I'm disappointed

[flatlander37]

I was and still am a touched(in the head) ole man...lol

Roy, don't be so hard on yourself.  Like many have said, it was a different time.  I remember reading an article not to long ago where archers way back then were taking absurdly long shots at deer and other big game animals.  Many of these shots I would never have taken with a compound with sights.  Like Chuck C stated, I believe that we have evolved more since then.  I firmly believe that HH and Fred Bear attempted some of the shots they did due to constant practice, and great natural ability.  I personally restrict myself to shots 25 yards or less for now, 'cause I aint as good as them!  Mark

[wisconsin wood butcher]

dont read the witchery of archery then some of that was hard to believe though differant time and place

[lpcjon2]

Mudd,Insanity is just seeing things in a different perspective.It's all good,Take your big five and go shoot an arrow 100yrds at a paper plate and see how much fun it is.      

[boznarras]

Interesting topic.
I posted a similar question after reading H.R. Wambold's "Bowhunting for Deer" recently, and got similar responses. I too was not so much thinking critically of the author and his times, was just looking to see what the current consensus was on these long shots, and shots from (to me)questionable angles. (I didn't even bring up his chapter on arrows with hypodermic syringe tips injecting paralyzing drugs...(succinylcholine)).
It is reassuring to me to hear that most do not take these shots now. I can see that there was a time when it was done, and appreciate what these people did to keep archery going, but am happy to see that it is a historical event, not current practice. I think you are OK to respectfully question it in order to clarify what is now held reasonable. You never know unless you ask. Just as it would be arrogant to judge those in the past by today's standards, it is also arrogant to decry honest open discussion of what is thought to be ethical now.
For me, it's good to think about this stuff before starting to draw the string back with a rising pulse rate...

[George D. Stout]

A frozen cow pie might be a better target right now. 8^).  Mudd,  read as many of those old books as you can find.  Those guys were into the sport and loved shooting, but they didn't understand about the shortcomings of the bow as far as distances, etc.  Heck most of them were hunting with the bow before any of the states had a separate archery season.  

I try to transform myself to that era as I read and it helps me better understand their whole mindset and what they were faced with.  Unlike today, they had the whole hunting world looking down their noses at guys hunting with bows and arrows, so they had to prove that the bow and arrow was a lethal weapon.  I'm sure there was even some desparation in their hunting procedures at times.  We don't have to worry about that, so we have lost a lot of perspective of how it really was.

The more we read...old books, not new ones, the more we can understand what they were going through and why they approached the sport as they did.  I only wish I could have spent some time with some more of those older fellows.

[Ric O'Shay]

Roy,
Times change, people change and things change. On the day you were born I was 7 years old and riding my Texas Ranger bicycle (from Western Auto thank you very much) up and down the streets of Wichita Falls. Never a thought was given to helmets, elbow and knee pads. If you fell, you got banged up. Now days, I've seen parents near hysteria if their child ever sits on a tricycle without wearing a specialized suit to protect them from being a child and experiencing childhood.
Would you compare the ethics, training and abilities of pilots and barnstormers of the 20's and 30's to today's astronauts and have a knee jerk reaction to it? Probably not. Why? Because they were defining man's ability to fly.
Would you hold your ancestors that hunted in order to live to the same hunting ethics as you hold today? Probably not. Chances are if they had limited their game taking to today's purported standards, you would not even be here to have a knee jerk reaction. So, don't be critical, don't be offended and certainly don't have a visceral reaction to someone's actions in defining archery or bow hunting nearly a century ago as it is recognized today.
Accept it for what it is and enjoy the read.

Danny

[George D. Stout]

Danny,  that was a great explanation and extremely well stated.
   

[David Mitchell]

What George and others said--I saw a video of Ben Pearson shooting (and killing) a javlina at 125 yards.  The old field archery courses did better prepare guys for somewhat longer shots.  You shot from about 11 yards to 80 yards, 28 targets with 4 arrows per target.  Modern trad guys would gripe their heads off at distances like that at shoots now but it sure teaches you what you can and can't do. Like others said, accept them for what they were and did for all of us who came after them.

[tradtusker]

i love the book!
if you get upset about that try watching some of the old Fred bear movies where they talk of taking shots 60-80 yards. They did not know the limitations back then, pioneers of the sport so to speak.

advances in bows efficiency, arrow materials have also come a long way.

plus we now have the luxury of learning from their mistakes.

[HOWITZER]

I read a book about the rich history of Adirondack Hunting Clubs and like Mudd felt disgusted.  

Listening to first hand accounts of guys taking upwards of 5 Bucks a year, and countless "camp meat" deer.  I thought they had no respect for the resource and thought they were in it for the simple killing factor.  I eventually came to realize (as George so nicely stated) that you have to separate history from today.  I also eventually finished reading that book and found it quite entertaining and enlightening.

I have never read Howard Hill because I have only recently became a trad shooter and up until last year or so I had no Idea who Howard Hill was.  I have to say I will defiently read his work now.

[Irish Archer]

Just remember this, if they didn't do what they did, you wouldn't be doing what you are.

Howard, and men like him, are the reason we have bow seasons to hunt. Personally, I don't shoot over 20 yards with a stick at living things.

But that's just me. I think that Howard was a little better shooter than I am.....  

[Buckeye Trad Hunter]

Don't forget that you are reading this out of a book.  Without being there you wouldn't really know what the actually distances and circumstances aurrounding the shots were.  I'm not saying anything negative about HH but doesn't a 95 yard running shot on a deer sound a little more exciting than a 50 yard shot on a feeding deer standing broadside in the middle of a field?       It is possible that some of the shots, however possible, may have been exagerated for print. Maybe not by HH himself but possibly by editors or whoever.

[Mr.Magoo]

Frankly, I don't think they were any less ethical in Howard's time.  Instead of being able to see the tether, now it's a high fence and a bait pile just off camera.  I've seen Tred Barta take some serious hail Mary shots on his show and I know I've tried to pull off a few shots myself that I shouldn't have.

Howard and Fred were great hunters and I'd guess better shots than anyone on this board.  Put on your "superior ethics" hat if you want to, but I doubt we're much different (and I'd bet Howard's hail Mary was still a damn good shot).

[SveinD]

Freedom of speach, Mudd  
I know from stories over here as well that
respect for other living things, whether hunting
it or not, was very limited.
But I bet Mr Hill said the same thing about
folks in older times.
I suggest you don't read up on what they did in
the reneissance..

Anyways, it's good that the times have changed!
As they probably always will  

-SveinD-

[ChuckC]

How about some Devil's Advocate talk here.

You know. .  with a few notable exceptions, I bet many of todays archers are as good or better than what we had back then.  Times are different, things are different.  What we expect is different.

Talk of shooting 80 yards. . .   I did that in the 70's.  Its a long shot.  As long as you know to hold your arrow at the top of the bale and you get a good release, you were on paper (my set up, my bow).  I could do it all day, and so could you once you had a plan.  

Now, try that with no line to shoot from. . .   is it really 80 yards or 83 yards.  With that trajectory it matters a lot.

What they shot at field targets, at marked distances with aiming spots placed at paced off points etc does not equate to ability at game at unmarked distances.

Sure, a few did it and did it well.  Most didn't, but they tried anyway.  Good  / bad ?  not for me to say.  That was then, this is now.

You hear of the long shots.  How about the 100 plus yards at an elk by HH.  He tells how he walked the arrow in. .   that means he shot an arrow, saw it was low,   held higher and shot another etc etc till he finally hit the elk.  At over 100 yards away the elk had no clue he was being shot at.

Me and my guys stump shoot at insane targets, tiny, far, between trees, laying down, bouncing it in,  all that.. .  and we often hit the target.  We would never (I hope) do that at a real critter... or would we ?

Critters are deer right ?  is a chipmunk a critter ?  a squirrel ?  a prairie dog ?  I know I have shot way too far at a squirrel and a prairie dog.  Heck it's only a squirrel.  How about a carp. .  are they critters ?

Are the times really that different or have we just fine tuned what we do.

A lot to think about.  Its winter. .  we have the time.
ChuckC

[Hud]

If you were to read, Witchery of Archery by Maurice Thompson, then read Dr. Saxton Pope, you can definitely see a change from the 1800's to the 1900's. It was definitely a different time.

When Howard was in his prime, he could make shots others couldn't and he did it in front of a group or in front of a camera.

Even Howard recognized, that shooting at any such distances was a thing of the past, and he said so, in his book. I believe he said, now I rarely shoot beyond 60 yds, unless it is a predator.

I am not shocked by reading the books about earlier days, what makes me mad is seeing news stories about an arrow in a dog, duck, child or stories about poached animals.

[Gary Logsdon]

Notice how civil everyone in this discussion has been?  That's why I spend time reading TG threads.  Try this sort of thing on "the other site".

[cacciatore]

That was well before Bamby.The primitive hunters were used to hit their target in any place then follow the tracks for days.As before sayed we evolved,or not?

[NDTerminator]

Both Hill and Papa Bear took shots I wouldn't attempt with a compound tuned for 3D, let alone my recurves...

Don't worry about bringing it up, it is what it is...

[ChuckC]

Gary      There is another site ?    
ChuckC