Why good form
10-26-2007, 07:58 AM
#81
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,413
RE: Why good form
I'm no expert on Indian history, but I have read a bit about their past hunting tactics. From what I understand, their average shot was at very close range, 2-4 yards. Their bows were not used like a modern day bow. It was a very, very close range weapon. I would guess that their lightest arrows were much heavier than what we use today and with much higher tip weights. Whatever it was, it's useless if it wasn't shared and passed on.
As to their ethics, I've read that they did not waste what they killed. The demise of buffalo and deer herds came from a more recent time period and from gun hunters. I'm guessing that to an Indian of the past, that killing was killing and it didn't matter how it was accomplished. Their survival depended on it. I see nothing unethical about that. Modern day ethics have largely evolved from a desire of hunters to appease the anti-hunting crowd. Of course, if a young hunter is brought up with these ethics, he buys into them completely. Every generation gives away a bit of what was acceptable to the prior generation. This will progress until the only acceptable form of hunting will be with a camera. I guess I'm old enough and politically incorrect enough to think more like an Indian from past eras.
I wonder how good their form was, leaning over a horse's back with a 1 ton buffalo 5 feet away. I also wonder how good it had to be from 5 feet.
As to their ethics, I've read that they did not waste what they killed. The demise of buffalo and deer herds came from a more recent time period and from gun hunters. I'm guessing that to an Indian of the past, that killing was killing and it didn't matter how it was accomplished. Their survival depended on it. I see nothing unethical about that. Modern day ethics have largely evolved from a desire of hunters to appease the anti-hunting crowd. Of course, if a young hunter is brought up with these ethics, he buys into them completely. Every generation gives away a bit of what was acceptable to the prior generation. This will progress until the only acceptable form of hunting will be with a camera. I guess I'm old enough and politically incorrect enough to think more like an Indian from past eras.
I wonder how good their form was, leaning over a horse's back with a 1 ton buffalo 5 feet away. I also wonder how good it had to be from 5 feet.
10-26-2007, 08:11 AM
#82
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jackson, Missouri
Posts: 7,051
RE: Why good form
Modern day ethics have largely evolved from a desire of hunters to appease the anti-hunting crowd. Of course, if a young hunter is brought up with these ethics, he buys into them completely. Every generation gives away a bit of what was acceptable to the prior generation. This will progress until the only acceptable form of hunting will be with a camera.
10-26-2007, 08:47 AM
#83
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Why good form
What most people don't know about the Indians could fill entire libraries.
Indians were subsistance hunters. When you're hunting for survival, there is no such thing as ethics. However, they did use every bit of every animal they killed and rarely took more than they needed.
When most people think of Indians they think only of the Plains Indians, galloping up right alongside a running buffalo on their painted ponies and shooting arrows from point blank distance. The Eastern Woodlands Indians used bows more like the English longbow, hunted on foot and did shoot game at distance. But they were introduced to firearms much earlier than the western tribes and their use of bows and arrows was virtually extinguished by the 1800's.
Do a search on Cherokee cornstalk shooting and you can find 'some' info on the type of bows the Eastern Indians used. The sport has survived to the present day. More can be found in the book Cherokee Bows and Arrows by Al Herrin, who was designated as a living national treasure by the Cherokee Nation. http://www.alherrin.com/
The demise of buffalo was a concerted eradication effort by the federal government intended to subdue the Plains Indians by removing their source of food, shelter and clothing; to destroy their nomadic culture and force them onto reservations. Commercial buffalo hunters could draw as much free ammunition as they wanted from any frontier fort. One of the earliest versions of federal subsidies, and one of the few that was wildly successful.
By the time the deer population was in serious trouble, all Indians were confined to reservations. The first big blow to deer populations was, again, commercial hunting. The second was the Great Depression, when a great many people hunted rather than starve. Those who try to portray the Indians as rabid exterminators of wildlife are ignorant of history.
They weren't very ethical. No offense intended.
I'm no expert on Indian history, but I have read a bit about their past hunting tactics. From what I understand, their average shot was at very close range, 2-4 yards. Their bows were not used like a modern day bow.
Do a search on Cherokee cornstalk shooting and you can find 'some' info on the type of bows the Eastern Indians used. The sport has survived to the present day. More can be found in the book Cherokee Bows and Arrows by Al Herrin, who was designated as a living national treasure by the Cherokee Nation. http://www.alherrin.com/
The demise of buffalo and deer herds came from a more recent time period and from gun hunters.
By the time the deer population was in serious trouble, all Indians were confined to reservations. The first big blow to deer populations was, again, commercial hunting. The second was the Great Depression, when a great many people hunted rather than starve. Those who try to portray the Indians as rabid exterminators of wildlife are ignorant of history.
10-26-2007, 09:07 AM
#84
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Balt, MD (orig: J-town,PA) The bowels of Hell!!!
Posts: 2,188
RE: Why good form
ORIGINAL: gibblet
dave, get back on your meds - and keep up the hula dance shooting form you've developed
dave, get back on your meds - and keep up the hula dance shooting form you've developed
You've never seen me shoot. You may be refering to the picutre where I'm messing around and took it to be a real draw. if so that's funny. If that's not it, I'm not sure what you're talking about John. But, I'm sure you are used to that.
10-26-2007, 09:49 AM
#85
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,413
RE: Why good form
Arthur, thanks for the info.
It stimulated me to search a bit, and I found these sites. One gives a lot of statistics on bows and show a tremendous variation in them. The other stated that broadhead size pretty much went along with the size of the quarry. Large quarry - large broadhead. Only problem is, there are no specifics. One also said the the shooting range was very close, but didn't give specifics. Unfortunately, one article did say that there are lots of rumors about how capable indian-made bows were - most widely exaggerated.
http://www.geocities.com/archeryrob/indian_weapons.htm
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/bowsandarrows.htm
I find this stuff very interesting. I'll have to do some more research. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of any detailed knowledge has been lost forever. Ashby's studies are certainly new to this era. Indians of the past may have known this stuff - you know, how single edge broadheads penetrate better, even in bone and the irrelevancy of KE vs penetration. - and then again, maybe they didn't.
It stimulated me to search a bit, and I found these sites. One gives a lot of statistics on bows and show a tremendous variation in them. The other stated that broadhead size pretty much went along with the size of the quarry. Large quarry - large broadhead. Only problem is, there are no specifics. One also said the the shooting range was very close, but didn't give specifics. Unfortunately, one article did say that there are lots of rumors about how capable indian-made bows were - most widely exaggerated.
http://www.geocities.com/archeryrob/indian_weapons.htm
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/bowsandarrows.htm
I find this stuff very interesting. I'll have to do some more research. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of any detailed knowledge has been lost forever. Ashby's studies are certainly new to this era. Indians of the past may have known this stuff - you know, how single edge broadheads penetrate better, even in bone and the irrelevancy of KE vs penetration. - and then again, maybe they didn't.
10-26-2007, 01:35 PM
#86
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
RE: Why good form
ORIGINAL: Greg / MO
Well said, SA.
Modern day ethics have largely evolved from a desire of hunters to appease the anti-hunting crowd. Of course, if a young hunter is brought up with these ethics, he buys into them completely. Every generation gives away a bit of what was acceptable to the prior generation. This will progress until the only acceptable form of hunting will be with a camera.
I also agree 100%
10-26-2007, 07:41 PM
#87
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,876
RE: Why good form
ORIGINAL: Arthur P
What most people don't know about the Indians could fill entire libraries.
Indians were subsistance hunters. When you're hunting for survival, there is no such thing as ethics. However, they did use every bit of every animal they killed and rarely took more than they needed.
When most people think of Indians they think only of the Plains Indians, galloping up right alongside a running buffalo on their painted ponies and shooting arrows from point blank distance. The Eastern Woodlands Indians used bows more like the English longbow, hunted on foot and did shoot game at distance. But they were introduced to firearms much earlier than the western tribes and their use of bows and arrows was virtually extinguished by the 1800's.
Do a search on Cherokee cornstalk shooting and you can find 'some' info on the type of bows the Eastern Indians used. The sport has survived to the present day. More can be found in the book Cherokee Bows and Arrows by Al Herrin, who was designated as a living national treasure by the Cherokee Nation. http://www.alherrin.com/
The demise of buffalo was a concerted eradication effort by the federal government intended to subdue the Plains Indians by removing their source of food, shelter and clothing; to destroy their nomadic culture and force them onto reservations. Commercial buffalo hunters could draw as much free ammunition as they wanted from any frontier fort. One of the earliest versions of federal subsidies, and one of the few that was wildly successful.
By the time the deer population was in serious trouble, all Indians were confined to reservations. The first big blow to deer populations was, again, commercial hunting. The second was the Great Depression, when a great many people hunted rather than starve. Those who try to portray the Indians as rabid exterminators of wildlife are ignorant of history.
What most people don't know about the Indians could fill entire libraries.
They weren't very ethical. No offense intended.
I'm no expert on Indian history, but I have read a bit about their past hunting tactics. From what I understand, their average shot was at very close range, 2-4 yards. Their bows were not used like a modern day bow.
Do a search on Cherokee cornstalk shooting and you can find 'some' info on the type of bows the Eastern Indians used. The sport has survived to the present day. More can be found in the book Cherokee Bows and Arrows by Al Herrin, who was designated as a living national treasure by the Cherokee Nation. http://www.alherrin.com/
The demise of buffalo and deer herds came from a more recent time period and from gun hunters.
By the time the deer population was in serious trouble, all Indians were confined to reservations. The first big blow to deer populations was, again, commercial hunting. The second was the Great Depression, when a great many people hunted rather than starve. Those who try to portray the Indians as rabid exterminators of wildlife are ignorant of history.
There was a contest here in Ohiobetween 2 native americans. Tecumsee (been a while since I read it)was the winner. He brought in over 30 hides in one night.
They also would wear different skins to trick deer and buffalo. Some would wear deer and stealth there way up close and shoot them. Might get you killed these days. They also would wear wolf hides and scare/push whole herds off cliffs.
As far as them waisting anything. They are people just like anyone else. I'm sure they wasted food. They were no different than us. We have good and bad and they did too. According to most it wasn't till the white man came that they even had to worry about it anyways, right?
10-26-2007, 07:57 PM
#88
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,876
RE: Why good form
ORIGINAL: Straightarrow
Arthur, thanks for the info.
It stimulated me to search a bit, and I found these sites. One gives a lot of statistics on bows and show a tremendous variation in them. The other stated that broadhead size pretty much went along with the size of the quarry. Large quarry - large broadhead. Only problem is, there are no specifics. One also said the the shooting range was very close, but didn't give specifics. Unfortunately, one article did say that there are lots of rumors about how capable indian-made bows were - most widely exaggerated.
http://www.geocities.com/archeryrob/indian_weapons.htm
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/bowsandarrows.htm
I find this stuff very interesting. I'll have to do some more research. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of any detailed knowledge has been lost forever. Ashby's studies are certainly new to this era. Indians of the past may have known this stuff - you know, how single edge broadheads penetrate better, even in bone and the irrelevancy of KE vs penetration. - and then again, maybe they didn't.
Arthur, thanks for the info.
It stimulated me to search a bit, and I found these sites. One gives a lot of statistics on bows and show a tremendous variation in them. The other stated that broadhead size pretty much went along with the size of the quarry. Large quarry - large broadhead. Only problem is, there are no specifics. One also said the the shooting range was very close, but didn't give specifics. Unfortunately, one article did say that there are lots of rumors about how capable indian-made bows were - most widely exaggerated.
http://www.geocities.com/archeryrob/indian_weapons.htm
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/bowsandarrows.htm
I find this stuff very interesting. I'll have to do some more research. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of any detailed knowledge has been lost forever. Ashby's studies are certainly new to this era. Indians of the past may have known this stuff - you know, how single edge broadheads penetrate better, even in bone and the irrelevancy of KE vs penetration. - and then again, maybe they didn't.
My brother and I stay at a place on a certain road with a name we had some fun with. Turns out there's quit a story behind it and it has to do with the culture of a tribe of native americans here in Ohio and a certain white woman that was captured. Said to be the first white person in those parts. She killed her husband years later (native american) by clubing him to death afterhe brought home another hottie
The locals are clueless. Pitty.One of my local history books details the killing of the last wolf in Ohio. Great story! That's the kind of stuff you get.
10-26-2007, 10:41 PM
#89
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Why good form
Gotta watch out for those highly flavored local histories. Lots of times there is more flavor than fact. Don't you reckon it was more due to the sudden influx of white settlers that put a strain on the deer populations so suddenly after the Indians had already been there for thousands of years? Early historians and writers didn't think in those terms though. Most of them thought the same way as the rest of the white race, that Indians were another form of vermin that should be wiped out, just like they did with the wolves.
Now, what the heck any of that had to do with shooting form, I ain't got nary a clue. [8D] Although, I do have this story about I was indirectly taught to shoot bows and arrows by Geronimo... through my grampa, of course.
Don't you reckon it was more due to the sudden influx of white settlers that put a strain on the deer populations so suddenly after the Indians had already been there for thousands of years? Early historians and writers didn't think in those terms though. Most of them thought the same way as the rest of the white race, that Indians were another form of vermin that should be wiped out, just like they did with the wolves.Now, what the heck any of that had to do with shooting form, I ain't got nary a clue. [8D] Although, I do have this story about I was indirectly taught to shoot bows and arrows by Geronimo... through my grampa, of course.
10-27-2007, 06:06 AM
#90
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,876
RE: Why good form
ORIGINAL: Arthur P
Gotta watch out for those highly flavored local histories. Lots of times there is more flavor than fact. Don't you reckon it was more due to the sudden influx of white settlers that put a strain on the deer populations so suddenly after the Indians had already been there for thousands of years? Early historians and writers didn't think in those terms though. Most of them thought the same way as the rest of the white race, that Indians were another form of vermin that should be wiped out, just like they did with the wolves.
Now, what the heck any of that had to do with shooting form, I ain't got nary a clue. [8D] Although, I do have this story about I was indirectly taught to shoot bows and arrows by Geronimo... through my grampa, of course.
Gotta watch out for those highly flavored local histories. Lots of times there is more flavor than fact.
Don't you reckon it was more due to the sudden influx of white settlers that put a strain on the deer populations so suddenly after the Indians had already been there for thousands of years? Early historians and writers didn't think in those terms though. Most of them thought the same way as the rest of the white race, that Indians were another form of vermin that should be wiped out, just like they did with the wolves.Now, what the heck any of that had to do with shooting form, I ain't got nary a clue. [8D] Although, I do have this story about I was indirectly taught to shoot bows and arrows by Geronimo... through my grampa, of course.
One account unintensionally described the spread of small pox. Some Native Americans decided to break a treaty that allow some English to return home with the promise to neverreturn. As the soldiers left the captured fort some attacked killing many before being stopped by the French.They then satisfied themselves by entering the fort, digging up the dead and scalping them, returning home with their trophys. The dead had died from small pox. This was from a letter written by an English soldier.
There is also a detailed account of the deliberate attempt to cause the native americans here in Ohio to rise up and cause trouble. It succeded. That's some local history that gives some credability to the tellerwho was a white man, and he was less than proud of the fact.
I know you Texans consider yourselves to be the only true wild west, but for many years, Ohio was the wild, wildwest. Texans cut their teeth here.
Cool story about your Grand Pappy!
