the politics of hunting issues

[Brian Krebs]

In Idaho a bow may not have more than a 65% let-off; no mechanical broadheads. No crossbows in archery season.

 Now I am seeing the 'lets all just learn to get along' theme- coming out in hunting shows.

 Is it in our interest as people who live to bowhunt: to join hands with those that do not?

 Is it in our interest to say 'NO' to crossbows in archery seasons?

 Is it our interest to say 'NO' to 'advancements' in technology that take the skill and art out of archery?

 Is it in our interest to really want to keep the "arch in archery"?

 I see this swell of discontent over the world hunt. Yet we do take a chance in separating ourselves from other hunters; other bowhunters; in doing so.

 Is now the time to say 'no- while we can still pronounce the word?

 Is drawing a line in the sand something we should do- or should we let the wind carry our sport- our art form- our way of being in nature: into the unknown??

 Is there safety in numbers? Do we have the numbers- or is ideology our safe path?

[Firstarrow]

Brian,

Thank you for the thought promoting questions.

As I am recently new to "traditional" equipment (the last 4 years). I believe that the traditional values were with me long before.

The following is my opinion on your questions.

I do not believe that we need to join hands with those who choose not to hunt. Ours is the duty to educate them concerning the value of the hunt, and the ethics of the true hunter. We need to equally chastise then educate those among the hunter ranks who step out of line, and put us in a bad light.

I believe that Crossbows have their place, not in the archery season but in the any weapon season.

DEVIATING FROM THE QUESTION - If a person has a disability and needs to "modify" their weapon of choice or tecnique, then so be it. A question that came up on another site was from a gentleman on the east coast who wanted to archery hunt Utah. He wanted to use a self bow, but was unable to hold his draw weight due to injuries. He had a "draw locking" devise but would release it with his hand. He wanted to hunt with his equipment, but under current laws was unable to as far as I know. What about situations like this?

I believe that it is in our best interest to set limits on our equipment. Try as I may I have never been able to verbalize well my reasons for this. Suffice it to say that the archery industry leaders have become driven by gizmos and gadgets... to increase sales. Capitalism is good, but at the loss of the basic skills of archery I say no way!

The Arch in archery is among the best things. The Wensels illistrate this well in their video spirit of the bow as they describe an experience behind a compound shooter shooting 3d. Having said that the Arch is about the fun, the relaxation and comraderie of being in the field and "stump shooting" with buddies. I believe that those who shoot wheelie bows can experience it IF they let themselves.

There is always a risk in taking a stand, on anything. Putting your head up while in a foxhole creates a good target. Putting hour head in the sand also creates and imposing target as well. We need to keep at the top of our list the ethics of the hunt. These should be a common goal between hunters who use all weapons. When we take a stand on the ethics and police our own ranks, eventually the "dregs" of the ranks will in time filter out, and the cream will rise to the top.

We who care need to be more active in our clubs, communities, and states. Standing up for what is good, and what is right.

[vermonster13]

The World Hunt isn't hunting, so we seperate ourselves from no one there, they are trying to move away from us yet use us for credibility at the same time. The vast majority of hunters have come out against it as well as the organizations that represent hunters. If anything the WHA has unified us in our efforts to prevent it.

The just get along thing is good for hunting to a point. It's when people use that line to defend methods that are highly objectionable, morally questionable or damaging to all of hunting that I have a problem with it.

  So long as this remains a discussion of the big tent theory and its affects on hunting this topic will remain. If it degenerates into a discussion about crossbows it will go.

[Firstarrow]

TTT - for mor discussion...

[Brian Krebs]

the world hunt is called the "world HUNT". No matter how you personally percieve it; it is going to be percieved by the public as a hunt.
 Just one sword sharpening another here...

To quote Vermonster13:
 "The just get along thing is good for hunting to a point. It's when people use that line to defend methods that are highly objectionable, morally questionable or damaging to all of hunting that I have a problem with it."

 What methods; moral questions; and 'things damaging to all of hunting' may we discuss: in the interest of helping to keep traditional archery alive ( this IS the 'Trad Gang' :without being subject to having threads closed down ?

 What is your definition of the  "big tent theory and its affects on hunting" ?

 Seems like their is a 450 pound gorilla in the room that nobody dare talk about- and I am not at all convinced that is in our interest. Not at all.
 Fred Bear once said to me that "when these dam* things (compounds) start shooting over 300 feet per second it will no longer be bowhunting".
  Are we to ignore what Fred Bear said- and practiced in his own hunting ( with a traditional bow)- and feed the 'gorilla'. Or find a way to convince it to leave the room - that leaves both our swords sharpened?
  Or our we to abandon the words of Bear; and Aldo Leopold ( who said 'bowhunting should never be such a presence as to be considered a part of game management decisions')?
  Sticking your head out of a foxhole; or sticking your head in a hole might indeed both leave a target present.
  But is it the politics of this site to open a forum where only being in a hole and not exposing ones self to anything is the ONLY way to be a part of discussing "Hunting Issues &Politics"?
  I love and live for hunting with a traditional bow.
  What are the parameters of discussion here; and what makes us think must live in fear of any reprisals for stating our point of view?
  Who is the enemy of free speech; the person that says something incorrect or improper; or the person who lives in fear of that freedom?
        Really sincerely:  Brian

 
 

"They that can give up essential liberty to

obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither

liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
 

[Firstarrow]

TTT

[vermonster13]

To go by the Trad Gang rules, we are allowed to discuss the big tent theory in terms of types of hunting as opposed to hunting equipment. Examples: baiting, hound hunting, high fences etc. To debate the use of various weapons and their appropriateness is outside the scope of the site. If you wish to discuss those other things in e-mail or PM, I would be more than happy to, but I have to live within the same rules as all the members here do.