Hunting Advice: Questions and Comments

[kenneth butler]

Thanks Terry, I wrote you to explain personally but it was blocked.
   I am neither accusing nor bear any ill will. The P.M.'s and emails I got are real. I believe a couple were right here. One may have even been on the thread that was pulled. They asked if Chad was talking about this guy or that. None got it right. Many more are probably thinking bad of good folks that don't write and question it. I hate to see good folks  repetition sullied needlessly. When they don't even know about it. All I can do is answer and say no he was not talking about him, to the ones that do write. I really wish the name calling and bashing would stop. Thanks for listening. >>>------> Ken

[LBR]

Kenneth Butler, I have no idea why anyone would contact you as you neither posted the thread and obviously you aren't the one responding to it.  I also have no idea why it's somehow my fault that people are taking guesses.  I've put my e-mail up at least twice, plus it's available in my profile, plus anyone can private message me any time they want.

You aren't accusing and bear no ill will?  Except you are obviously questioning my honesty and integrity while defending him.

Stating facts is not bashing.  The "name calling" is calling it as I see it.

Once again, if you have a question about anything I've said, ask it.  Once again, I have nothing to hide.

Almost forgot...if you are referring to the poster as the "good person" who's "reputation is sullied" (you aren't clear there), don't worry.  He trashed his "reputation" years ago.  He's a laughing stock in the archery community amongst those of us who have been around and seen his comments over the years.  The internet makes for a small world, and there's quite a few of us that actually have EXPERIENCE hunting, shooting in tournaments, and travelling to do both.

[kenneth butler]

No!!!   I guess the typed word don't make it clear.  Chad who in the world am I defending?
You make accusations without naming names and folks are coming to the wrong conclusions as to who you are talking about. I am sorry,I do not know how to make it any plainer. As to emailing you. I am not sure I want my address in the hands of someone that carries on such a vendetta. Not questioning your honor or integrity.  In this case I think you were  TOLD bad information or simply made a mistake. Please stop calling out my name. I feel the need to defend myself as well as others. This nonsense has gone on way too long. Let it be,move on, and try to salvage the rest of the day. >>>----> Ken

[LBR]

Sorry Kirk...my intent wasn't to bring attention to some person or another site, but rather the absurd statement and the fact that there are (obviously) people who are naïve, inexperienced, or just trusting enough to believe a ridiculous remark and even defend it in spite of the facts.

I've said for years that the internet is one of the best and worst things to ever happen to archery.  Gobs of good information available, but gobs of bad information also, and in our "I want it all and I want it now!" society some people have a tendency to think that all they have to do is read about it and that's as good as living it.  There are plenty out there ready and willing to feed them whatever they want to hear.  "Internet experts".  Sound convincing, but when you start peeling the onion you find it's rotten on the inside.

Then when someone dares mention that the king has no clothes, what happens?  You get attacked.  HOW DARE YOU!  He's so helpful, so quick to give advice and information...never mind he doesn't know what he's talking about, he SOUNDS good.  You are just hateful, and have an agenda, and just aren't a nice person...

Oh well.  Ron White rule.

[LBR]

Wow Kenneth.  Do you read your own posts? 

I'll ask again...why should I "name names"?  Will that make a lie more or less true with a name attached?

I'm responsible for other people's conclusions?

I am not sure I want my address in the hands of someone that carries on such a vendetta. Not questioning your honor or integrity.

Lol...you just totally contradicted yourself.  Btw, you can p.m. any question you might have without sending your address. 

You keep accusing me, I'll keep calling you out. 

You don't "think" anything.  You are making assumptions and ignoring what I've actually said, yet feel justified in accusing me of a "vendetta" amongst other things.  Comes across as quite hypocritical to me.

[Jim Casto Jr]

I don't have a dog in the chase and it doesn't matter one way or the other to me, BUT.... there's always a but, you know?  Seems reasonable to me the whole post should have been posted to keep the context of what was written before anyone took upon themselves to defend or be critical of the poster in that particular thread.  Believe me, I agree with Chad about other comments from this fellow, but you're talking about this one post in that one thread. So.... for better understanding of what you fella's have been talking about, here's the post in question.

"That is however a horrible bow to learn on. It's too heavy and way too short. Yes, you are learning, despite your compound history.

Next you said, "I’ll be attempting to hunt with it next season, so tune is critical."

Ah, no. Tuning is a good thing, but hardly critical in a hunting situation. IOWs, close enough is close enough. Fact is, few bow hunters have good enough form (in a hunting situation) to get any benefit from a "perfect" tune vs. a close tune.

I know it's been done, but with a bow that short, I would not go 3 under and a glove ain't gonna help, think about a tab.

So, if you really want to hunt it next season, get a cheap, lighter and longer bow to learn on, and then see if you really want to work with that one."

[Jim Casto Jr]

First one has bugged me literally for years.  When there are so many real sources of information, why would anyone get their advice from someone who's barely if ever hunted and never killed anything with a bow?  Seriously.  I've seen it more times than I care to remember and it always just puzzles me.

As for the first part of your post.... I've often wondered the same thing.  I've watched guys that never hunt, give all kinds of advice about how to hunt, what kind of broadheads to use, how they should shoot their bows, what kind of bow they should use, etc., etc.  It's beyond me.  It'd be like me giving advice to an Olympic Archer. 

When/if you get it figured out, let me know......       

[LBR]

Thanks Jim.  Like I said before, I don't even go there.  Not good for the blood pressure.

Wasn't there a part 2 where he talked about clothing, position, "grip it and rip it" and such?

Ah, no. Tuning is a good thing, but hardly critical in a hunting situation. IOWs, close enough is close enough. Fact is, few bow hunters have good enough form (in a hunting situation) to get any benefit from a "perfect" tune vs. a close tune.

Tuning is "hardly critical" in a "hunting situation"?  When someone doesn't hunt, how do that know what constitutes a "hunting situation"?  Would that be still hunting, stalking, tree stand, blind, or?  Sitting, standing, crouching, kneeling?

As I posted before, even when you do everything you can the best you can, things can still go wrong...so don't worry about doing your best?  That is just plain stupid.

[Al Dean]

I have lost the premise of this thread.  Is it about some self proclaimed expert that said good tuning is not necessary for hunting or what ever?  Is it about ethics, which are a personal choice?  I have seen on Trad Gang many threads or post I consider poor to very poor advice.  Example, if your broadheads and field points hit at the same point you are tuned good enough.  Not in my opinion.  Anyway I guess I have lost the point of this thread.

[LBR]

The original was accidently dumped, this one kinda picked up where it left off.  The original was "the worst advice I've ever seen", based on the post Jim put up.  It's not differing opinion, it's just wrong.  There's another part where there were excuses like clothing, and the claim of "empirical evidence" that "most" bowhunters "grip it and rip it", etc.  Not that the advice is just lousy, but given from the standpoint of "this is the way it is, period" and the guy doesn't hunt, barely if ever hunted (decades ago if he did), and never killed anything that maybe a bunny.  In other words, a fake.  Phony.  Pretender.

[Jim Casto Jr]

LBR asked, "Wasn't there a part 2 where he talked about clothing, position, "grip it and rip it" and such?"

Not in that particular thread, Chad.   

[LBR]

Thanks again Jim.  Somebody has posted another part, giving excuses as to why tune wasn't "critical".  I want to say there were similar threads on two different sites.

It never ends...lol.  He almost made sense for a little bit, but again...zero hunting experience shows through...

"Guys -
Glad you folks can see through the BS. The best way to deal with people
who continually "stir-the-pot" (and not in a good way) is to ignore them.
That takes away the one thing they desperately need - attention.

Anyway, getting back the the original topic... tuning is generally a good
thing, if you remember that you can only tune as well as you can shoot and
while tuning can make a rig more forgiving, it will only forgive minor
form flubs. That's why the better the shooter, the tight the tune. The
more inconsistencies or the less controlled the environment, the less
"critical" the tune becomes - within reason of course.

Not going to bother with the personal attack.  Straight to the point.

"The more inconsistencies or the less controlled the environment, the less
"critical" the tune becomes - within reason of course."

That's plain stupid.  When it's raining or snowing, are you more careful about how you drive or less?

You control what you can, PERIOD.  When there are things you can't control...weather, wind, etc....then if anything you would want AN EVEN BETTER TUNE to try to get the most from the shot.  That remark is like saying "when the road conditions are hazardous, speed up because when you can't control the car as well it's less important to be careful."

I don't care who says it.  That's not an opinion, it's an idiotic remark.  And it's not supposed to matter as much because it's a living, breathing animal you are shooting at?

Man alive...sickening...

[LBR]

At least it highlights the difference in here and there.  Over there he'll get accolades and "attaboys".  Shows the difference in mentality between this board and that one.  Hunters vs. posers.

[Terry Green]

Mr Butler...you are not blocked from me...I don't have my PMs enabled...and for good reason.  I get so many emails that I don't need an email telling me I have a persona message when folks can just click on my name and email me directly.  So, feel free to email me if need be.  No worries.

"""Ah, no. Tuning is a good thing, but hardly critical in a hunting situation. IOWs, close enough is close enough. Fact is, few bow hunters have good enough form (in a hunting situation) to get any benefit from a "perfect" tune vs. a close tune."""

This statement comes from a 'basket weaver' NOT a hunter.  I'm about ready to name call now!!!!

Here ya go "basket weaver"....

Target archery is really way dumbed down 3D......

 Over the Pond......

[LBR]

Man oh man...I could post that "laundry list" again of idiotic remarks...some of them make the ones we are talking about look smart!

I think you are right Terry...there were Indians who hunted, defended the tribe,...killed stuff.  There were others that hung out at camp and wove baskets and gathered nuts, and made up stories to tell around the fire.  We know which job that guy would have had.  Think he's been hitting the peyote too...

[Captain*Kirk]

Regardless of any one opinion, taking the life of an animal deserves our most intense attention to detail and due diligence to make sure the shot is as ethical and morally humane as possible, tuning included...or to decline the shot. And that's all I've got to say about that.

[SteveB]

Amazing anyone would take tuning advice for hunting from someone who has basically never hunted.