I posted a rather lengthy answer to this same question a while ago. I thought I might recycle it since I still feel the same way about the subject.
I really don't think it is all that important that we agree on what "Traditional Archery" really is. I think we all already agree that it is important to us what ever it is.
Read it, don't read it. Agree, don't agree, makes me no never mind. I'm not gonna think less of someone because they don't agree with me on something as esoteric as a definition of "Traditional Archery".
MARCH 12, 2009-
Well... I suppose to define traditional it would be necessary to define a baseline of what we are trying to go back to, a standard for traditional. “Traditional” does mean, “long-established, or time-honored”. What should be the representation of that standard? Should our standard be the American Indian? I don’t think so, they (I include myself in that they) bailed on the bow and arrow as soon as firearms were available to them (us). Why? They worked better! There was no phony spiritual whohaw about the magic flight of the arrow. A rifle brought down game and enemies at a farther distance and with greater authority. This was important because survival was the name of the game, not lookin' good at the 3-D shoots.
How about the image of Ye Olden Archer? Again, this doesn’t really work for me either. First there were crossbows and then matchlocks, and then wheel locks, and then flintlocks etc. etc. etc... These took the place of archery equipment in war fighting. Why? Again, they worked better at the job they were required to do. There were some who held to the use of archery equipment because it was a quiet way to kill the King's Deer without being caught.
I hate to say this (I really do but I gotta) TRADITIONAL IS AS TRADITIONAL DOES! The GPS is no more or less traditional than miracle fabric long-johns (I’m not going to do without those) or an illuminated dial watch. I believe “Traditional Hunting” is not what you hunt with; it's all about HOW you hunt with it. I have good friends who shoot compounds that are very traditional minded. My opinion is that traditional hunting equipment is a product of a traditional hunting mind set.
So, is a GPS traditional as far as archery goes? Sure. If that is what you need to be safe where you hunt and it allows you to go farther, trek deeper and hunt longer or harder... Get yourself one and use it. If my ancestors had access to a GPS in the 16th and 17th centuries while they roamed around in the swamps of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama and Tennessee, I guarantee they would have used it. If sitting in a tree makes you more successful or is a better way for you to hunt, use it. Would Ye Olden Archer have sat in a tree stand? You bet. The Sheriff of Nottingham would never have seen what was coming.
Once more, this is my opinion. The reason traditional hunting is so difficult to define is that each of us has our own point of view defined by our own experience. How can someone who has never hunted in their life, coming from a family who never hunted have a hunting tradition at all? They would have to borrow one.
My personal tradition is to shoot recurves. It is what I grew up with, all I really knew until I got out in the world on my own. It fits the way I like to do things. It compliments my traditional nature. Picking up a long bow or a recurve (with or without sights) doesn’t make you a traditional hunter. Hunting traditionally (regardless of equipment) does.
OkKeith
Topic: Drawing a line in the Sand?? (Read 1310 times)
