I don’t think it would be a good thing to go back to the days of “if the arrow isn’t flying, the animal isn’t dying.”
Regardless of who they are, EVERY shot a bowhunter takes at a game animal is one they are less than certain of making.
I suppose we can agree to disagree, but if I ever feel less than certain of making a good hit, I simply don’t drop the string. I expect do less from the people with whom I hunt, and they from me — goes back to that “feathers on a frog” thing.
What about when one’s well intended shot ends up unintentionally hitting a hip, neck vertebra, spine or scapula, but because he’s chosen to use an arrow setup that will, with an extremely high degree of probability, work, and he makes a clean, humane kill? When that setup performs the ‘fail safe’ function it was designed to do should we not herald as a success story the recovery of what would otherwise be likely to end up as a wounded or lost animal?
I’ll again refer back to the difference between making a bad shot and taking one. Discussing the lucky positive outcome in the former is one thing; giving people a pat on the back for the latter, in my personal opinion, is not, and breeds more of the same.
There’s a certain comfort in blaming our equipment. As a general rule, people don’t like having their judgment questioned. It’s easier to tell ourselves that a bad result was the fault of our equipment, instead of taking a good hard look at how we could have avoided the “unavoidable.” I get that. I see it at work every day, and I see it a lot in bowhunting.
What I’m saying is this: if we’re going to have an appropriate discussion about reducing wounding losses, we should stop accepting behavior that needlessly lends itself to those situations (taking bad shots) and stop simply blaming our equipment for the rest.
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #19426sapcut wrote: The discussion about being prepared with your hunting equipment is about being prepared for what we CAN’T control.
Richie,
I would be inclined to agree if so many of these discussions on various traditional bowhunting forums didn’t involve “success stories” of people intentionally shooting at animals that are whirling or facing head-on, or trying to punch through shoulder blades or other heavy bone structure. If a person wants to do those things, I suppose that’s his/her right. But does promoting it, either actively or passively, really do us any favors?
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #19246Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: [quote=J.Wesbrock] … it’s an unfortunate and sad reality that too many people take a “poke and hope” mentality to shooting game. … There’s a huge difference between making a bad shot and taking one — the first is excusable, the second is not. … Instead of expecting our equipment to bail us out of stupid decisions, maybe we should stop making those decisions in the first place.
I couldn’t agree more with you about folks taking a “poke and hope” shot. That results from desperation to ‘make a kill’. We no longer hunt for survival, and we have no justification, EVER, for taking a ‘desperation shot’ at unwounded game. But, as you say, no matter how hard one tries bad shots do sometimes happen, and our decision making is not the cause of these. It is on the unavoidable bad shot where the arrow we chose to use can often make a difference.
I agree that sometimes, despite our best preparation and intentions, things just happen. But when you stated…
I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.
…that tells me the problem is not equipment based so much as people exercising poor judgment in their shot selection. That’s the difference between an unavoidable bad shot (making a bad shot) and a bad result brought about by a stupid decision (taking a bad shot). This brings me bad to speculating as to why my hunting partners, both back then and today, rarely, if ever, have the problems killing deer that I read about on the internet.
If we’re going to discuss wounding losses and how to avoid them, should we not start by examining our own conduct afield? If we turn a blind eye to people taking shots they are less than certain of making, or intentionally shooting deer through the pelvis, shoulder blades, or neck, do we really have a leg to stand on when we talk about trying to reduce game losses? And when people do take these shots, get lucky and kill their animal, should we really pat them on the back and tout their results as a “success story?” I keep thinking back to when I was a kid and started bowhunting with my grandfather. If I’d have ever dragged a deer back to the cabin and bragged about shooting it up the rear end, my grandfather would have buried his boot in mine…not shook my hand and said congrats.
in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #17891Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: [quote=Voodoo]……. you can’t kill what you can’t hit..
I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.
Ed
I don’t doubt what you’re saying, but I think it’s an unfortunate and sad reality that too many people take a “poke and hope” mentality to shooting game. I was raised better than that. As a kid, if I would have ever came back to the cabin and said that I did such a thing, my grandfather would have taken away my bow and probably wrapped me upside the head…and I’d have had it coming.There’s a huge difference between making a bad shot and taking one — the first is excusable, the second is not. Maybe that’s why my hunting partners, both back then and today, rarely, if ever, have the problems killing deer that I read about on the internet — proper judgment. Instead of expecting our equipment to bail us out of stupid decisions, maybe we should stop making those decisions in the first place.
in reply to: EFOC without the IF? #57662Kegan wrote: On NA game, the size of smaller hogs and deer, is an EFOC carbon arrow at the same risk of failure without an IF as when used on much larger game? I have arrows that are already finished out, they’re Beman ICS 300’s with a carbon collar, currently shooting 250 gr. Stos. I’m looking to get some 300gr El Grande Grizzly heads, but I’m worried. From what I understand the fracture occurs from a glancing hit on a dense bone, so I guess I’m asking if this set up would be a recipe for disaster if something goes wrong?
I’ve hunted with Beman ICSs (set up with normal FOC, for what it’s worth) for the past 11 seasons and have yet to ever have a shaft break going through an animal. As far as heavy bone on whitetail-sized game, Several years ago I put one through the upper leg bone on the off side of a whitetail buck (after going through both lungs). No damage; no problem.
Those shafts are tough; you should have absolutely no problems with durability.
in reply to: bow strings #54397It’s going to take a lot of twisting to shorten a string two inches — far more than I’m personally comfortable with. If it’s a Flemish string, you can shorten the string by un-doing one of the loops and retwisting it at the proper length.
BRUC wrote: J. Wesbrock had a very good article in TBM a few issues back. It explained how to install the clicker and how to use it. I read again a couple of nights back. Well Done:!::!:
I have a few questions. Can the clicker be used for an off-season and then removed for hunting, or is it most often a forever thing?
Does it have any affect on how you aim the bow?Bruce
First; thanks for the kind words.
Yes, the clicker can be removed for hunting, provided you’ve used it enough to create a window where you can shoot without it. I don’t have one on my longbow, nor on my 1960 Black Widow, but I know that if I shoot those bows exclusively for too long the TP will start to creep back.
Shooting with a clicker doesn’t change how I aim. But it does give me the control to be able to aim.
I’ve been using one for several years. Your decision to make that change after season is a wise one. When you first start using a clicker, you may notice that your shooting at first gets worse instead of better. That’s normal, but stick with it and you may be pleasantly surprised.
-
AuthorPosts
