Buster T

Smartened up how ? What was so dumb and stupid with Fred Bear and people like that ?

Good point, because while Fred didn't hunt for the meat really, he was hunting for dual purposes. He got millions of dollars in free advertisments with his hunting exploits.

But you gotta admit, some great shots go bad, some bad shots end up with a very quick kill ......... I'd hazard to say most deer shot at and wounded were the faithful broadside shot - the shot that is suppose to be the best to take.


Every shot is risky - I've learned that. I didn't know Fred blunted ? I wonder at WHY those would call him unethical .......


So we, as hunters, have had to change who we are and what we do because of ........... fear ?

Fear that if we don't "kill" in a humane enough way that there will be backlash ?

Think about that ........ killing humanely ? Is that possible ?

HUMANE:
marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals


Bowhunting and killing deer with compassion ? Do you launch arrows with sympathy ? Are considerate when you slice through the lungs of a meat doe resulting in her bleeding to death ?


I dunno ........ the concept and meshing of words seems fake to me.

Now, I HATE wounding deer. Why is that ? Is it because I didn't do what I wanted to do ? Is it because an animal is wounded ? Did Fred Bear ever feel remorse for shooting and wounding ?

If you've got that same feeling ...... then you know everytime you draw and shoot you could be wounding deer. Why then is it worth is to even try when the possible wounding is so bad ?

Kinda of a paradox isn't it ?

Its almost refreshing to read about Fred Bear and the love he had for wildlife, and the respect for Hunting that he had, and the continuing reinforcement that its the HUNT and not the kill .......... and yet he took a lot of shots at animals I wouldn't have

bigcountry

I think your hung up on a name stealth. You have been told worship this guy Fred Bear since you came into bow hunting. You have been told he is the greatest. He has paved the way for alot of us, no doubt. But thats it.

If he wounded the animals you say he did, because of reckless shots, then shame on him. I won't take a shot unless I am 90% sure that when I let it fly, its going to hit vitals. Thats my rule. Thats love for hunting and animals. Thats my love for animals.

You keep asking these questions trying to trap someone for whatever reason. Like "What was so dumb and stupid with Fred Bear and people like that" or "are you saying Fred Bear wasn't traditional". Why? I can only guess you have such reverence for people like him. Sure they are interesting and fun to read about. But there's was only one human that deserves respect and fame that walked the Earth. And thats Jesus Christ.

Its not so much that Fred Bear is dumb, but we as hunters have gotten little smarter.And have changed our mindset on hunting.We don't count on our game as life and death.And again, you might not be able to grasp this, but "traditional is a state of mind". Someone can't look at you and tell you a bow you consider to be traditional is not tradtional. Its your choice.All they can do is tell you, "they don't consider that bow for themselves to be traditional." all you can do is respect thier opinion and not worry about getting validated or convincing them otherwise.

But what you fail to understand, is you shouldn't try to follow so many people in your life. You should follow your own way. Only follow Jesus. Thats the reason I refuse to ever ask for someone's autograph. I have met several famous people. And they ask me if I want an autograph. I always say, "no but you can have mine if you want".

Double Creek

As time goes on, we as hunters and as non hunters have begun putting more and more value on the worth of an animals life.. Right or wrong. For instance, a HUMAN, can go to jail for killing a dog..... Not that killing dogs is ok, but our society has begun to put animals on a playing field that is level with humans in many cases... I think that logic has crossed over into hunting and we take the life of an animal much more seriously than the pioneers did. We don't mind Killing them, but wounding them is shunned.... It is strange and I often struggle with the concepts myself... I often wonder what God's opinion on it is.... We know he put animals on the earth for our enjoyment, but where do we draw the line? If we are out enjoying ourselves and wound a deer, is that ok? Some deep issues there for sure... But for me, I only take shots that I believe in my heart that I can make... If I wound a deer, so be it....

LBR

It wasn't stupidity, it was ignorance--not knowing the limitations of the equipment, not knowing what shot would give the quickest kill, etc.

I don't know about "millions", but I get the point. My point is back then a lot more people had a lot more hands-on experience with killing animals. Lots of folks butchered their own beef, pork, lamb, chicken, etc., and a lot of folks hunted specifically for the meat. I'd guess the term "trophy hunter" was unheard of back then.

There's a lot of things that can make for a bad shot--most of them due to human error or poor/lack of judgement. Based on my experience at least.

I'd call it concern over giving the non-hunting public the wrong impression and loosing hunting priveledges.

Of course it is. A properly placed broadhead is probably the most humane way any whitetail will ever die--often they don't even realize they were shot, travel a short distance if at all, and basically go to sleep. No animal that dies of "natural" causes will ever go that peacefully--they will die from disease, starvation, parasites, or be eaten (usually while still alive if it's coyotes or wolves).

I don't cry and send a card to the family, but I will pass on a shot I'm not comfortable with, work to be competent and confident with my gear, and do my best to make a quick, clean kill. Like I said, putting an animal to sleep quickly and virtually painlessly is much more humane than what nature gives them.

I can't speak for Fred, but I'd guess it did bother him to wound an animal. I did a stupid thing once and shot when I wasn't sure, and the results were awful. It's called experience--we try to learn from it.

I know it's possible whenever I get in my truck that I could hit a deer between my house and the 2 mile stretch to the highway (lots of deer crossings on the way)--that doesn't keep me from driving. I know what I am capable of, and what my equipment will do, and go with full confidence. You can't focus on not missing and expect to hit. If I ever make another bad shot, I'll deal with it then. When I am in the woods, I am part of nature.

The hunt is important to some degreeto anyone that takes part in the sport, regardless of the weapon used. There are no guarantees, and most leave the woods empty-handed a lot more often than not. If it was about the kill, period, there would be a whole lot less people in the woods. The hunt is more important to some than others obviously, but that's the name of the game--that's why it's called hunting, and not killing. Killing is, however, a undeniable part of hunting--otherwise you would just go sit in the woods without a weapon.

Chad

Buster T

bigcountry Did I say Fred Bear wounded a lot of animals ? He writes in his field notes that he missed a lot. Only one wounded animal I remember reading about so far. I don't doubt he did wound animals, he didn't write about them though as far as I know.

You really overthink things and have a conspiracy theory mind, did you know that ? I'm not trying to trap anyone, I'm discussing the man who made traditional archery what it is, he forged it, almost single handedly. Without his mass production bows, his many patents on archery equipment including fiberglass, the millions of bows and accessories he sold ......... archery might not have ever gotten to where it is. Certainly others did much too - Fred had the spot light though, and was a great inventor of new ideas.

That said, I don't think we can really say he was ........ less smarter than we are today, do you ?

You said

I again ask how ?

Traditional isn't a state of mind - no way ever I can shoot my Mathews Q2 and claim it to be traditional and it BE traditional because I claim it so. It don't work that way, just like calling a puppy a kitten - its not, never will be.

I'm certain Fred Bear could outshoot anyone who's posting on this thread. I'm cerain he could outshoot most traditional hunters period. I'm also certain his hunting skills were better than anyone elses on Hunting.net and his love for the wilds and the animals were equal to or exceeds everyone here. I beleive that not in idoization of the man, its just who he was, nothing more, nothing less.

So why would a man like that take shots that today's trad shooters wouldn't ?

Its a compelling question. I don't think Fred would have taken a shot he didn't think he could make, do you ? But that he missed a lot .......... is that simply part of the Hunt ?

I think intent is the key. If I took 20 shots this year, had confidnece I could make all 20, missed 16 deer, wounded 3 and killed 1 ....... is that ethical ? Why or why not ? I was 100% certain I could make the shots, they just didn't fall.

bigcountry

In other words stealth, its appearant to me that your a person that needs to convince people or validate yourself, when really, you only have to convince yourself. Don't try so hard, and it won't be so obvious.

Buster T

bigcountry I passed on ........ maybe 20-25 shots on bucks this year. Probably 3-4 were P&Y, the biggest being maybe 160". I passed shots from 2 yards from the base of my tree out to where ever I could have shot. Lots of 10 yard shots I passed. I finally took 1 shot - a can't frickin miss 22 yard absolute gorgeous broadside shot - and I hit the deer high.

Compare to a guy I know that shoots a fast walking buck quartered to him at 20 yards in the brush - he thought he could sqeeze and arrow through, and liver/gut shot the deer on a deflected shot.

Which was the better shot ? Mine was - which led to a dead deer ? His


Which leads me back full circle ........ are there REALLY good shots and are there really BAD shots ? Or are there just shots that end one way or the other ?

Its apparent to me bigcountrythat you don't really KNOW what you beieve. You think you do, you post that you do, but when challenges to explain WHY you believe what you do ? You dance around it and bow out of the thread by tossing around afew light heared jabs.

I LIKE to think WHY ........ I'm not content with just believing something for the giggles of it. Sorry you don't get that ......

bigcountry

Oh, you can ask why. Nothing wrong with that. Its just when it gets to the point, that you want to convince others and persistently try.

You ask what one thinks, and one tells you. You have two choices, accept that he feels differently, and say "I don't understand your thought process" and try to convince yourself that your right. You 90% of the time always take the latter. The world is not black and white as you want to believe. The right answer is most of the time, "it depends".

A good shot for me is not the same as someone else. A good shot for me, is, I have a 90% confindence that when I let that arrow go, I will hit vitals and find a dead deer. Too many bow hunters, especially young compounders, do not have this 90% confidense. They hope and pray. They push the shot. I have done it before. In fact, I did it this year. I regretted it. But finally found the deer and saved the meat. But then the easiest shot of my life came in Nov. 18 yards away, I watched a doe for over 1/2 hour. I needed a doe badly to get another buck tag. All the sudden its wide open, clear shot. I fired. I got a complete pass thru. She walked around me and bedded. I thought to myself, this is a give me. Well, I came out of the tree 30 min later cause it was dead dark, but could see see was only 45 yards away still. As soon as my foot hit the ground, she jumped. We looked for that deer until 10PM. Finally found her days later. She went far and long. I hit too far back, and the arrow hit the back of one lung, and then into the guts.

What I am saying is, every archer should have a 90% confidense feeling before letting it fly. But even that doesn't get the job done sometime.

MC Bowhunter

The Adventures of Fred Bear is a great book. The day after I shot my first deer with a bow my dad went on a hunting trip with Fred Bear. Fred signed a copy of the book and had my dad bring it homefor me. Once I started reading it I couldn't put it down! I got to spend a little time with Fred. My dad hunted with Fred, Ben Pearson and Howard Hill quite a bit. I'm sure he could tell some stories

MC

Buster T

bigcountry I ask questions, I get answers ......... but is getting more and morerarethat someone who gives an answer knows WHY they believe as they do. Politics especially. Abortion is the best, or worst depending on how you look at it. People will proudly declare they are pro-choice ....... but when asked why, they really don't know why. When faced with having to lay out step by step why, they most often get mad, a sure indication lemmingism, or they withdraw from the debate saying this or that etc.

Its actually quite diffcult to prove ones point on a forum. The lack of facial expressions and tones of voice do not help. But also it enables a person to type out clearly a step by step on why a belief is held.

So to say that traditional archery is ______________ or a good shot is defined as ______________ .......... naturally the followup on WHY do you believe that is going to follow, you know ?


And so we come back to WHY Fred Bear might have taken the shots he did, vs me taking the shots I do, or didn't. Of course its all speculation on Fred, but seeing as how he was a great shooter, a great bowhunters etc, its a good thing to contemplate why or why not I think.

Good mind stuff IMO