RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

fred bear was a man that i think everyone should respect more then they do. To me he is one of the best known and the best archer ever. Yes he did miss but everyone does somtime. But he never gave up and that is what him the best and how he hunted for weeks is really cool to.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

I understand, I think, Buster T's motives for asking these questions and I've had the same questions myself. Why do most of us limit ourselves to 20 and under when many guys we "admire" took 100+ yard shots? I know everyone doesn't have the same skill level but if someone posts that they took a 30+ yard shot you'd think they were pariahs. I've heard the quote "It's not how far but how close." many times and it puzzles me that they can't understand the challenge of being as proficient at your weapon as you possibly can. At the same time I think LBR's explaination is the closest to explaining the reasons. We have elevated the value of animals almost on level with man, and some have put them above man. I think Fred would want to kill as quickly as possible because he was self demanding, had expectations he wanted out of his own skill, and had no desire to be cruel, but in the end I think he would have said it was only an animal. We had a harder attitude towards animals back then than we do today. Mostly because our main interaction with them is only as an entertainment/pet capacity rather than utilitarian.

As for the future of bowhunting, I see some improvements in materials and some methods but I don't see a radical change unless there's a distinct change in form and approach. There's too much inherent limitation in the bow concept to allow significant changes. As for our ethics being viewed in a future light, well I'll be too dead to worry about it but I can see our culture being over-sensitized to the degree hunting is eliminated all together, until a harder people conquer or replace us.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Arthur P what we people say when they look back to you and me 30-40 years from now ? What advanaces in technology, or what social changes will affect what they say about us ? Because if we can look to Fred and call his shots unethical by todays standards ........ are we going to be called the same in the future ?

LBR You tell me ? Is the end result justify;s the means ? Did it matter WHAT kind of shot he took, how far away it was, at what angle etc as long as the end result was a dead elephant ?

Thats an extermely important point, because if the end result is all that matters, there are no bad shot, no good shots - just shots that end in dead animals.

I believe that Fred Bear had that belief in a way. I think he and others know that if arrows aren't flying, aint nothing dying. Shocking ? I don't know ....... is it ?

I've taken some very good shots, and lost deer. I've taken some shots that were less ideal, and killed them. So where is the consistancy ? What does it mean ?

LBR Goodness, I'm right there when it comes to the public view, and how it affects everything, you know that. But truthfully ? I don't know that it matters HOW we kill the animals, I really don't. Fred was a great ambassodor to those who didn't knowa thing about bowhunting ....... and he took a lof of shots I wouldn't have. he won a lot of people over, established arhcery seasons, revolutionaized the whole concept of bowhunting. And he took those shots.

Today's ARA's will attack regardless of our personal ethics. When I go into this area, I think about how cattle and hogs are slaughtered ...... vs me shooting a deer in the ham and it bleeding to death. There isn't any comparison, both died, one was wild and died in the wild, the other penned and died in a pen. One was killed assembly style, the other personal and one to one. A clean double lunger, or a gut shot that took 4 hours to die, the wild deer had it much better IMO.

Because of that, I think bowhunters have become a wussy lot when it comes to killing. Its what we do - and sometimes it aint as pretty as we'd like, but its much, much better that what slaughter animals get.


These are very important questions and ideals to me. I've hammered these message boards for years, I know the general "ethics" that are expecte dof bowhunters, then I read about the "great ones" and they didn't follow the silly "ethics" of today. Why ? Because they were out there to shoot and kill animals. Bottom line.

Is it a different world ? yes. Is it THAT different ? I don't know that it is ........

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Buster, Buster, Buster.... How many times are you going to ask the same question and ignore the answers you've already gotten? This flagellation of the deceased equine is getting pretty darn boring.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Arthur P.....Not that you need any endorsement from me but I usually enjoy your posts. In my opinion you're close on this one but if I may...

First, I started bowhunting in 1946, at the age of 11 with a 27# long bow made for me by a friend of my fathers. Hunted for and killed a lot ofrabbits with that bow. Spent the next 25+ years with "primitive" long bows and recurves. You're right about one thing, we found our comfort zones by trial and error. We shot at animals in different situations to determine effectiveness, not ethics. I learned that 20 yards was my maximum slam dunk range, not because of ethics, but because I didn't want to spend hours tracking and maybe losing an animal. Fred, with hif guide and bearers did not have to worry about it. Point of illustration, I believe in 1959 I was stillhunting a swampy area with a 50# Herter's recurvewith Herter fiberglass arrows and Herter 4 blade BH. That combohad to weigh 1000 gr..Anyway, I spotted and worked within 40 yds of a very large buck so I drew and aimed (instinctively) about a foot above his back. The arrowwould have hit him but he heard the release and calmly backed up about a foot and let the arrow hit the water right next to him. He then walked off. I immediately learned that I needed a new arrow combo because hay bales and deer behaved differently at 40 yards.

So anyway,I grew up during the Fred Bear heyday. I will neither pay tribute to him nor castigate him. I view him simply as a promoter of his products, doing the thing he loved.Trying to lay all of these ethical attributes to him and those that followed (like me) are in my opinion, preposterous. He was a hunter, usually guided (in unfenced areas) to a position where he could kill game that could be photographed and promoted. There was no internet, DVDs, CDs and early on, no TV. We learned by doing and hadlittle thought about what future hunters were going to think of us.Like today, we each had our own ethical standards.

In my opinion, Walt Disney did us the major injustice by humanizing animals via Bambi, Dumbo, etc.. Chidren who grew up learning that lovable Bambi's motherwas killed by a mean hunter began the process of anti-hunter sentiment and has been reinforced by the steady parade of animals in human form ever since.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The point being how much better can equipment get? Gear we consider dang-near primitive was good enough to kill an elephant, yet you know as well as anyone even the most up to date bow, arrow, and broadhead can fail on much smaller game.

I never said or implied the end justifies the means.

There's no such thing as a good shot that didn't do the job. The angle could be perfect, the distance could be perfect, the situation could be perfect--but something was very wrong, else it would have resulted in a dead animal. On the other hand, even if the situation is less than ideal, but the hunter is able to make the shot count, it's a good shot. I'm not talking about getting lucky here--and I consider some of the shots Fred got away with to be very lucky.



You don't get out much do you?[8D]

Of course it doesn't matter to the ARA's how a human kills and animal, except they can get more press by exposing "cruelty"--and who is the press meant for? Those who are neutral or undecided--the same ones we hunters need to leave a good impression on, because they vote and can play a role in the future of hunting, whether they participate or not.

It is VERY different today. We have ARA groups with huge budgets and lots of influence to deal with. People today have cell phone cameras, digital cameras, and anyone who cares to can have their own web site and/or post pictures on other web sites. And to re-hash what I've already said, very few people have a clue about where meat really comes from, or ever think about it, compared to not too many years ago when putting meat on the table meant slaughtering it yourself. Around here folks still talk about hog killin's, how the community all pitched in to get the job done, and the meat was often shared or everyone took turns going from one house to another to make the work easier. One of my neighbors plans to have an "old timey hog killin" in the near future, so the younger generation can see how it used to be done.

What hunter's have to deal withto protect the sport has changed a lot. We have to adapt or become extinct.

Chad

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

I don' tknow that the gear is that much better at all ........ wasn't we talking about how we've " grown " as a whole, bowhunters being influenced by ARA's etc now have to do much more in the way of "ethics" that we use to ? Thats not gear related LBR, thats personal choice and how we choose to be in the woods.

No, I'm asking if it does.

Anymore I wonder if thats true. I was in Colorado when bear hunting was banned (spring & dogs). How as it done ? It was a huge lie, propoganda running sows with cubs as being the ones killed. It had nothing to do with the truth behind hunting. You can do everything right ..... and the ARA's will lie, and the stupid public will vote agianst hunting anyway.

What happens on the back 40 when you shoot a buck isn't in the limelight though, is it ?


That book I read recently ........ one of the well known bowhunters of today, and he took a lot of shots that isn't considered "ethical" on the bowhunting forum. You'd get SLAMMED for taking those shots.

And he took them, and he made some and he missed some.

I've taken broadside shots, and made some, and missed some.

Whats the difference ?

This author and I both took shots to kill game. We both had success, both had failure, Fred did too.

Whats it matter what KIND of shots that were taken ?

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

That was in response to your comment about how much gearcould advance in the future. I don't see that much room for improvement. If it gets to the point where the shot is a guaranteed kill, it's not hunting anymore, and our sport is doomed.

The end does not justity the means, at least not to me, as long as I'm not relying on the meat to survive.

You make my point again. Of course the ARA's will do whatever it takes. It's our responsibility to prove them wrong, not prove them right or give them more fuel to add to the fire. Not much chance of changing an ARA's mind, but we're both trying to influence those who don't fall intoeither category,hunter or ARA, to vote with us.

Ask some of the well known hunters and celebrities who have been caught up in hunting scandals in the last few years, or even the unknowns who have made the papers. Our ethics shouldn't be determined by who is watching,and these days you don't know who might be watching.


You know better. You know the difference in taking a 15 yd shot at a relaxed animal and a 60 yd shot, or a running shot, etc. You also know that there are archers that are comfortable and confident taking shots that you or I wouldn't even consider--and they can make them.

It's not up to me to tell the next guy what is or is not an ethical shot. Some are no-brainer's, but I don't see me setting the rules by skill and comfort level when the next guy may be much better, or much worse.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

i think you guys need to give eachother a hug...not a fruity hug...just a handshake and a pat on the back...

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Alpha Capo I'll hug LBR when he's shooting, doing the splits [8D]

Lets say the legends of bowhunting, Fred Bear, Ben Pearson, Pope, Young, Schafer, Brunner, and the others ........ lets excuse away all their missed shots, questionable shots etc to pioneering modern bowhunting.

What if we found out that the legends of TODAY ....... Randy Ulmer, Chuck Adams, Dwight Schuh, and others ........ what if we found out that they take the very same shots.

Then what ?

I watched a bit of a bowhunting show last night, the guy was full draw on an antelope and the guy behind him says "78 yards" - and I swear he was going to shoot had it not moved.

78 yards ? on TV ?

LBR - for all that we agree on, how does the hunting shows on tv reflect towards hunitng and bowhunting ? Since sportsman of today really have to watch things and be good ambassadors and everything ..........

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Lol--did the splits for the new guys I shot with Sat--may have cost them a few points.[8D]

First, I don't have any bowhunting "heroes", modern or otherwise. I have more respect for some than others, but that's about it. If I found out those guys were taking risky shots, they just loose my respect. Not that they will loose any sleep over it, but I can voice my opinion.

Most of the hunting shows (and videos) I've seen are infomercials, pushing X-brand bow, X-brand camo, X-brand scents, etc. etc. etc. The message they try to convey seems to be "If you use the same crap I do, you too will be able to hit the woods on any given day and kill a monster". They think they have to kill something really big for the camera, and I guess they really do in order to make the sponsors happy. I watch very few videos anymore, and couldn't tell you the last time I saw even part of a hunting show on television. For the most part, I think they do more harm than good.

Chad

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Not heros, legends. Those guys I listed are legends in bowhunting - what they've done for the sport of bowhunting is well documented.

I agree - they're absolute trash and do more harm than good.

BUT ........ (there's always a but, isn't there ? :) )

IF the premise is that bowhunter and hunters in general have to be better at ethics ......... why then do we both agree that everything on TV is trash ? Isn't those tv shows THE #1 exposure that hunters get ?

See what I'm getting at ?

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Not legends to me--Chuck Adams is the only one you listed that I'm the least bit familiar with, and that's because of advertising and some comments he's supposedly made that were the topic of some threads a long time ago. I have no idea what bow, broadhead, arrow, camo, etc. he uses, and really don't care. I couldn't tell you one thing he's done for the sport, other than create the "Super Slam".

I understand that is the only exposure that some folks get to bowhunting. That doesn't excuse the rest of us from setting the best example we can, and we don't have to support those shows. I don't watch them, and most likely don't use any of the products they advertise (not sure, since I don't watch them, but I've seen the stuff advertised in the past--no thanks).

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

LBR

Fred Bear created modern arhcery equipment. He has like 17 patents on archery equipment from the fiberglass they use, to the quiver to the archery glove you likely use. His films and exploits brought millions to the sport.

Ben Pearson created a great company and produced a lot of bows and arrows. He gave much to archery.

Schafer ........ a hunting legend.

Pope and Young - the fore fathers to Fred Bear and what he did, their bowhunting adventures were unheard of, their interactions with Ishi invaluable.

Howard Hill - enough said huh ?

Randy Ulmer - incredible archer, accomplished bowhunter. Chuck Adams, holder of many world records, incredible hunter, lives and breathes hunting.


I read a lot, I know who these guys are, a bit of what they've done, and there aint no denying their place in bowhunting history. Even Ted Nugent has cemented his place - as controversial as he is.


We come to todays hunting world, where a guy shoots 55 yards or takes a frontal shot etc and he gets HAMMERED by his fellow bowhunters and yet, we look back on the previous listed legends and they did the same thing. And they missed and they wounded and the killed. No different than today.

So I'm now wondering where all this self righteous, hard line, black and white ethical stuff comes from. It aint from the pro's on tv - they're anything BUT ethical. Its not from any of the legends of bowhunting. So where's it coming from ?

If its for fear of the ARA's, then I'd think TV bowhunting would be THE #1 driver to insure that ethics are passed on and made ultra important, wouldn't you ?

Yet, they're all in it for the money, the glory, the horns .......... they don't care nothing about ethics IMO.


And all this has me coming back to one thing ....... what does it matter if I shoot 12 times, miss 8, wound 3 and kill 1 ...... am I a "bad" hunter for that ? A bad bowhunter making our sport look bad ? Or am I just a bowhunter, a killer of game and not reading anything more into it that that ?

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Ben Pearson was also an inventor and innovator, and although he doesn't get nearly as much press or credit, probably did as much or more for archery than Fred Bear. Mr. Pearson figured out ways to mass produce bows, arrows, broadheads, etc. so they would be cheap enough for most people to afford, and even make it into a family sport. Of all the "icons", I respect Mr. Pearson the most--partly because he didn't sell himself, he just promoted the sport.

I've heard of Randy Ulmer, but couldn't tell you anything about him. I have heard of some of Chuck Adam's "accomplishments", but haven't heard of anything he's done for the sport itself. He probably has, but all I've heard about promotes Chuck, not the sport. Don't know if it's true, but I've heard he's made a few less than flattering comments about traditional archery.

I used to read a lot, but the last several years my reading time has been very limited. I stay very busy most of the time, and spend too much time on these boards. I'm pretty selective about what I read--nothing against compounds, but reading about them or those that hunt with them just doesn't interest me much at all, regardless of who they are, what they killed, what it scored, how many animals they have stacked up, etc.

Self righteous? Black and white? I can't speak for anyone but myself, but neither of those describe me. I've already said I won't impose my standards on someone else. Some things are, to me, black and white--but there are also lots of gray areas.

I'm not afraid of ARA's, but I do worry about the influence they can have. Obviously money/fame is more important than the impression they give for some. All the more reason for those of us that care to do our best to leave a good impression.

That's all be hashed and re-hashed on this thread.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

LBR - these threads are what makes the off-season worth while, aren't they ? I don't know yet how my bowhunting will evolve for the 2007 season ...... I bought my Dads Q2 compound and might shoot it. I've bought a DAS and a Gamemaster in the past 3 weeks and neither of them did me any good,I shoot my Adcock better then either.Which I'll have in my hand this fall, I dunno yet.

Good thread though .....

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Like I said--get your butt to some tournaments! You build your skill, you build your confidence, and there's a good chance that someone will be there that may spot or figure out any problems.

I do enjoy these debates, but I've got to get back at it--still got 40 or 50 strings to get made![8D]

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Ihave a fred bear TRX 400 and this bow has some power. I haven't shot and deer with it yet, but out on the target range, this bow, I think beats the other competition. I can hit dead center at 40 yards without hesitation. I got it last fall right before the bow season started and i had to go back to my home state of wisconsin. So i left it in oklahoma where i reside now and i thought i was going to be back before the season ended. I was wrong. But when elk season opens in colorado I will let you know how it performed and how well it shot.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

I'm telling you, target shooting I do ok - killing live deer seems to be the problem ! ARGHHHHHHH

I stump shot some on Sat ....... didn't do bad. Shooting my 52# Adcock ....... seemed as fast as the 55# Dalaa and Gamemaster to me and a WHOLE lot quieter and smoother.


We'll see ......... might hunt with both this 2007 season. I gotta get my groove back, somehow someway.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Shooting bales, or even 3-D targets in the back yard or by yourself at the range is different. 3-D isn't hunting, but it's as close as you'll come. You have pressure, you have unknown yardages, uphill, downhill, through the bushes, etc. Lots of shots you probably wouldn't attempt on a live animal, but they still help over-all. Besides that, it's a lot of fun.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

I agree with ya LBR, things are a lot different outside the "comfort zone".

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Fred Bear did not want to be known as a legend. He was actually a very simple man. My uncle is a retired Vice President of sales at Bear Archery. He retired a few years back(about ten). He spent 30 years working with Fred on a day in day out basis. I met Mr. Bear on several occasions. And he deserves the title of Mr.

I met him at Grousehaven when I was a young buck. My uncle took me trout fishing with him up in Grayling. I took several trips to Gainesville over the years to fish lake Orange with my uncle. Mr. Bear worked with an oxygen tank for his last few years. I watched him shoot his bow in the parking lot, out in front of the building. He could hit target from one end of the parking lot to the other, and over the top of the cars. I do not know if you believe me, but I know it to be true. He was truly a great man. That is how I care to remember him. Tom.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Sounds like you had some great memories! You're a lucky man to have been around him.

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

Tom,
You nailed it with this post. My dad hunted with Fred many times and went to Grousehaven to hunt with Fred as well. I got to spend some time with Fred when they had the Pope & Young convention in Tulsa Oklahoma the year before Fred died. He came over to the house for dinner. It was great just listeneing to him talk about some of his trips. I also took some video that I have somewhere. I remember him telling people that he didn't want people to feel sorry for him because he had to carry that tank around. He said it was filled with his favorite peppermint Schnapps. He always took the time to talk to anybody. He was great for our sport.

Darrall

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

and he missed, quite often according to this field notes.

I'm not half the shot Fred was ........ what then would that indicate about the level of success I could expect to achieve ?

RE: lets talk Fred Bear (just finished a book on him)
 

MEN,
I have all the books on Fred and all his videos He iswith out a doubt the single and the greatest influence on Archery & bowhunting as we know it today, no one before him or after him has given so much.
Tj