[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Emergency Gear #59380

colmike wrote:

I will tell Bruce and Dave that I just chuckled over all that.

I’m glad to hear that, Mike. And thanks for not taking any of this too seriously.

Safe travels and know that your input has been missed around here.

cheers,

– B

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Cross-Dominance and Instinctive #59377

I think Don brings up a good point about the severity of an individual’s cross-dominance. If one’s cross-dominance is fairly mild, I don’t think it has to be an issue. But if you’re someone with more severe cross-dominance, I can see it potentially creating challenges.

Which again, just points to the fact that there is no “black and white” answer, as with so many things. Maybe the correct answer to the question should be, “shoot what you gravitate toward naturally (as Hill, Bear, Kavanaugh and many others have), and if, after a time, you still struggle with accuracy, then consider switching to match your eye dominance to your hand.”

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Emergency Gear #58870

Dave –

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to make the trek to Spokane this year. I wish you the best with the screening of your film, and look forward to seeing it some day.

But I will add just one more thought on the ‘philosophical’ side, before returning this to what was intended to be a pragmatic thread:

We may love to draw convenient lines between our ‘needs’ and our ‘wants,’ but I don’t think it’s always so clear-cut. Certain things clearly fall strictly into the ‘want’ category (such as my craving for Reese’s peanut butter cups…), and there are also many things we may convince ourselves we ‘need’ but don’t, really. On the other hand, there are the things I want to have with me in the backcountry, which may very well turn into things I need if something goes wrong. These things can easily seem superfluous until that moment.

Regardless, if/when I’m lost or injured deep in the backcountry, I want to have several different ways to signal to help someone find me. If I’m becoming hypothermic and can’t hike out for some reason, I both want and need to get a fire going, and do so quickly. But rest assured – in those moments, parsing the semantics between my supposed ‘needs’ and mere ‘wants’ will be low on my “to do” list. 😉

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Emergency Gear #58827

Thank for the explanation, Dave. I think my perspective on this topic was far more pragmatic than philosophical.

However, I would posit that hunters (though not exclusively) have always paid meticulous attention to the importance of proper equipment, since the dawn of time – this is evidenced from Otzi to the Rocky Mountain fur trappers of the 19th century, to at least some of us today. Having the proper gear was obviously important to them – they clearly made their gear decisions carefully, and took good care of what they carried. I don’t confuse this with being a “gear head,” which is simply gear fetishism for the sake of itself. I place it squarely within the realm of understanding the real-world factors we subject ourselves to in remote places, and taking responsibility for ourselves.

I would also suggest that the notion of paying attention to the “experience” is a relatively recent idea, if not a luxury.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Two Tracks String Scallops #58375

Good to hear, and that seems to echo what just about everybody else says. While I’ve found wool puffs most effective, I don’t particularly like the bulk or the way they collect burrs. This seems like a great and simple solution.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Emergency Gear #58374

So I’m curious, Dave – where is the line between “comon-sense preparedness and gear-headedness” for you? What emergency gear do you carry for hunting far from outside help? And/or, would you care to offer any constructive feedback about the things that I’m carrying in my kit that you feel may be unecessary?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Cross-Dominance and Instinctive #58312

CameronNewton wrote:

it was suggested to me to try: keep left eye closed, cover with a patch, half squint , re-train to right eye dominant(is that even possible?)…

Welcome to the forum, Cameron!

I have to say, any advice about shooting with one eye closed, wearing an eye patch, etc. is misguided, in my opinion. We absolutely need both eyes open when shooting for proper depth perception, if nothing else.

From Anthony Camera’s excellent book “Shooting the Stickbow – A Practical Approach to Classical Archery” (2nd Ed.):

“While there are some advantages to having handedness match eye dominance, unless the eye dominance is so great that it prevents you from aiming, it’s best to choose a right or left-handed bow based on your natural inclinations. In other words, if you’re generally right-handed, start with a right-handed bow….

…Until recently, eye dominance has been considered a major factor in determining whether a person should be shooting a right or left-handed bow. The theory stated that the arrow needed to be directly under the dominant eye to facillitate the aiming process. This makes logical sense, but humans are an illogical species. There have been too many excellent archers, including Howard Hill and Fred Bear, who were cross-dominant and did quite well for themselves…”

To add on to that, I’ve come to believe that how one aims can also be a factor in the importance of eye-dominance, or not. For methodical aiming methods, such as gap shooting, it may be more of a factor. For instinctive shooting, as long as both eyes are open and focused on the target, I agree with Mr. Camera and Jeff’s video above.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Duiker quiver #58290

What David said, esp. if you are shooting long broadheads.

You can order replacement foam for the Duiker from Safari Tuff or 3 Rivers.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Turkey Arras #57260

This is what I came up with for pheasants last year. I was able to take one bird with it:

(Not saying anyone should consider this setup for turkeys, by any means. This was a solution for pheasant hunting with a dog – I only posted it to show the Zwickey Scorpio)

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Turkey Arras #57246

Doc Nock wrote:

I’m curious. I’ve read/seen the same comment about keeping arrow in the bird “so it doesn’t fly/run off”.

I’ve always been curious about this notion as well. Turkeys are obviously pretty small animals, and a pass through isn’t difficult – so it seems to me that any arrow deliberately designed to “stay in the bird” would have to be an arrow with significantly degraded penetration qualities…which could just as easily be an arrow that doesn’t penetrate at all.

Though I suppose an arrow with something like a Zwickey Scorpio on it behind the head could still allow for good penetration and prevent a pass through.

But ultimately, I agree with your point, Doc – broadheads kill by hemorraging vitals. You either hit the vitals or you don’t, and you either have a bird on the ground or you don’t, accordingly.

But Steve’s “experiment” is certainly thought-provoking….:shock:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #56307

grumpy wrote: NICE CUP!!!

Thanks! I love how hefty that mug is.

Lest we get too heavy and political on this fine Monday morning, this is a pheasant I shot with my bow last fall:

and this is the plan for dinner:

http://honest-food.net/2015/02/19/green-curry-pheasant-recipe/

Should be good!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Fight the fat-cat land grabbers #56248

Two other points worth considering:

1) Seldom in these largely emotionally-driven arguments for federal land transfer are the economic benefits of large tracts of federal land within the state given attention – it’s all about the supposed ‘negatives.’ Yet the truth is that from tourism to resource extraction – federal lands generate significant amounts of primary and secondary revenue for the states that are lucky enough to have them within their borders, and with the federal government largely footing the bill for management of those lands. In other words – the states currently benefit at very little cost.

2) It’s also worth noting that one of the few western states that may actually have the financial resources to manage their existing federal lands (though it would still be a stretch) is Wyoming. The governor of Wyoming has publicly stated that he has no interest in pursuing such an idea, despite the popularity of the notion in Wyoming’s neighboring states. Now why do you suppose that might be? Hint – see #1. 😉

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Fight the fat-cat land grabbers #56201

To anyone who merely thinks that this is about the states “taking control” of lands within their boundary, and that these states will manage these lands better than the Fed has been doing, I point to but one example in my home state of Idaho –

Just a few years ago, the State of Idaho tried to sell off it’s very first state park – Harriman State Park. The reason they gave for wanting to sell it off? They said it was “too expensive to continue to manage.” Luckily, the old contractual agreement with the Harriman family blocked that from happening at the time. But it’s worth noting that this is an 11,000 acre park – tiny by Idaho standards. The proponents of land transfer within the state of Idaho now want to see 34 million acres of federal land transferred to the state. If Idaho couldn’t afford a tiny park just a few years ago, how is it going to effectively incorporate, and continue to properly manage, an additional 34 milllion acres into the state system today?

There are so many gaping holes in these ‘land transfer’ schemes, but one of the biggest ones is highlighted in the example above – Idaho has no economic plan whatsoever for managing such a massive amount of land, and it would be impossible to formulate one, as the state could never afford it. Anytime this topic comes up, and the question is asked – “what is the state’s budgetary plan for management?” – the conversation seems to end. So, as others have pointed out, this is really a thinly-veiled recipe for selling off public land in short order, no matter what ‘spin’ its proponents try to put on it.

No one is saying that the feds do a perfect job of managing federal public lands, by any means. But turning it over to the states represents a far worse solution, and a catastrophe for those of us who wouldn’t be able to hunt, fish and recreate without such lands. Why anyone other than large resource companies and land speculators would endorse such an idea is beyond me.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Killing Elk… #55566

Well said, Don. I wish the managers of the National Elk Refuge outside of Jackson could get this through their thick skulls. We’re courting a regional catastrophe with the artificially high numbers of elk that have been created there as a result of their supplemental feeding program.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Finicky tuners? #55440

Sean –

Total stab in the dark here, but I’m mystified by your tuning dilemma as well – have you tried changing how you grip the bow at all? As I recall, your other bows are recurves, right? Sometimes, I find certain longbows shoot a lot more consistently and accurately if you ‘get ahold of them’ more so than the typical recurve style of gripping the bow.

No idea if that has anything to do with it, and it’s always hard trying to solve tuning issues over the interwebs, but I figured it was worth throwing out there.

[Author]

Posts