[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: In Case Y'all Don't Know #46712

colmike wrote: …Seriously, I think all of you should run for Congress and Steve for President. He can nominate mom for Sec. State she is defiantly qualified for that job…Mike

If elected, I promise to run from the room (screaming like a little girl). Never to be heard from again.

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Limb tip protector #45584

R2 wrote: “Lesson? Why yes, don’t get your bow wet!’

That puts the “lesson” to be learned on a broader scope than “don’t hunt in the rain” 😀

Thanks Steve, I’ll pass it on.:wink:

Don’t mention it! My wife says that if there is something obvious, I’ll be the first one to say it. Not sure what she means.

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: In Case Y'all Don't Know #45574

pothunter wrote: …Eidsvolling,’Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’-Mark Twain, just would not be fair on your sister.

Mark. (not Twain, don’t want cause confusion)

You and Mr. Twain nailed it!

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Limb tip protector #44294

R2 wrote: I have a friend who used a rubber type tip protector, got his bow wet, kind of shook off the moisture, put his bow away for a couple of weeks. When he got back to it, the moisture that had been trapped inside that rubber type limb protector had played havoc on his limb tip. Lesson????

Lesson? Why yes, don’t get your bow wet! 😀

Here’s the one I’ve been happily using:

http://www.3riversarchery.com/Recurve++Longbow+Bow+Tip+Protector_i4029_baseitem.html

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Osage Orange sources #43245

Ben M. wrote: …I’ve never paid for Osage because it grows wild all over the place where I live…

And that makes me envious 😡 My uncle lives in Kansas and sent me some of his horse apples. I have 12 trees about 4 feet tall now. I figure by the time the grandkids arrive and grow up enough to hold a bow, I might be able to get some wood off ’em.

We have a few trees around here, but they are few and far between. I’d hate to cut one of those down.

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #43190

Fallguy wrote: Rifles have an advantage over bows correct so we shorten the season. Steve just for argument sake should we consider the individual that puts out bait and removes it at the end of the day ethical? It would seem that they are creating “Pavlov’s Dog”. Then they can shoot a deer of their choosing at a time and place of their choosing. It seems closer to shopping than hunting. Also why is it unacceptable to bait waterfowl? I believe it is an unfair advantage. It is my belief that the skill factor goes down when you can place a pile of food and sit back and pick your prize.

I don’t disagree with your sentiments, but…

What I am saying (what I learned from the article) is that it isn’t enough to “feel” something is wrong. If you feel something is wrong, but can give no other justification, then it is a preference. It’s not fair to impose our feelings on other people. That’s not relativism in ethics. That’s decent human behavior.

Going back to our 4 legs,

-Uncertain Outcome

-Clean Kill

-Limited Take

-Eat what you kill

Baiting can be said to increase the chance for a clean kill, while it does reduce (but not eliminate) the uncertain outcome. Which is more important?

I think it also increases the the opportunity to Eat what you Kill. If you have a better chance to choose what deer to kill, (gnarly buck vs tasty doe).

All I am saying is that if we can’t justify our “preferences” with logic and fact, then we shouldn’t condemn others for having different “preferences”.

I for one would like to hear a strong argument against baiting. I’ve been trying to figure this out for a long time in the back of my head, but have not been able to do it. I thought it was a personal failing. But now I think maybe there just isn’t a good general argument.

There are good specific arguments against baiting, as in the case of CWD for example. But a general argument based on the 4 legs of the ethics table that we all accept?

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: ausjim #40715

Copy that!

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #39519

David Petersen wrote: …Anyone who believes there are no higher ethical standards than the law and “what I want to do,” hasn’t spent much time thinking, much less reading and studying the issues. IMO.

You’ll get no argument from me on this. A person would be hard pressed to claim to be better read or have done more thinking than you have on the topic. I certainly haven’t. Your books have really helped me to begin to understand my place in the food chain. And I thank you for that.

Still, it’s never a good idea to allow our wise men to go unchallenged 😀

And I would humbly point out that I don’t believe the author was making an argument that the law defines ethics. I think he was making the argument that some of our “ethical” positions really boil down to preferences because we have not made a rational and factual distinction to justify our positions.

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #39465

Fallguy wrote:

I have to agree with Dave here. His portrayal of baiting is the exception not the norm. I live next door to Wisconsin and the average baiter hauls out 3 to 500 bushels of corn and assorted other attracts. They surely do not haul anything resembling bait back out of the woods. This just another “Big Tent” argument, do not worry what the other guy does as long as it is not defined as “illegal”. Now I have to go to the Orin site and voice my feelings. Thanks Dave for the update.

I think you may have committed a prepositional fallacy. What I mean is that you have made the argument: “If A, then B and If not A, then not B” The assumption that one persons sloppy use of baiting means everyone is a sloppy baiter.

It’s the same fallacy employed when people say that bow hunting should be illegal because “a deer got shot in the neck and wandered around the park for a week”. Just because one hunter makes a bad shot doesn’t mean all hunters will do the same thing.

The things we all hold dear (I think) are:

– Uncertain outcome

– Clean Kill

– Limited Take

– Eat what you kill

While baiting may reduce the uncertainty, it doesn’t affect the other 3 legs of the ethics table. But I would argue that the difference between baiting and not baiting is way less than the difference between a trad bow and a scoped rifle.

Should we throw rifles out with the bait?

[/list]

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #39427

David Petersen wrote: …moral relativism, that is, there are no ethics beyond what the law requires and an individual chooses. Baloney!…

Hmmm… I know another group that believes they know what is morally right and everyone needs to comply with their vision. I believe they are called the taliban 😯

I delight in real and open minded discussions of topics like these, I take no offense when folks disagree with me, I only hope they bring facts and reason to the table. And I hope no one gets offended at me, and I hope I bring facts and reason to the table too. If I don’t, kindly show me 😀

With that said, one of the things I found interesting in the article was the discussion of shooting ducks. It pointed out a logical flaw in the “high ethics” of wing shooting I had never considered. I like when people point things out to me that I never thought of.

Anyway, one leg of the table we keep our ethics on is the concept of a clean kill. Another leg is the concept that the hunting conditions must favor the game and that the outcome is not certain, even doubtful. I have embraced these as self evident. But the article has pointed out that they can be in conflict with each other.

Shooting a duck on the wing meets the conditions of an uncertain hunt. but it does not meet the conditions of a clean kill. The clean kill conditions would be better met by shooting the duck on the water.

A third leg of the table is sustainable take. A fourth is eating what you kill. Killing a duck on the water meets all the requirements of an ethical hunt except the uncertain outcome criteria (an argument could be made that the outcome is not certain until the trigger is pulled, so it may meet that condition as well)

I wonder how many ducks have been wounded from wing shooting? Way more than “potting” a duck I bet.

It wasn’t that long ago that people felt it was OK to fling arrows 60 or 70 yards at a deer in hopes of connecting. Now we know that a clean kill dictates much shorter ranges.

I guess it boils down to the question: which is more important, a clean kill or an uncertain outcome?

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #38156

Following the links Dave provided, I found the following discussion of ethics vs preference very interesting…

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/ethics-vs-preferences

Just saying…

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Thoughts on things… #38149

Nice Sentiments.

Actually, if you look around there are a lot of people, in a lot of different disciplines doing the same thing. When you look at archery as art, then you begin to see that it isn’t so different from every other pursuit of perfection. In our area, we have a load of potters, jewelry makers, painters, writers, etc.

But still, they are drowned out by the commercialism you speak of. It just means we have to learn to hear the whisper in the wind.

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Tillering Question. #36960

Very interesting stuff! And I do agree with you. Kids deserve good bows if we expect them to develop love for archery.

I hate seeing kids running around with crappy little “bows” that don’t shoot worth a flip. They are so full of enthusiasm that they can make it look fun.

I bought my kids bows that cost $150 or more each. Little 15# wonder bows. But that was in the days before Rhino Bows. Got them from Martin.

Hopefully the kids will take these bows with them and give them to their own kids when the day arrives.

A good bow, whether for kids or adults, will never be wasted.

Thanks for thinking of the Kids!

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: Tillering Question. #35616

Joe, you’re the black rhino guy? Very cool. Now you are the broadhead guy. What were you making before the Rhino bows?

As for the tillering question, I guess I got lost somewhere. I agree with your observation that it doesn’t much matter between 3 under and split.

[Stephen Graf]

in reply to: cutting carbon #35610

wahoo wrote: Steve what do you do just put a cutting disc on and cut or what ??

My sanding table has a slot for a square. So I drop the square in the slot, align the arrow with the square and then slowly spin it while gently pressing it to the paper.

If you don’t have a square on your sander, you can just clamp a block to the table and square it up.

I’ve used belt sanders and disk sanders. They seem to work equally well.

[Author]

Posts