Charlie P - I see your new threads - will join you there to discuss those issues ..

good thoughts brought up on this one - I agree

So - does this mean that the guy with the sights and a rangefinder has a better kill ratio than the guy who shoots instinctive (like a slingshot)- No sights?

Great discussion - love the posts but realize that most of the responses come from whitetail hunters hunting from tree stands.
So, I ask, Is tree stand hunting - too much technology? Is using "trad" technology from a tree stand still "trad"? Not sure modern vs trad buys you that much out of the tree. Same pigeon shoot? Just playing devils advocate here.

I started with a longbow, then a recurve and finally a compound. Still like both the older "technologies". The first two bucks I killed with the compound were instinctive (no sigts). I have never killed a whitetail or a muley from a tree stand. Would love to have the time, property to do some buy never had.

At the same time - I'm not suggesting those who have hours to wait in ambush get out of the stand. I don't lessen the value or enjoyment of the hunt based upon the equipment now that I use sights on my compound. Should I? Think I was better off without them sometimes. Rangefinding before was instinctive - sight picture related and in many ways seams much easier. Release was as much about follow through than anything else. Not so with the mechanical releases but can't say I have an advantage using them in the field. I still use all three bows to hunt with and don't think it makes all that much of a difference. Killed just as many with the longbow as the compound. Those that want a challenge ought to try still hunting, or tracking or spot-n-stalk in the west. Or just try doing what your doing now without the tree stand. I'm in with those that suggest that anything we do (constructively) to get more people involved in archery is for the good - and if that's technology.. don't think it's bad. Like to know out of the trad hunters how many use tree stands.

Previously I gave my opinion addressing the high tech equipment vs the challenge of hunting. Here are some thoughts on another issue that has surfaced in our discussion.

I don't think a person's choice of weapon, whether it be so called "high tech" or traditional is the deciding factor when a person chooses to be unethical or not. If someone decides to take a low percentage shot I'm not convinced the weapon makes much of a difference.

We need to continue to educate new and young bow hunters on the limits of their equipment. Will that solve all the problems? Certainly not, but it will go a long way in the right direction.

When I was a young person there were no bow hunters in my family. Having watched all those John Wayne movies where the soldiers fell over dead when struck by the Indian's arrows I thought the same thing would happen to a deer when I put an arrow in it with my 45# recurve. Imagine my shock when I shot a deer with my bow and watched it run away with my arrow,(no, a lot of my arrow) sticking out of it's side (I hit it in the shoulder and got almost no penetration). I knew nothing about shot placement, I just thought my job was to get an arrow in the animal and that was all there was to it. Stupid and irresponsible I know, but I didn't realize it at the time. Goodness it wasn't that long ago some of our mentors (like Fred Bear for example)were taking shots at game that would cause them to be "burned at the stake" today.

So you see we have come a long way since those early years. Even though the equipment may be considered modern or high tech if you please, it is still a close range weapon and I don't see that changing any time soon. In my opinion it isn't to sophisticated, we just need to be better educated.

<font color=green>WHAT IS THE ETHICAL ANGLE TO SHOOT A DEER AND HAVE IT DIE QUICKLY?</font id=green> I think this is a good question. I also think a deer doesn't have to be quartering away or broadside for a good shot. But I guess thats not ethical, I have one bear to my name and alot of small game, a few geese taken with a bow. I have had many a chance for a deer but couldn't get close enough, the only shot I have ever taken at a deer out of all of my chances through since I was 14 was at a Spiker in late winter season, and I missed. At the time I was my towns top 3-D junior and could even out shoot alot of the adults. When you study an animals anatomy you can figure that there are alot of shot angles that are produced that you can use. It's only really a matter of the shot distance, and your accuracy at that shooting distance. If you can group in a quarter at 20metres and you know an animals anatomy well you could pretty much pick a major artery and drop the animal quickly. In my time in Fort McMurray, I have seen and heard of people with rifles, hunt in groups, they see a deer on the side of a logging road, they all hop out and start shooting this poor doe, by the time they are done, it is riddled with holes, the deer never went anywhere. Do I consider this humane and good hunters ethics? Heck NO. This is the reason that it was hard for me to get close to deer for so many years hunting around Fort McMurray. After moving to calgary to go to school, this was my first season back in about 1-2 years, I only went hunting about 4 times, Chance were presented, but I never took any shots. I havent had a deer with a bow in all of the seven years of hunting with a bow and with the 12 years of shooting experience. Do I find this sport challenging, heck yeah, do I still love it even without shooting a deer as of yet, heck yeah, do I still beleive in hunting and think that people should hunt even after hearing about all the woundings, yes. The day we start hunting at night, that will be the end of hunting. But I don't think that
technology is that bad for hunting, I do on the other hand feel that lazy people are. The challenge of hunting, is shooting an animal for its meat, sometimes rack, tracking the animal after it has been shot and finding it no matter how far you have to walk. The challenge is also getting out in the woods and trying to enjoy yourself with out thinking about anything but the great outdoors. Technology can infringe on us, if we allow it. But you don't have to have all of the fancy equipment to get a deer and enjoy yourself.
Enough is Enough when you say it is enough.
Good shooting
and hunting.
Dylan

>>>>--------o-->

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> If you can group in a quarter at 20 metres and you know an animals anatomy well you could pretty much pick a major artery and drop the animal quickly.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

...Ahh grasshoppar, on the surface it would appear to be so. But search deeper my son!

Quarter size paper targets are inanimate objects and do not move at the sound of your shot. Deer do move, either by choice or reaction, therefore it is foolish to attempt to hit a particular artery that one can't see in the first place and risk wounding the animal.

I might add too that the angle in which the arrow strikes the deer is paramount to the animals recovery in most cases.

Edited by - Antler Eater on 01/23/2002 01:39:54

This topic seems to have evoled into, &quot;What grouop takes the most ethical shots?&quot; There appears to be an opinion that the more difficult the method, the more ethical the hunter. If I hunt with a longbow, then I will not be tempted to shoot out of my effective range. If I hunt with a rifle, then 700 yard shots are taken all the time, because I might get lucky.

I've hunted with a recurve for 15 years, a compound for 20 years and a shotgun intermittently for 35 years. In that time, I knew lots of hunters that participated in each. I found that in every group, there were hunters that would shoot at animals out of their effective range. The temptation was just too much for them when game was just out of optimal range. I've never noticed that their weapon of choice had anything to do with it. In these groups there were also those who would never take a questionable shot, regardless of the weapon used.

My opinion is that it's the person, not the weapon that determines whether a hunter will only take high percentage shots. I will grant you that the traditional archers may have a greater percentage of ethical hunters, but if you take away hunter's other options, I guarantee you that the unethical hunters will use traditional equipment and continue to be just as unethical. Forcing them or even encouraging them to be part of the traditional archers doesn't make much sense to me. It may mean even more wounded animals, because they won't have the skills to hit a deer in the kill zone at 5 yards. Personally, I prefer to let each group hunt with as much technology as they want, but to separate hunting seasons by ease-of-use. Crossbows are probably similar to muzzel loaders in that regard. Put their seasons together. Add bows with a draw-loc device to this group. Shotguns and pistols together. Rifles by themselves. Maybe, we should have a separate season for longbows and recurves. The problem is, that the season is only so long and every group is fighting for their share of the time involved. The fact that compounds have an effective range that is 15 or 20 yards farther than traditional equipment, isn't enough to justify a different season in my opinion. Even another 10 yards gained through technology wouldn't be significant.

The answer is definitely not to limit what equipment an archer has available. I believe that if something makes the kill significantly easier, then group it in a season with similarly effective weapons.

I know of a person that has hunted and killed many a POPE&YOUNG animals, in his travels, may it be for deer, bear, antelope, he has experimented with shots on different parts on bear, and I beleive a few doe, he has never lost an animal, he has shot them in the hind quarters, front on. I couldn't tell you what else cause I never asked very much. He shot at my old 3-D club, and this isn't some bullcrap story either. He shot an old browning, with pins with circles on them, nothing like the contraptions we have come into these days. His name was Reg I will not use his last name, but I went to school with his daughter Jenny. The only reason he shot 3-d was to practice for hunting. One day I when I was about 16-17, I asked, Reg do you always need to shoot an animal in the heart and lungs to put them down fast? Reg said nahh, you should always study animal anatomy.
There are very large arteries that run through the body, and you have to know where they are.
He said to me, Dylan I once shot a bear in the back legs, when it had it's head in my bait barrel, it was a complete pass through, the bear went about 40 yards, in that 40 yards pretty much blead out completely. During our evolution, and our brains becoming more civilized, we have forgotten that we never always made the cleanest shots, to down an animal, when it ment survival. Now hunting has become a luxury to most. Talking about things becoming to technical, our civilized manor is what brought on technology, it also brought about anti-hunters, and what could be called hunters ethics and always heart and lung shots. I am not a very experienced hunter compared to pretty much everyone on here. I have 7 years under my belt, with lots of miles stalking, deer, elk, rabbit, grouse.
I have one bear to my name, If I tell you where I shot it you will think im nuts, I shot in front of the shoulder and leg, because as I drew the bear was 8 yards away and looked directly at me, I knew where I was shooting, I figured at the angle I would get the front of the lungs, to my suprise the bear was facing me more then I thought and I got all vital organs, would I take the shot again, maybe, maybe not. Understanding, and animals anatomy is one technological benifit we have, with all of the bioligists creating drawings for us to study, I think its the greatest benifit any hunter could have, wether it be gun, bow or what so ever. I hope I have't offended anyone.
Good shooting.
Dylan


>>>>--------o-->