HuntingNet.com Forums - Bowhunting yesterday vs. bowhunting today

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Bowhunting (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bowhunting-18/)

- - Bowhunting yesterday vs. bowhunting today (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bowhunting/14368-bowhunting-yesterday-vs-bowhunting-today.html)

Bowhunting yesterday vs. bowhunting today

Several years ago, I concluded that many aspects of maintaining my bowhunting gear had, at least for me, become too maintenance intense, too complex, too time consuming, and more expensive, than it need be.

To identify all that had changed for the good and for the worse, and what I personally believed was not necessary and was not practical, I looked back to my early years of bowhunting. In the early years, deciding what bow to shoot and knowing what was a practical and necessary accessory was not bewildering as it is today. Installing and adjusting shooting accessories was not complex and perplexing. Equipment malfunction and breakage was not a frequent problem. Basic but efficient archery equipment, target or hunting, was not unreasonably expensive as it is today, regardless that the average annual wages were much lower in the early years.

The universally standard hunting equipment was a 40-50 lb recurve, a simple fiber or spring arrow rest, a set of cedar or glass shafts armed with a fairly common broadhead, a quiver, a tab or shooting glove, a set of military “Woodland” pattern camo clothing, a cork to burn, a knife, a length of rope, and a roll of toilet tissue. Early progressive additions to bowhunting equipment, were a bow-sight, a stabilizer, string silencers and kisser button. Eventually, we stepped from the brush, crawled off the tree limbs, and begun to hunt from homemade treestands, hung at a great and average height of 10 feet.

Most shooters shot year-around at local clubs, fun shoots, bow fishing, field competitions, etc. Therefore, come opening day of the deer season, most already knew far in advance how their gear was performing and how they were shooting. Once your shooting gear was compatible, adjusted, and secured, you rarely had to consider that it was a piece of equipment or a maladjustment that was causing bad arrow flight and bad groups. You knew the problem was, in all likelihood, caused by you. Therefore, finding the source of the problem was somewhat easier and more absolute because you did not have to consider and check and recheck the enormous amount of mechanical components that you must also check today.

Because available bowhunting gear was minimal and fairly standard, when bowhunters came together very little discussion occurred regarding one’s choice of equipment over another’s. Most often, the conversations were about how well or bad you were shooting, hints, tricks, and tutoring to spot a form problem, to shoot better or consistently well, and an enormous exchange of deer hunting information, along with the typical tales that are commonly spun by most hunters.

The average bowhunter was not a buck hunter, we simply hunted deer. Harvesting a doe was not a subordinated accomplishment as it seemingly is today. Harvesting a buck was just a plus and nothing more. Of course, the person who was lucky enough to kill a buck was jubilant, as were his or her fellow hunters for the person who shot a buck. However, the person killing a buck would not have flaunted him/herself as a superior bowhunter, even if he/she conceitedly, but secretly, considered his/herself to be superior. That would not have been a personal belief to divulge and/or to act upon back then.

In proportion with the (then) deer populations, and the rudimentary but growing knowledge that bowhunters of deer possessed, the success rate was good. I may be bias, and maybe I am not recalling it factually, but I do not remember there being a disproportionate number of deer that were not recovered after being shot as there seems to be today. If I am remembering it correctly, it is my opinion that several reasons for the higher recovery rate were:

1)The average bowhunter usually shot year around and were good shooters. Most did not practice and shoot-in just a few weeks before opening day.

2) Most bowhunters hunted from ground level, or near ground level, which exposed more of target and more of the deer’s vital area to a hit than what is exposed to a bowhunter whom is shooting from a height of 18 to 20 feet.

3) The average hunter knew the limitations of the (then) archery equipment, and hunted and made shots in accordance with the limitations.

4) IMO, the average hunter of then, knowing the limitations of their equipment and equipment capabilities, learned and knew the habits and the anatomy of deer much better than today’s average hunter.

Because most (early day) bowhunters hunted from ground level, they commonly would try to select a position, in accordance with the wind direction, that would enable a shot to the left side of the deer’s chest cavity. Anyone know why?

Frontal shots were made, and were lethal, but only when a deer was at a certain angle to enable a shot at a certain area on the deer, and only when a particular leg of the deer was in a certain position. Anyone know what the angle was, what leg was in what position, and what area on the deer you would shoot at and why?

If you can only hit one lung, which lung would you prefer if you could have your choice, and why?

Am I saying that all things were better in the early days than today? Absolutely not. Am I saying that all the bowhunting equipment available today is worthless, impractical, and not necessary? Of course not. However, I am saying that much of today’s bowhunting equipment is worthless, impractical, not necessary; and too expensive for what you get in return.

Too many bowhunters of today are brainwashed by marketing hype and believe they must have the latest fad stuff to be, or be accepted as, a “real” bowhunter. Many are more into talking about their latest “trick” stuff they just purchased than what bowhunting is actually about; hunting deer...doe or buck. How many shooters that were previously here talking only about their “rad” and “zoomy” gear, are now here now that the season is in? This tells me that some bow shooters only play with the toys; but do not hunt, seldom hunt, or never intended to bowhunt. They are victims of hype and vogue.

I recently read some articles that said that bow and bow accessory technology has just about peaked. That some of the technology and progress, and maybe much of the technology and progress, may have been for the worse rather than for the good, and a rollback to certain designs and an elimination of certain gear is expected. I buy that. However, not just for the reasons that will be openly hyped by many of the manufacturers. The primary and underlying reasons that rollbacks and discontinuing of certain gear may occur will probably not be divulged.

Here is what I believe are the some real and primary reasons.

There are not enough target shooters and bowhunters to support the vast industry that exists today. Correspondingly, there are not enough target shooters and bowhunters to justify the manufacturing of all the accessories that the multitude of companies make. Choices are too numerous for one company -or a few companies, to reap most of the limited sales and profits. Many veteran bow shooters/hunters are hanging up their gear for a multitude of reasons. Because much of the gear has become too complex, too technical, too unreliable, and too expensive; new blood is being scared off and is causing new shooters to become frustrated and, therefore getting out of the sport early.

Add the fact that access to property to hunt has declined. Add the fact that “in vogue” impacts sales. Add the fact that much of the bow industry has tried to consolidate 3D gear with bowhunting gear. THAT was a big mistake and caused much of the gear to be impractical or difficult for bowhunting. Add the fact that the common rule that many manufacturers adhere to, “Use less material, use cheaper material, kick it out faster, and charge more,” has bit them in the butt.

Do you really believe that the shortening and lightening of bows e.g., full split limbs, shorter risers, synthetics vs. metal, etc. was primarily for the purpose of a lighter and more efficient bow? Or that accessories made mostly of synthetic and compound materials was only to reduce the weight? Do you really believe that a manufacturer that promotes impractical gear does not know the gear is not practical and will not always perform as is claimed? Many manufactures are following the “rule” I stated above, and charging 2 to 3 times more for the product.

Here is my suggestion. Identify and ignore the hype, dump the “trick gear” addiction, go with the proven basics and the practical, and spend most of your time, and your money, enjoying the hunt.

Edited by - c903 on 11/01/2002 08:51:16