[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: new elkheart #37672

Gorgeous bow, Doug! Greg really does build a beauty, and by all accounts, a serious performer.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Rabbits, Hares, and Squirrels- Oh My! #34258

Duncan wrote: …. that it “should be a crime to prepare squirrel any other way but fried, with mashed potatoes, gravy, and biscuits”. And I heartily concur along with plenty of sweet tea to wash it all down with.

I’m in. That sounds delicious.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Noteable Quotes! #34050

“If one wants to be a consistently successful bowhunter developing shooting skills is very important but developing hunting skills is essential.”

– Dr. Ed Ashby

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: how good is good enough? #34046

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote:

If one wants to be a consistently successful bowhunter developing shooting skills is very important but developing hunting skills is essential.

Ed

Off to the “Quotes” page with this one…

(and a good excuse to revive it 😉 )

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Pulling my hair out over quivers. #33666

Ptaylor wrote: Smithhammer- on the Duiker, do you tuffheads stick out of the foam with their sharp edges showing? I read the foam is only 1.5″ deep. The side quiver I have only has 2″ of foam. I enjoy using a bow quiver because it is one less thing on my back and I have more control of the arrows when crawling through brush. But I bought a side quiver for the rain cause I don’t like my broadheads getting wet; however, I haven’t used it and can’t speak to its efficacy.

While the longer broadheads (Tuffheads, Steel Force Traditionals) don’t go entirely into the foam, the bottom of the quiver still covers them from being exposed, if that makes sense.

And I hear you on the up-sides of a bow quiver – sometimes in thick brush, anything other than a bow quiver can be an annoyance. But the weather/shrubbery/etc. protection that something like the Duiker offers, combined with an unencumbered bow, having my leaning more and more in that direction these days. I have yet to find any arrow carrying solution that isn’t a compromise. If only I had silent, scentless, perfectly camoflaged servant who could hand me an arrow when needed….:lol:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Pulling my hair out over quivers. #33559

I mostly shoot my longbows anymore, and I agree – it’s really nice to not have a bow quiver on them. Plus, there are lots of times when I want more than 4 arrows with me, and the last thing I want to do is put a larger bow quiver on my longbow.

I also have the same opinion as Doc when it comes to back quivers – they’re fine for stumping, but I don’t like them for hunting, because of the movement involved in getting an arrow and because they don’t allow me to wear a backpack.

So, I’ve pretty much come to the same conclusion as Doc – a side quiver that allows for a low-key, stealthy movement to remove an arrow, and that doesn’t interfere (too much) with a backpack. I really like the Safari Tuff ‘Duiker Deluxe’:

The ‘deluxe’ version will carry half a dozen arrows, comes with a removable storm hood, and it has a side pocket (like their larger ‘Arrowmaster’ model) which I really like for keeping my armguard, glove, stringer, etc. all together. The quiver is rigid enough that you can strap it to the side of a backpack and not crush your arrows. And the fabric that it’s covered in is really quiet. So far it’s about the best solution I’ve found.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Kids Bows #32454

Very cool, Steve. I’ve come close to buying that book as well. The author has a number of videos on YouTube that have made me more intrigued about building one. Let us know how it goes!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Mornings #31924

Somehow September mornings are a lot easier than December mornings, even though I’m getting up way earlier to beat the daylight. Probably because I’m 1) hunting elk, and 2) far less likely to be freezing my @$$ off.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Home practice range #31865

My winter range:

My ‘rest of the year’ range:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: The Hammock Seat #31821

handirifle wrote: I have a new question on this seat. Assuming you are on a moderate to steep slope (most of the time around here), I would use it on the downhill side. But can you make it hang so the strap goes down at an angle allowing your feet to touch the ground? If it has to be level, some of our slopes are so steep the seat would be 3ft above ground on the downhill side and my stubby legs would be dangling.

You can definitely hang the strap so it goes down at an angle, and the hammock will accommodate some slope, but I haven’t tried it out on a really steep incline. The bigger limiting factor might be the length of the support post.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Cabin fever….whose got it? #31803

Strait-Aero wrote: I know you and Bruce do,Dave. Wayne:(

Who, me?

Oh, noooo…..I’m having a great time. Woohooo!

This is the only time of year that I start to question where I live. But all in all, I’ve got it pretty good here, and if I have to while away the time XC-skiing and shooting in the basement, life ain’t so bad.

At least I get to party with Clay and the Fischers next weekend!!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Traditude #30780

pothunter wrote: Not being surprised when technology lets you down.

I like that. 😉

Duncan wrote: Rhymes with gratitude, for the unknown chap that bent a stick and added a string and first flung an arrow. Hoist your tea glass or whatever to such genius! 😀

Here, here!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Economist article #28479

I had mixed feelings about it as well Dave, which is precisely why I posted it. It’s also why I didn’t comment at first – I wanted to see what other people thought, and not bias it with my thoughts right off the bat.

Mostly, I was just pleasantly surprised to see an article of this nature in a mag like the Economist at all! Especially one that points out the important differences between the situation in Europe and the radical vision of the N. American model.

I was also pleased to see that the author broached the subject of the introduction of dart guns (err…crossbows) into archery seasons, and didn’t portray it favorably.

On the other hand, it’s rife with examples of what happens when a journalist ‘dabbles’ in a subject they obviously have no background in. The article tries to get it right, and does on some good points, imo, but also demonstrates some of the usual naivete.

Regardless of the hits and misses throughout the article though, I think the author does hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph:

“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.”

Does the article say everything I want it to, the way I want it to? No. But that’s also an unrealistic expectation, and I think that in general, for the audience it’s intended for, it’s probably still largely a positive message that speaks to some of the things that concern us as bowhunters about the way the hunting industry has been heading.

So, given the context and the intended audience, I’ll give it a “B-“. 8)

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Traditude #28139

I came across a quote the other day that touches on what I would consider ‘traditude:’

“If you presume to love something, you must love the process of it much more than you love the finished product.”

– John Irving

For me, it’s the connection that I have to the entire process of traditional archery that is so satisfying, rather than just some end result.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Sixth Sense #28130

Animals definitely sense “intent” from what I’ve seen. Just watch prey animals when a predator comes into range. Sometimes, they’ll pay it no mind. Other times, they’ll be in the next county the minute they sense it. They somehow know when that predator is hungry and hunting, versus when it is just passing through. Not hard to imagine that they pick up on the same clues when we are in their environment.

I saw this on NPR this morning – another example of what we might attribute to ‘sixth sense?’

Secrets Of Snow-Diving Foxes

“…foxes have “a magnetic sense.” Not only can they see, hear, touch, taste and smell like we do, they’ve got an extra gift. They can sense the Earth’s magnetic field. There are birds, sharks, turtles and ants that can do the same thing. But the fox is the first animal we know of to use this sense to hunt.”

[Author]

Posts