when do you just say no?

[boznarras]

I just finished reading Bowhunting for Deer, by H.R.Wambold, copyright 1964. This book was mentioned on a thread here in July on reading material suggestions, and I found it in our library. He talks about hunting with Howard Hill, and the preface is written by Fred Bear. Big credentials for sure.
It was interesting to see what has changed, as well as what hasn't. An example of a constant is that he really emphasizes the often heard (and still valid) mantra, "Pick a Spot". He also tells us to sharpen our broadheads shaving sharp. Many other things are very familiar.
On the other hand, something that did surprise me were his tales of taking shots at 40, 50, 60 yards on deer, sometimes on running deer.   :confused:   He felt it better to shoot at 40 yards on an incoming deer than let it get too close, and then see you. 20 yards was related as too close. This was not just his personal practice, but what he suggested to the reader. (BTW, he was using a 50lb recurve with 28 inch cedar shafts with Hilbre heads.)
I don't have any trad archers here to compare notes with, so I am bringing this to the campfire.     which again is a shot I would just choose to pass on.
I did enjoy the book but, as always, have to temper what it said with my own thoughts; "A man has to know his limitations" as Dirty Harry said. Just wondering what is common amongst TradGangers. I won't be taking those shots, will you? Was this once more common, is it common now, or was this just Mr. Wambold talking (or bragging)?

[DannyBows]

You're not going to find many here that take shots much over 20 yards on game with our gear, most seem to make it a rule to stay under 20. I guess there was just a different mindset then. Call it "Evolutionary Ethics". I also understand that big bame was nowhere near as plentiful as now, so I suppose waiting for what we consider high percentage, ethical shot opportunities could be tough on a hunters patience. Just a different time I guess.

[George D. Stout]

The book was written in the mid 50's, and published in 1960, so they were still in the learning process.  Again, we have the luxury of hindsight, and can be a little bit arrogant towards their escapades.  Just remember, it's good to know where we came from, and guys like H.R. "Dutch" Wambold helped get us there, whether or not it conforms to our ethics quotient now. We know those shots are inadequate in the long run, because they tried them.  

If you could have talked to Dutch later in his life before he died (at too early an age), he would have a different story, more than likely.
Take those books for the era in which they were written, and try to imagine yourself in their place, before we knew what we know today. I'm just sayin'......you weren't around back then.

[Renaissance Man]

It was very common. I have had the good fortune of spending many hours on phone and in person, and hunting with some great bowhunters who had been doing for a very long time. Guys like Fred Anderson, Bruce Witzel, Chuck Jones, Deano
Farkas. To a man they have told me that 40-50 yard shots were common. Fred said where he hunted in the North West long shots were what you got and you had better been good with them or no meat in the locker.
I was with Deano one day and we spotted a nice fat doe in the field a good 45-50 yards away and he offered me the shot and I said it was too far for me. Ho got between some small trees along the trail, canted that bow and launched an arrow from his recurve and put it right in her.
It is what you practice. Fred said he practiced out to sixty five yards on his property all the time.
When I went hunting in Montana for Elk I practiced out to 45 yards all the time and was very comfortable taking that shot with my longbow.
Stump shooting at distance, roving, is probably the best practice overall. And I found I could routinely hit something like a pine cone on a bank or a tip of a rotted stump doing so all the time.
I prefer close shots, it is what all bowhunters strive for. But those that practice and live the game will take long shots without hesitation and bring home the meat.
JMHO

[shakeyslim]

i personally would never shoot a deer going away unless i was hungry and it was last resort ! moving yes i can do that, 50 yrds yes that can happen , would i suggest anyone shoot anything they think they won't clean kill --- no that won't happen!i've killed poorly at 10 yrds,i hated it but it happened. to know your shot and confidence in the shot is what makes the shot . from 10k years till now we kill we eat and we have compassion for our pray ! do your best and the best is done.

[Bill Carlsen]

It was not uncommon for shots in the  40+ yard range to be considered desireable back in the 50's. Bear, Pearson, Hiil, Wambold, Dougherty , Lee....almost anyone who was big in bowhunting back then did it and wrote about it on a routine basis. I even saw a movie where Ben Pearson shot a javie at 100 yards! One thing about Wambold, however, is that he had a column in one of the magazines back then and he became very fond of the Black Copperhead Slicer  broadheads and pretty much stopped using all others in favor of them. I followed him closely as a kid and remember how much he liked those Slicers. I still have a few of them that I got just because  he was so positive about them.

Another thing to remember about those days was that most all tournaments were Field Archery and not 3D. We shot four arrows at 28 targets all the way from 10 feet to 80 yards. After shooting at 80 yards 40 was a piece of cake for most of us so seeing a deer in that range and taking a shot was not considered to be unethical or even unusual. A 25 yard shot that you missed was an embarrassment. Tree stands were rarely in use then unless you actually went out and built a wooden platform.

It is true however that some things have not changed. Sharp broadheads, picking a spot, tuning your equipment, hunting with the wind....the basics are still the same. The biggest change and it is a paradoxical one is that trad equipment is better than it ever was but accurate shooting distances have shrunk from 30-40 yards to 10-20 yards. Go figure!

As for the accuracy of those who took long shots....I hunted at Mike Palmer's a few years ago. We are both "old timers". We talked some about hunts and I told him I took a caribou at a paced 55 yards. He grinned and said he had done that, as well, except that his was a running shot! I have to say, but am not necessarily encouraging it, but some guys, like Paul Shaefer, Barry Wensel, John Schultz, Ferguson (and I wonder about Ron Leclair) and others, have taken game on a routine basis with shots that many of us would consider unethical in terms of distance. The long game is not a game for everyone, but there  are guys out there that can do it and do do it.

[Brent Rudolph]

Congrats Walter. You have drawn the line in the sand. This sport is about accountability to the game, each other, our laws, and the nonhunting public. It is our responsibility to self moderate as you have done. The "shoot/no shoot" switch in our brain has to be tempered with our conscience. The game deserves that level of respect. The nonhunting public expects that of us. Shooting a running animal at thirty yards between the tail and the porthole is not my idea of a great shot. (I know that isn't what was said, but if each is alright, why not add a few more challenges to the mix?) Where does one stop? Well, if one doesn't know then they are an extremely good archer, lucky, are just haven't taken a personal inventory.

A couple of things. I think we have evolved in many ways in this sport. We have learned more about anatomy, refined equipment, processed a more suitible education system, and developed a better understanding of our abilities and those of our bows. Honestly, during the golden age of field archery, there was a lack of understanding in the sport. Those took to the hunting fields and saw no reason why they shouldn't shoot at game 75 yards away. They were proficient at that range with field targets, but it didn't dawn on them that game moved, sometimes a lot, from release to impact.

This brings me to a point that I feel we are more educated hunters, not necessarily more ethical than our forefathers. I feel like you are on track to understanding and living within your abilities. Good job.

[lpcjon2]

You have a conscience don't you.Plain and simple reply, do what you can live with.

[Renaissance Man]

There in lies the answer to the question posed. Where do you hunt, how often do you practice. How far away do you practice regularly. Knowing when to take the shot is probably one of the toughest things to learn. Distance is relative to your abilities.
Western bowhunters have a different game many times than their eastern counterparts. Are you in a treestand, or on the ground?
While all things evolve, and bow hunting most certainly has, many things stay the same as said in previous posts. I believe a lot of things have been learned but I do not believe for a second that we are more savvy of what our equipment can do than our forefathers. Were there incompetents in the woods in the so called golden Age, sure. There are a h@ll of a lot more of them now.
These types of questions have brought many a campfire conversation into the wee hours.
What do you practice, how does the shot feel to you? Can you read the quarry and know when the time to loose is upon you. Shooting anything moving was always a foolish thing to me until one day at 15 yards I had a nice buck trailing a doe while I was on the ground undetected and swung with him, lead him just a little for his pace and loosed and made a nice shot.
It felt right, I knew I was on it. I did not think at all about the shot and don't hardly remember what the heck I did.
Don't be afraid of a shot, but don't shoot if you have not the confidence to make it.
It is different for every man, and every shot is its own story.

[Brent Rudolph]

I think hunting distance is more relative to the hunting situation than your abilities. If you shoot sixty yards regularly, and are able to shoot a four inch group at that range, it does not mean that the game is going to be in the same place when the arrow arrives home. Then one hopes for a miss over a poor wound. Even if you can read game better than Walt Disney, you can't account for everything a critter does in the woods. I have seen game jump, or run or duck for no obvious reason in the wild. If a deer can jump a string at 15 yards from a 300 fps compound, i am not sure they will be in the right place at forty yards shooting 200 fps.

[Burnsie]

I'm sure all the archery pioneers that have been mentioned could out shoot me blind folded, so I'm not trying to question their archery skills,  but don't assume that just because these guys regularly practiced at long range that they didn't take lousey shots.  
A year or two ago I wrote a letter to the editor at TBM. It was in response to an article they ran recounting a hunt of Fred Bear.  In the article Fred described all kinds of crazy shots- at night with flash lights, through thick brush, cold fingers...etc.  I commented on how poor the shots were and was surprised TBM thought it a good story to print. My letter was printed followed by a response from TJ Conrads pretty much giving me a tongue lashing for questioning their editorial practices and the actions of archery's pioneers.
These folks bagged a lot of animals in their day, they also wounded many.  I think I could have a lot more game to my credit if I went out with a quiver full of arrrows and shot at pretty much anything I could arc an arrow at. Some I would miss, some I would wound, and a certain percent would die.
I understand it was a different time and era, and hindsight is 20/20,  but I can't help but think these guys should have known better with some of their shots. How to shoot a deer from the rear (aim between the tail and anus)???? huh??

[Tyke]

The entire culture in America has changed from the 50's and 60's until now, so there should be no surprise that bowhunting would change also. One of the first archery books I ever read (the title and author of which is long forgotten) stated that the mentality of the sport had changed from one of "many arrows in the air", where an archer wouldn't dare leave on a week long hunt without 10  to 15 dozen arrows, to one of "one shot - one kill".  Just an example of how things change over time.
  Ethically, I believe one is bound by his ability.  For me, that precludes shots on game at distances much beyond 20 yards.  If however, I could shoot as accurately at say 80 yards as I can at 20, I would have no quelms about taking a shot that long.  It is only unethical to shoot at any range if it is beyond your ability to CONSISTENTLY make a clean, one shot kill.  We all have to decide for ourselves what that range is.

[trashwood]

You have got to show me that todays trad bowhunters have got more ethics or gained more knowledge.  What was the recovery rate then compared to now.  There are a couple of studies done on military base hunts that have a pretty depressing recovery rate (IMO)

Maybe we have just dumbed down the sport to the point that we can barely hit the kill zones at 20 yds.

rusty

[Renaissance Man]

I believe close was the goal, for all the greats and all the other greats that have never been written about. There are a lot of them.
They took dozens of arrows with them on hunts because they would hunt everything when they hunted, small game especially, crows. Ducks, geese. Whatever flew slithered crawled ran or swam.
They would go into the field set up a base camp and hunt for a week, two weeks, a month or more.
They hunted mostly from the ground or a natural blind and they did not just fling arrows in the air.
Some did of course, some still do whether they are hunting from fifteen yards from a tree stand or for that monster buck that walks across the field at fifty yards.
Most of these men were very conciencious about what they did and lived to hunt the field and glade. They knew their equipment intimately, often made all or most of it and could shoot like no buddies buisness.
Yes they often would shoot longer shots, but most only did so having the confidence they could.

[reddogge]

Please let's put the 40s, 50s, and 60s in perspective.  Field archery was the big game in town and 10-80 yard shots were common place in field archery.  I still remember shooting the 80 yard target barebow style and what a thrill it was to hit in the scoring area.  So it was natural for those archers to attempt longer shots than we do now.  And of course they practiced these shots week in and week out so were a lot more proficient at them than we would be.

[trashwood]

The North American Field Arhcery Championship were held Dec 12-13.

there were

6 longbows
1 Adult bowhunter recurves
4 veteran bowhunter recuves

out of the entire USA.  I think that about says it all.

On the other hand the IBO trad championship did not exaclty blow the doors off with attendence.

?????

rusty

[LKH]

Remember, as a rule, they hunted from the ground, not treestands.  It's easy to say you never shoot from past 20 when you only hunt from trees and are able to avoid detection.  

In the last few years I have started practicing longer range shooting.  It's not impossible.  I also use a rangefinder if possible.  

I have actually had success while having failures at some of the very close shots I seem to set up.  When you're on the ground it's amazing how fast they react when you're under 5 yards and try to shoot.

[Chuck Hoopes]

Champion field archer or not -- you are going to wound more than you kill at those ranges---and thats going to get to your consciencence sooner or later, if you have any respect for the animal.  I have taken several of these kind of shots as a young man--thankfully they all missed cleanly, BUT there was one I did wound,and watch hobble off--that was 40yrs ago, and I can still see it clearly and am sicken by it now,even more than I was than.     Its not the kind of Hunting memories we want to have--they will haunt us, even though we suppress the it.  The more we hunt, the older we get, the greater our reverance for life becomes -- Dannybows, description of it as an "evolution of ethics" about sums it up. -- an evolution taking place in the individual and community.

[Earl E. Nov...mber]

A couple of things we often seem to forget in these discussions.. One is that a deer is far more likely to react (Jump the string) at a close range shot than at greater distanced one. (Say the 40 yard range). Even a noisy bow is subdued at longer ranges.

Second is the fact that many of our bowhunting fore fathers were 10 times the woodsman most of us are today. Consequently they were confident in recovering their game even on marginal hits.

I think to assume we are some how more educated in hunting than they were is pure folly.. Most of us get our education in our living rooms reading magazines (there is a joke) or on the internet. They actually got theirs in the field, doing everything from trapping, fly fishing and bow hunting, and probably mentored under someone who actually did hunt for subsistence, a true predator

[trashwood]

Chuck - I don't know where you get the stats to back up..

"Champion field archer or not -- you are going to wound more than you kill at those ranges---and thats going to get to your consciencence sooner or later...."

this statement.

There is a very good trad bow hunter in northern Idaho that has a range well out side of 20 yds on mule deer and elk.  His recovery rate is remarkable.  I have a picture of a 100 yd group he shot that will about explain everything to you.

I don't think you guys have any numbers to back it up with facts.  I will sure agree that the general trad bowhunter can't hold the KZ at 40 yds but there are some that can.  do you have data backing up the fact that those bowhunters have a greater non-recovery rate???

rusty