your thoughts on hunting today?

[tradtusker]

I watched a "documentary" on hunting over in South Africa on the BBC yesterday over here.
It just really saddens me that people don't want to HUNT properly anymore and the ranchers have no concept of sustainable land management, they have just turned it into a business.
Next time you watch a bowhunting video for Africa have a look to see how much grass you can see.

They showed a few canned hunting places as usual.

another was a perfectly healthy American hunter shooting game off the back of the vehicle. why? why does the hunter accept this? its not hunting and his conscience knows. And does he go back home and tell all his friends he "hunted" all these animals?

i know this is happening world wide and i understand different places have different methods and people have to make a living.

but as a young guy i find it harder and harder to hold my head up high and be proud that im a hunter and conservationist, when there are so many people just interested in there ego and the money.

[SteveMcD]

I agree. Ethics or lack thereof is measured by how much money an individual can afford. It is obvious most individuals that spend thousand$ of dollars for a hunt, fully expect to go home with THEIR animal(s). They have lost the Fair Chase ethic. Hunting is for the hunt's sake. Actually, taking an animal is a gift.

[Scott J. Williams]

I am very encouraged by the current state of hunting today.  We have greater opportunity in many ways to enjoy our sport, more places to pursue man's natural inclination to hunt,  having said that, I have a few concerns.

1) State game departments are getting less revenue to take care of a greater piece of the pie.  This has resulted in the grab for revenue in anyway they can. Higher cost for non-resident license fees, which are putting tag cost out of reach for many. If you can afford the guide, if you use one, you might not be able to draw, or afford the tag!

2) The lumping of traditional bowhunters with compound hunters, especially during so called "Primitive Weapons" season, did not bother me until I saw the success ratios.

     In some western states it is 15-25 percent.  To the less observant, this would seem to be a good thing, however think again.  

     When coupled with the fact that now, because of success rates becoming higher, and higher, game managers have no choice but to figure that into their management programs. Finite number of deer to be taken by all means, thus the danger of seasons being shortened.  

     Why is this a concern to traditional bow hunters?  It would seem  obvious, we are not the contributors to the higher kill ratio, I am not complaining, just stating a fact.  

     Our impact is negligible at best, but because we carry a bow, we are looked upon like all the rest. The very threat of shortened season may force us to  share the woods with crossbows, and muzzle loaders sooner than later.

     Space, much more than the final frontier,  is a factor, do to increased effectiveness of modern bows, hunter days/recreation days afield are increasingly having to take a back seat to higher kill ratios.  This is an example that the big tent very seldom mentioned.

3) Getting to the point mentioned above, "Ethics" which breeds a lot of misunderstanding, and heated debate.  Some feel that if it is legal, it is o.k., and for most that works fine.  Most of us on this site hunt with a recurve, self or otherwise. Longbow, self or otherwise.  A larger number than  known choose to hunt just with those weapons, choosing never to pick up a rifle, muzzle loader or compound. I know a lot choose to do so, which is fine, and if that is true, this will have little effect on your thought process because it will not matter to you.

     We know it is legal, but choose another path.  In my travels around the country,  I have hunted with and in areas where the hunting method was foreign  to me, but legal.  Sometimes it was a local Tradition to hunt that way.  I learned to make a statement, by not debating, or calling them out.  I preferred instead to hunt, in Florida , without the aid of dogs.  In places in Texas, without the aid of corn or feeders(not saying that I don't ever,   but from time to time I don't)yet I have been called every name in the book because I have hunted using methods different from ones selected by others.  

     I guess what I am saying here, and rather poorly, is that as long as it is legal, and it is within the rules of fair chase, the individual should make the choice. If the method gets out of hand, where it is no longer safe, or adversely affects game populations, the experts will fix it quick and in a hurry. That you can hang your hat on!

4) I am not one to sit on my hands and let someone else carry the water for me.  We belong to a select group of hunters, we increase the challenge by choice, in an age where it seems everyone else is trying to make it easier, and succeeding.  

     I don't believe that the NRA, or other groups that don't fully understand our method of hunting can accurately address our concerns.  

     There will always be the pressure to place the needs of  many over the interest of the few.

     Not being  a fan of the "Big Tent", however I will stand under that tent on select issues that do affect us, such as right to hunt, and specialized seasons.  I have and will stand with them with my money, my word,and my time.  

     Remember we have not changed a whole bunch since that first hunting season in which we got a chance to use our sticks, and strings in pursuit of the Majestic Whitetail.  

     Yet many things have changed around us, if we are to continue to enjoy this sport, which we have chosen to pursue, a sport that others have paid such a high price to obtain, then we must take up the mantle, to speak up for ourselves. Silence is not always golden.

     No we are not elitist, no better than anyone else, and yet we should have the right to pursue our sport. We asked at every turn to understand everyone else, but few have taken the time to understand us.  

     To do anything less, would be to resign this honorable, once esteemed way of hunting to the ash  heap of history.  

     Remember when a muzzle loader, was a real muzzle loader.  Remember when shooting a bow meant one sting, and holding the full weight.  I want my grand children to know a real bow when they see one, and not have to go to some exhibit in a museum.

      It may seem that I have a dark opinion regarding the state of hunting as it is now.  The opposite is true, you see, I have a realistic view of our sport. One that allows for the objective view, seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly.  

     My view is not unique, it has been expressed by many, on Trad Gang and off.  This being true, and as long as it is so, the future is very bright. We are a fraternity, of fraternities.  We have different charters, but we have in the past, and we do come together when the freedoms of all are at stake.

     That is the best reason of all for me to smile and be hopeful.  Dialog is worthless, if it  will not lead to positive action.  Dialog will not always lead to agreement, should not be expected to,  but should lead to understanding. Dialog is but the starting block to action, that requires not a concession, but heart felt conviction for those things believed to be right.

     Ladies and Gentlemen, we have just engaged in dialog, let us take action now, and engage the opposition!

[WidowEater]

There are some states that dont allow inline muzzleloaders for hunting.  I wonder why no one has put their head in the noose and proposed only non compound bows for archery seasons.

[erichardin]

I wonder if the increased success rates are more a function of people using guides and/or hunting on 'managed' ranch type settings than it is of just equipment?  Just wondering...

[Scott J. Williams]

erichardin,

     Most bowhunters, regardless of type of bow being shot, are not using guides, or managed ranches.  

      Most are hunting on friend's lands, their land, or public lands.  The traditional bowhunter, has not increase their success rate much over the beginning.  This is true even on managed lands.

      I don't mean to appear to bash modern bowhunters, I just think it is time that we become honest with ourselves and admit that there is a difference in the efficiency between the types of tools.  The time has past for us to sit quietly in the corner and nod when they say, "it is all just bowhunting".  

       It is the deer management, and non-hunting legislators who make the decisions. The biologist isn't concerned about who kills the deer, he/she only knows that a certain number have to be taken.  If that means combining seasons, shortening other, they could not care less.  

       Everyone who has "poo pooed" the thought of carving out a nitch for "stickbow" hunters might want to do some, "re-think".  Most of us are hunters, we know that the smallest, the weakest, gets eatten by the lion!  I don't want to wait to become lunch.  Look at Michigan, this is how it starts.

[JStark]

Great comments from everybody.

Tradtusker, I agree that many "hunters" do some durned unethical things.  But, hold your head up high, so that you may show folks how it's done right.  Don't worry if there are very few of us for now, just keep the fires burning, and people will continue to come to the warmth they bring.  
There have always been unethical people.  Different technologies, different undersandings, and different times breed different looking choices, but they are always either "good" or "bad".  You will know them by their fruits.

We're with ya, man.

[TomK]

Damn... things have changed in the 50+ years I've been bowhunting.  Is there a difference between the archery tackle we use and the engineered precision weapons the gadget geeks use?  You betcha!  Everyone doesn't share our bond with our heritage.  To most, it's all about "whacking & stacking" (as a certain TV freak calls it).  The very word, "ethics" is greek to a large portion of hunters who posess bowhunting licenses... but not to us.  We hold ourselves to a much higher standard.  And that, my friend, is what seperates us from the rest of the flock... even more so than the issue of cables, wheels and the laser do-dads.

Hard to say what the future holds for our sport in general.  

Interesting thread... hope there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

[OkKeith]

All very interesting, and all true in their context.

Here is where I open myself up to "the slings and arrows" so to speak.

Everyone keeps talking ethics. Ethical conduct is the basis of a civil society, and I agree that not all hunters are ethical. BUT...What exactly is the definition of ethics or even ethical behavior?

Webster's says that an ethical motive is motivation (ergo; action) based on ideas of right and wrong.

We as traditional bowhunters have our interpretation of right and wrong. It is actually how we define ourselves. Individuals who do not support hunting as a practice (I have a personal problem of refering to hunting as a sport, baseball and tennis are sports. For me hunting is a social practice making it much more important) believe HUNTING is unethical. According to THEIR definition, hunting is WRONG. I not only oppose this belief, I reject the logic it is based on.

Here is the dilema though. If I reject the logic that antihunters base their beliefs on, how do I justify the logic I base MY beliefs on? If we say that "ethical" hunting ensures the quickest and cleanest kill with the least suffering, all "ethical" hunters should use the MOST accurate, the MOST powerful, and the EASIEST to discharge (whether arrow or bullet) means possible. Using this definition of ethical we should all shoot high tech compounds or crossbows because, in our own view, they are "too easy to shoot" are "just like a gun" and "anyone can pick one up and hunt". We have thereby hoisted ourselves upon our own pitard.

Many other men and women, most likely far better people than myself, have worked very hard to ensure the existance of archery hunting in this country (not meaning to forget those who fought/continue to fight for the privilage to simply hunt). Now we seem to be upset that the data proves what we have always said, archery is an efficient and successful means to hunt. We go on to say that some types of archery are TOO efficient. We completly discount bowhunting education programs and hard working hunters (regaurdless of what they shoot) who try everyday to teach hunters old and new the "right" way to do things. Increased success rates? Obviously it must be the technology, not the hunter! Once again our ethical highground seems in peril of being inundated by the muddy floodwaters of logic.

Here is my qualifier... I don't say all this to be disagreeable. I am a Traditional Bowhunter. It is more than simply what I do as a pastime. It is who I am. The code of conduct that Traditional Archery inspires informs my day to day life. Just as I do not feel the need to justify my actions to those who's set of ethical definitions differs from my own, I don't feel the need to set myself up as supierior because I want to do things in a more difficult way. Not all hunting is equal.

There are more hunting opourtunities now than there ever have been. More habitat, more game than ever. The numbers of men and women who hunt is continuing to dwindle. I have been one of those biologists who's job it is to manage populations. I did care how it was done, but the over-riding fact was, it had to be done. Hunting is the tool most frequently used to control numbers of game species (we are kidding ourselves if we think it is the only one).

I hunt with my recurves and my longbows. That is how I do it. I fight to keep that privilge. I don't fight to be the only one in the woods. I'm not a "Big Tent" guy either as crowds make me nervous and comprimise for the sake of inclusion, to me, is wrong. I stay out longer, walk farther and work harder than some (maybe most) but I do it because that is how I choose to, not because it is more right or more wrong than anyother. I don't see how Traditional Archery equipment can be considered more or less efficient than any other means. One hunter, one bow, one arrow. More efficient would be shooting 2 or 3 arrows at once.

Our future is what we will make of it.

OkKeith

[JStark]

OkKeith,

These are solid points you make.  I don't ignore the guys who go out every day and try to teach a proper ethos about the woods (many of those guys frequent this site), and I respect those who have made solid ethical choices that put them on wheelies.  I also believe that most on this site agree with me, too.  Trad hunting isn't for everybody.

The original post wasn't referring to trad hunting vs. other forms, but instead was referring to the way the game was treated, and the emphasis on trophies and numbers of dead over fair chase and respect for the game.  

I decided to try traditional hunting not because I had "mastered" other forms of hunting, but because I felt drawn to it and what it provides:  A way to walk simply on the earth, in the wild, as a part of the wild.  All the gadgets were separating me from being outside.  When I did this, I became a better hunter because traditional hunting taught me lessons about what it means to be outside in the wild, as a predator.  But, this is my experience, and though I'd like to believe others may learn the way I did, I am just as happy to see folks making good ethical choices even though they hunt with rifles.

By the way, it's nice to come to a hunting web forum where you get to see words like "pitard" in use.

[OkKeith]

JStark,

Your right, I did stray a little of topic, but sometimes I get bothered when folks (I know they don't mean too, but somehow that makes it worse) start to believe we are more right than others, or seem to exhibit a defecit of understanding when it comes to how wildlife populations are managed.

Like you, I am a traditional archer because it "feels right" to me. It fits the way I have always tried to live my life. Simple, direct...fundimental, if you will.

As a youngster, I learned to bow hunt with a recurve. Thought it was the way everyone did things. As I got older (high school) I saw compounds. I don't remember if I wanted one or not, might have, that's the way high school kids are. I do remember a friend coming over to shoot his new wheelbow. My Dad looked at it, but made no dispariging remarks to the young man who was pround of his new tool. As my friend nocked an arrow, got it on his rest, clamped on the release, drew back, located the sights, setteled in and squeezed of a shot; my Dad had already put three arrows in the bullseye and was drawing his fourth. Like I said, Dad never said anything against the bow, or the archer. He just chose another way to do it. I will never be the archer, the hunter or the man my Father is, but I can always try until the end.

I still think hunting has a bright future as long as there are folks who wish it. Our value of hunting is measured by our effort to maintain it's history and ensure it's future.

AND...do you know how hard I look for oppourtunities to use words like pitard? It is actually one of my favorites. Along with ABSCONDED! Man, I gotta find a reason to use it this week.

Thanks for the response,
OkKeith

[Scott J. Williams]

OKKeith,

    You are  welcome to sit at my "campfire" anytime.  I am afraid that some of the confusion may have come from my response about hunting today.  Of course,I am far more passionate about tradititonal bowhunting than I do any other hunitng I do.

     So while I am fairly optumistic regarding it's future in general, I feel that there are some real threats to out way of hunting.    I just took some time to highlight some of those  threats, as I see them.  I did not intend to give the impression that our way is the only way, nor did I intend to give the impression that it was the best way. However it is  the best way for me.  

      I don't rifle hunt anymore, I don't even own one anymore, but I would fight to protect gun hunters right to hunt.

      I do agree that some success rate increases could be attributed to education, however that alone, according to the statistics that track the numbers of people using that education would suggest that it's greatest worth is in hunter safety, very important I might add.  

      The facts just can't be overlooked, a rifle is more effective than a classic muzzle loader, as the muzzle loader is more effective than the compound, the compound is more effective than the traditional bow, self, or otherwise.  

       Yet, there is not much difference between traditional bows, and self bows when it comes to success rates.  My only problem, as stated above, is that  to some people, the people who make the decisions on our seasons,(often times are not bowhunters of any type)  see crossbows, compound bows, and stickbows as a bows.  Due to their myoptic view, they count the beans at the end of the season, declares the success rate at X, and then proceeds to close areas, shorten seasons, adjust bag limits based on that data.

      Of course, they have to balance all of that with the kill from  other seasons. Management of the resourse is important to all of us.

      What would be so wrong for game managers to conduct a study on traditional bowhunting success rates.  Then if they wished to limit the more effective weapons, based on their effectiveness,  they could balance the herd   , but not at our expense.  It might work like this,  based on stats taken in the past three seasons, it has been learned that the traditional archers have only a 4.5 percent sucess rate, compared to 15-20 percent in a given area.  What could be so wrong with using valid information to make those decisions.  

      The insights made above have   opened my minds eye, to a greater level of understanding.      

      I feel honored to belong to a forum with so many responsible, and caring people, Not because we all agree, because many times we don't. We do met, and discuss issues. "Iron sharpening Iron".   I think our method of bowhunting is clearly in good hands, the people on this forum are representative of most in the Art of Traditional Bowhunting,  maybe our future is brighter than I suspected.

[OkKeith]

Hey Scott,

Thanks for the invite! I do appreciate it. I didn't mean to single anyone out. Your post (like pretty much ALL the posts on this site) was well reasoned and well written.

I think maybe we all have been using the words "efficient" and "effective" interchangably (I am guilty of this as well).

Here are some definitions just to set myself straight.

Effective: able to accomplish a purpose.

I don't think that Traditional Equipment is any less effective than Tech Equipment (for lack of a better term, I use this to describe that equipment not considered "traditional"). A well placed shot at a reasonable hunting distance is equally as deadly. We can talk about "reasonable hunting distance" a lot, but archers in the past (Pope, Young, Hill, etc.) shot at GREAT distances and killed game.

Efficient: being effective without wasting time or effort or expense.

I guess to interject some humor, I suppose we could say trad gear is MORE efficient because we use fewer gizmos, and on the whole less expensive stuff. To measure efficiency we have to make some assumptions:
1) Efficiency operates within the context of other performance measures.
2) Efficiency must be measured relative to a standard.
What other performance measures do we use? Speed? Force? I think it has been shown that these are of little influence when ability and accuracy is considered. What standard do we apply? This would seem to say that there is a "best" way or an "ultimate" method that our gear would have to fall short of.

I still don't believe that, by definition, trad gear is less efficient than other gear. This would say that tech gear inherently does a better job of killing an animal than does trad gear. I just don't think that's true. If it was, I wouldn't use it.

Success: having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome.

I think most trad hunters feel that a day afield is a success in and of itself. I would suppose some (not all)tech hunters might use another definition of favorable outcome. I don't have to come home with an animal to have enjoyed myself, and don't think your choice of gear really defines this for you either. I know tech gear hunters who are just as thrilled to be out there as anyone else, dead animal or no. BUT... for managment sake, success is defined as dead animals.

You are absolutly right Scott, the data shows that trad gear hunters are less successful than tech gear hunters. My thought is though, that the disparity is due to philosophy and not necessarily technology. We trad hunters pride ourselves on doing things in a more challenging way. Close shots, ground blinds, still hunting. There are trad gear shooters who are equally as accurate at any distance as tech gear shooters (look at what the Field Archers do). I think this philosophical difference is what shows in the success rates. I guess what I am trying to say is (maybe with little success) is that it is the WAY we hunt, not WHAT WE HUNT WITH that influences success rate data.

I am perfectly willing to be wrong. What fun would being right all the time be anyway? Not that I am in any danger of falling into that.

Everything around here is pretty wet and soggy, and whatever campfire we might build I am sure would be hard to start and very smokey.. but you too are welcome anytime! I enjoy the conversation!

OkKeith

Oh.. I spelled "petard" wrong in a previous post. The Bard, I assume, will forgive me.

[Scott J. Williams]

OkKeith,
     I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree, I don't think our equipment is less effective, it may even be that the difference is the number of them, compared to our numbers.  

      Whatever the true reason is, we must be mindful there is a difference, because there are those who might make a decision, based on those numbers, and it could work against us.  

       I love bow hunting, I once was asked, during the short ten year period that I shot compounds, if I would continue to hunt with archery gear if they ever out-lawed compounds.  I looked the guy in the eye and said, If that came to pass I would not miss a beat.  I would dust off my old Ben Pearson, grab my wood arrows and razorheads and never a day n the woods, never missing a season.  
        Interestingly enough, I killed deer and hogs during that time, but I have taken more game with traditional gear over a similar period of time.  Yep, your right OkKeith, must be the way we do it.  I wouldn't change a thing!

[ChuckC]

Scott.  one of the problems we face right now is that, at least in much of the midwest and easten US, the game poulations, especially deer, have been booming.  The numbers are way too high.  Game managers probably agree with you however thy have to knock down deer numbers.  That is tough to do when their numbers are very high and a lot of the property available is posted.  As far as they are concerned (today)...kill as many as you can.. any way you can.  

Many of us grew up in the times when there were no such numbers like today.  That is when bow hunting came on board. The game managers had to deal with things like harvest numbers in a real way.  Today is a different world... wide open so to speak, at least from a managers point of view.

Now... jump to today's society.  Everythng we do is fast and "now".  period.  Hunting is no different.  You see all the videos of sudden success, you read all the magazines... every one of which espouses buying your way to success.. all of them espouse the way of thinking that if you aren't killing 150's class deer every year you really suck.

We are getting exactly what .. well what we sowed.

The industry is not helping us.. they are not in it for the intrigue and the spirit of the outdoors.  They are in it for fame and fortune... period. (especially fortune)

My suggestion...  sit back, smoke a cigar... let them do their thing and let us do ours.  It ain't gonna change any time soon.
ChuckC

[Don Stokes]

I think the biggest threat to hunting today is those despicable hunting videos that air on the various outdoor channels. Some of them are outright disgusting, and I don't mean whack 'em and stack 'em Ted. Much of it is so obviously staged, with semitame game farm critters, that it's hard to blame the middle-of-the-fence observers from becoming antihunters. If you haven't been out there hunting in the real world, you don't know what the real experience is like. If it were really like it's shown on TV, I'd never pick up a bow or gun again. Remember, the TV is the most influential tool in many people's lives.

[Scott J. Williams]

ChuckC,

I am lighting one up right now,  Yep, I think it puts it all in it's proper perspective....

[Scott J. Williams]

Don,
m
     Point well made, and well taken. We have a few heroes like,  the Wensels, the Mittens, and those guys, I hate it because I can't remember their names, the guys on "Getting Stickbow Close I, and II.  I know I have missed more, Denny Sturgis, is a stellar example....

      We have just got to hang in there, and be the example.  I get far more questions, of interest when I show up at a shoot, expo, or competition, most of the time  I am the only one there with a real bow.  They could care less about how I stack up against the rest.  When I put one in the kill, it is special to them.  Questions like, why don't I shoot the kind of bows the other guys are shooting is one of my favorites. The better one is why do they need all of that stuff on their bows.  Remember, converts are nice, but supporters are easier to come by.  I would suggest that you film as many of your hunts as possible, write as many articles about your hunts as you can, don't leave out a thing.  The most interesting of the hunts I have been on, were the ones where nothing was killed, in fact, many times an arrow was never loosed.

Think back on the articles by Ben Pearson, Fred Bear, Howard Hill, Glen St. Charles.  Those guys didn't just write words, you were there with them in camp.  The truth is, they weren't always successful, but when you read those stories, you could smell the campfire, and feel the chill of the new day!

     Tell our story in video, in the written word, and by mouth....it will hit home.  There is a need, a requirement for adventure in todays world.  They thirst for it, there is no better adventure, that links one with the past as there is in traditional bowhunting.  Even the hunt on the back forty can be as thrilling as a hunt to the African Bush.  When you tell your story, you are telling my story, in fact you are telling our story.....

[BobT]

Scott,

I think you are on to something, I remember reading the writings of those you mention and the stories were indeed real to me. I think that too many people focus on killing the biggest buck (or bull etc.) in the woods and in the process lose the true essence of the hunt. I was talking to my neighbor the other day about hunting and he told me that he was a very selective deer hunter until he met his future father-in-law, he said "when Bob goes deer hunting he is DEER hunting". He said since he started hunting without "keeping score" he has a lot more fun! If folks would focus more on the hunt than the trophy room wall we could get back to the enjoyment. My Mother is 78 years old and as far as I know has never shot a bow in her life, she is reading "Bows on The Little Delta" right now and loving it! There are a lot of intelligent and articulate folks on this sight and I have learned a lot in my short time here. There are some things however that concern me. Take for instance the heated discussion about crossbows in this forum, how they are not traditional, rifles not bows etc. I wanted to get in on that one but was afraid I would get kicked off the sight if I voiced my opinion so I left it alone. Without trying to "flame" anyone, how many of those folks that are bashing crossbows, a weapon that has been around since medieval times, hunt from climbing tree stands that have been around since the '70s. Doesn't that give them unfair advantage over the deer? In the end it won't be the anti-hunters that destroy hunting, it will be apathy and in-fighting among ourselves. Just my thoughts.

Bob

[Scott J. Williams]

Bob,

     Thanks, and much of what you say I agree with.  Donot be afraid to voice your opinion, or thoughts.  While you and I are on different sides of the fence when it comes to Crossbows,  I am interested in opposing views.  

     Yes, if we are to maintian, save, protect, our heritage, or however we want to describe it, we must get back to the roots.  Hunting is more than killing, always was, and always will be.  Native Americans did pray in thanks for what they took, showing a reverence for that which the Great Father has bestowed them.  

      Nothing screws up a hunt faster than competition, chasing the book, for the sake of being able to say you made it.  Hunting has never been a spectators sport. Sure I would love to kill a big Pope and Younger,  will I enjoy my hunts less because I don't, not hardly.  

      For those of you who have killed big deer, bear, elk, or whatever  I tip my hat to you.  If you do it on a regular basis, you clearly work hard for it, and deserve it.  While there is more than enough room for guys and gals like you,  there are more of us, yet room for all.