I'm disappointed

[2treks]

Thats it Mr.Lamb!
Happy New Year to all
Chuck

[GingivitisKahn]

Originally posted by Mudd:
I'm going to keep reading as I believe there's more to Mr. Hill's message than I've gotten so far. I had a momentary lapse of  thought and turned to feeling for an animal that was gut shot I'm glad I did. It'll make me try to be more sure of any shot I'm about to take. I guess I did learn something without having to do the "evil" deed myself..lol
Thanks for taking it easy on me.
God bless,Mudd

His books are interesting and worth reading.  Yeah - you and I wouldn't shoot at a deer the better part of a football field away but then again, we wouldn't shoot apples and things off of people's heads (with broadheads, no less) either like he did.

I wonder if there was any archery pioneer that *didn't* take shots that you and I would flinch at. That's part of what makes some of these guys so interesting to read (in my opinion, anyway).  If you haven't read it yet, Saxton Pope's, Hunting With the Bow and Arrow is really cool reading too.  Those guys were hunting grizzlies by moonlight with homemade long bows and stuff - yow!

Interesting topic!

[Mudd]

Uncle!...lol I've said enough so I'll just read from here out.
With all the love that is Christ Jesus
God bless you all and me too!
Mudd

[PAPA BEAR]

fred bear shot a lot of long shots.i remember seeing one clip of a running javelina and he plugged it at like 60 yds or something.unreal shot.these were probably not considered unetical shots back then.

[Brian Krebs]

Hey- remember that when Hill was filming; they were not using camcorders; they were using cameras weighing in over 100 pounds; and the lighting had to be right. You held up a light meter; and used that constantly to adjust your 'f' stop and shutter speed and stuff.

You had to have everything set up for a shot taken on camera. You could not run along with the archer like you can today.

 You might complain about distance; and about walking arrows in; and such- but they did it; and got animals; and had nothing then to be ashamed of.

 What made me laugh- is that you are talking about the ethics of the shots taken in Tembo - but nothing about the crocodile kill; where Hill had a small kid hide behind some saplings where the kids brother had been eaten by a crocodile the day before !

 Then Hill got the wire to the arrow in the crocodile wrapped around his leg.....

 Certainly was a lot of croc in that movie ...
You give these guys no credit for humor.

 If they hit a fly at 150 yards on the wing in a stiff wind- heck - if it was believed... it was even more fun.

 These guys were out having fun; and the bow was considered more of a toy than a weapon. Killing an animal at 100 yards was part of convincing people- that the bow was a capable weapon.

 I am far more concerned about the arch disappearing from archery: than shots taken by successful archers half a century ago.

[Traxx]

We can't apply todays logic or ethical parameters to what was done fifty or sixty years ago. They didn't have the armchair experts, nor did they have a viable history of what works and what didn't....they really were pioneers in this sport
Not entirely true.I remember reading a report from Chester Stevenson,i believe,where "Modern" Bowhunters were admonished by old Native men.Some of these old men were old enough to have lived by the bow.They complained about how white bow hunters just flung arrows at animals at great distances and never seemed to kill anything,yet Native people got close and usually allways bagged game.the interview was published for all to read who was interested in reading it at the time.That interview was published in a TBM,in the last few years,by E Donnel Thomas.

[Doc Nock]

When I was young(er) I would use the logic model and realize as many posters have shared: "Stuff happens".  I work hard to try to minimize risks and let the chips fall when they will as they will...

In reading Mudd's original post closely, all I saw was that reading about the gut shot bear made him twinge...for the suffering of the bear.

As I've aged, I find logic less useful in pushing aside emotions, and I find I FEEL much more deeply. Whether that be other's pain in suffering, loss, illness or whatever. I also feel more intensely for the animals I love and love to hunt and eat.

All I read was ole Mudd saying it hit him how that bear might have felt with an arrow through his guts... I didn't read anything about how it was wrong to have happened, or that HH was wrong and Mudd's said as much...

For me, I guess I can read his words and say, "yeah, I get it, Mudd, you just felt that pull where you felt that one more intensely..."

Not saying this feeling thing is a good thing. Not something I'd wish on anyone or hold myself up for having happened to me (or Mudd). Actually, it's something of a pain to get drawn into those feelings.  Is there a pill you can take?  

Shoot...when we get a drought, I won't go fishing for trout I love...cause they're all huddled up around whatever spring brings life chilling cooler temps and O2 they need...to catch and release them then seems like a death warrant. I won't go.

My friends laugh at me... but I gotta shave this ugly mug in the AM mirror...so "to thine own self be true."

Many years ago I was put on the spot in a class and wrote about myself, "...an intricate balance of subtle contradictions in constant conflict..."

Mudd, I think I get it.  No disparagement and no judgement implied in what I read that you wrote...stuff happens... just that you felt that one rather deeply reading his great writing at that particluar moment.

Peace out.

[Butch Speer]

To all you folks that haven't read all of Mudd's post thoroughly. He explained himself pretty well. A lot of folks just skim thru, get upset & forget the rest of the post. Read something thoroughly before you criticize.

I've known Roy for many years. A better person you'll never meet. He says whats on his mind & is honest. Something you don't find everyday. If you don't like his opinion, fine. But, he is entitled to an opinion.