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

I didn't know that Fred missed as much as he did. He might have hit one for every 6-7 animals he shot at. He had no problems shooting at animals at 50-60 yards or more, animals quartering to him or running even. He liver shot a lot of animals rather than double lunged them (not intentionally of course). He shot mostly 65# bows. He often had to go 2-3 time before he killed an animal (like moose) and when he went, he hunted for weeks.

He was very, VERY adament about the hunt being the important part of hunting, not the kill. The kill was a very small part of the hunt.

I want to read his field notes ........ this book was Dick Lattimers "Hunt with Fred Bear " - excellent book I thought

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

The Adventures of Fred Bear (Fred Bear's Field Notes) is an excellent read, especially if you have seen a few of the videos (you get the truth in the book that is stretched, sometimes a good bit, in the vids).

If Fred were alive today, and hunted today like he did then, most likely he'd be shunned and blackballed. He isn't alive today though, and hunting--especially with a bow--was a lot different then.

The bow and arrow hadn't been proven by "civilized" men back then--it was uncharted territory.There was a lot to be learned about it's limitations and onlyone way to figure themout. Fred and a very few others had an amazing amount of nerve to take on the animals they did with a bow, not knowing like we do that it could--without a doubt--be done.

This was a time before PETA and other ARA's breathing down hunter's necks. Ethics were a bit different. You found out if you could make a shot at a given distance by trying. Fred was a pioneeer in getting the bow and arrow accepted as a viable hunting tool, and was also a pioneer at improving equipment.He's infamous for inventing the "pod"--as best I can tell it wasn't because he was trying tobe lazy, but rather improve the image of the sport and make for a quicker, cleaner kill.

Quite an interesting man.This sport owes him a huge debt of grattitude for his work--'course he managed to make a good living at it too--something I suspect we all wish we could pull off.

Chad

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

I agree to a degree. But Fred and Company were not cave men of bowhunting. I think they full well knew what was and wasn't unsportsmanlike. However, they were bowhunters, there were not trying to please an invisible politically correct crowd. They had no qualms about taking a 50 yard shot at a deer, full well knowing they might miss. They didn't CARE if they missed really - its hunting, it happens, thats the way it is.

Whereas nowdays, we have this feeling that if we miss, or wound, and do it often that we're doing a disservice to the animals. Fred Bear LOVED the wildlife, he trumped it up, that bowhunting was so much better because you got to know the animals up close. But that didn't mean he wouldn't take a frontal shot on a world record ram at 60 yards, you know ?

Different time for sure ........ but I don't think Fred Bear and the people he hunted with were that much different

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

From you're topic post, I thought you wrote a book on him.

Confused - BobCo:eek:

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

LOL - I wish I could have known him and asked questions. Him, Hill, Pope, Young, St Charles, Lattimer ......... those guys CREATED what we have today

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

Did you ever read the story of Saxton Pope, and Art Young lion hunting in Africa with longbows? Wow, they got some bad shots. I was sitting there amazed. Hitting them in the head, and all over at 85 yards. Different time no doubt. Wouldn't fly today.

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

I think they were influenced by the old English archers, who shot LONG distances. Like I said, it was a weapon yet to be proven in modern times.

I can't speak for Fred, but I have seen ethics change a LOT in my 37 (almost 38)years. Folks that cared very much for the game, yet did things that we consider very unethical today. Even game laws have changed--lots of things that were common when I was young are illegal today.

I read somewhere (take it for what it's worth) that Fred's preferred shot was the hindquarter, hoping to hit the femoral artery--who does that today? Now we know the double-lung is THE shot for bowhunting, but who was around to tell that to Fred?

Also, he had a job to do on many of his hunting trips--to get film footage of an animal going down. Unlike today, where you seldom see an animal even get a scratch other than on some cheesy hunting shows, those films were family entertainment back then--and Africa, Alaska, etc. were even further (harder to acess)--there was pressure to get something on film (read more about that in Fred's field notes).

'Course all we can do is speculate and give opinions, but based on what I experienced growing up, it was a good bit different back then.

Chad

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

Do you not think it happens today anyway ? Its just not talked about ! I know a lot of compounders push the 60-70 yard and beyond ranges with their bows, especially out west.

Why do we consider it unethical ?

Are there "good ways" vs "bad ways" to try and kill an animal ?

That is all true however the more I read, the more it seems that Fred Bear was very big into the Hunt, and not the Kill, which would indicate to me he had a very high moral standard.


Could it be ......... that we as Hunters have lost something in the wake of the Animal Rights movements ? Are we maybe somehow scared at being a hunter ?

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

No, stealth, I would like to think we have smarten up quite a bit. And its not all about the kill. I am sure you want to debate it.

Are you saying you want to just let arrows fly without a decent assurance that your arrow will make a kill shot?

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

I have no doubts that it happens, but it's not accepted by the general hunting community.

Probably because these dayseven though most still eat the meat, far fewer rely on it and/or will go hungry without it. My grandfather learned to kill rabbits with rocks--and it wasn't for bragging rights. He was raised by an older brother, because his father died before he was born and his mother shortly afterward. They were too poor to be able to afford shotgun shells. Rocks were free, and if you were good enough they would kill a rabbit. Chunking rocks at rabbits these days would be considered unethical, even cruel,and probably illegal in some states.

IMO, yes. As quickly and painlessly as possible, and in a way that the animal can be recovered and utilizedis the right way.

I think he did too, but who gets to define morals in this case? Fred took risky shots, blunted some big game animals just to see if he could get in range and hit one, invented the pod, etc. Even though I wouldn't do many of the things he did, I think he was a pioneer. Some would call some of the things he did immoral.

Some probably are afraid of being labeled as a hunter, some just hold firmly to fair chase rules. Personally, I'm not the least bit afraid or ashamed of being a hunter, or an archer, but I am aware of the impression we give the public. There's a lot of non-hunters whose opinions could be swayed by a slob--and they vote. That's one reason I was determined to defend archery equipment in your other thread--never know who might be reading these boards, and some folks could get the wrong impression.

Chad

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

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

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

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".

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

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....

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 ......

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

I have to disagree there. I think its not so much its rare you get answers from people who know why they believe what they do, but its extremely apparent to me, its answers you don't like to hear. Or you can't understand them and need more detail. I see you especially do this on political matters. Somebody will reply back to you, and you bombard them with more and more of your rants saying they dance around an issue, when thier answer makes total sense to me and should have been very sufficient to answer your question.

To answer your question, in detail, I feel Fred Bear was a great guy in bowhunting. He paved the way. But I feel he took negligent shots, so did Saxon Pope and Art Young. I can't say I have seen in video Howard missing very much. sometimes we put people on pedistals, to knock them off. For instance, I saw Brian Ferg miss several targets at a show. I read his books, I took direction about his form. I thought of the guy as a legend. But after i saw him shoot, I was disappointed. Now, everybody has an off day. Just the way it is. I expected more more out of Brian, and I shouldn't have done that. He's still incredible. But has faults and bad days. Same with Fred Bear, I am sure he has taken poor shots, maybe behind the scenes, unethical shots. But he had a reputation to uphold. I am sure we don't know all the dirt on him.

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

bigcountryahhhhhhhhh, the politcal forum is a different critter altogether !

I would love to know how many animals Fred Bear wounded and missed. I would like to know why he took the shots he did. I'd like to know how accurate he was on targets. I want to know if the shots he took were "good" and they went "bad' for some reason.

Many questions ....... few answers .........

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

This is 2007, not 1915, not 1935, not even 1957. Like Chad has been TRYING to point out, ethics and public attitudes are very different now than they were back in those days. The groundwork those old timers laid, the mistakes and successes, is the basis for our code of ethics today. Some folks need to open their minds and at least try to let that soak into their thick skulls.

Anyone who really wants an education about how our modern ethics didn't apply back in the old days, read "The Witchery of Archery" by Maruice Thompson.

Fred Bear was out there promoting bowhunting. Since he wasn't a feakin' IDIOT, of course he used his own products. His primary goal was to popularize bowhunting. His secondary goal was to make a little coin by selling his products to those new bowhunters. He richly deserved a little income from his efforts because he and a few others like him are the primary movers and shakers that got the states to open up bowseasons in the 50's and 60's. If it weren't for them there wouldn't be any bow seasons today.

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

Absoluetly, I agree. The 16 or 18 patents he holds, they were vital to bowhunting becoming what it is today from what I read, and he never recieved royalties off any of them !

So we agree Fred was quite the intelligent man, he was quite the inventor, businessman, a writer and producer etcetc. He was also quite the bowhunter, he was accomplished as a field archer and as a bowyer. He killed a lot of animals with rifles. Later, he killed many with bows. He hunted for the Hunt, he didn't glorify the kill, he loved the wilderness that he hunted and the animals in it.

We credit him with all that .......... and then ponder that he took unethical shots, shots he didn't think he could make, and write it off as simply a different day and time ?

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

Not entirely. The shots he took were NOT considered unethical in his time. It truly was a different day and a different time. Different mindset. Different circimstances.

It's patently absurd to judge bowhunters of yesteryear by applying today's standards to them. The whole process of bowhunting was in it's developmental years and - once again - what they learned then is a huge part of what has formed our code of ethics today.

The rest of our code has been formed by the anti-hunting establishment - a group of well financed complete idiots that no hunter ever had to deal with before the 1980's. We've had to really tighten up on our behavior to keep from feeding them ammunition.

In that way, the anti-hunting movement has been good for hunting.

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

If that is true ......... then you can expect in 30 years people to look back on you and I and say the same thing ?

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

It is true, and although Ifigure there will always be those that look down on hunting in general, I don't expect the same things to be said. Thanks to Mr. Bear and others we've learned a lot, and there's no reason to repeat the mistakes he made.

Chad

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

Oh for Pete's sake! If I had a crystal ball that told me what would be happening in the future, I'd be filthy, stinkin' rich and be too busy hunting and fishing on my very own private preserve to be messing around on a forum.:eek:

I don't know what ethics are going to be like in another 30 years. Bear didn't know what ethics would be like today. All we can do is play by the rules as best we can under the ethical guidelines of our times and if someone in the future doesn't like it... screw 'em.

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

LBR that doesn't make sense at all does it ? What you're essentially saying is that Fred Bear and Co lived int he pirmitive, early stages of bowhunting and that where we are at today is the cusp of bowhunting - we as a bowhunting society are as ethical and straight lined as we'll ever be, can't possibly get any better ?

Don't you think thats what was thought 20 years ago ? 40 years ago ?

Can you imagine (I can) in 30 years, where technology might be ? The bows are 500 fps. They have a self stabilizing system to the arrows then gaurantee perfect arrow flight. Technology in the broadhead assures blades will open, be ultra sharp, and never bend or break. Maybe a tracking system for hit deer to gaurantee recovery ?

In that world they'll look back at us as ........ what ?

Is it possible that bowhunting will evolve so much as to make it almost not hunting at all ?

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

Buster, at first I didn't think you understood that point. Now I think you're just arguing to hear your head rattle.

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

I think it makes plenty of sense. We already have projectiles that will travel at well over 1,000 fps, are much more accurate at long ranges,and are pretty much guaranteed to leave a huge wound--the are called bullets. The big thing is difference in the way bullets kill vs. broadheads--shock vs hemmorage. Like I said, it wasa learning process, and at a time where most folks understood that animals are animals, not people.

We're at a time in archery where bows can already break the 300 fps mark, laser sights can be installed, and expandables have made massive improvements (I still don't like them though). With all these improvements, more and more people are going back to the roots of archery with traditional equipment.

Most of us admire and respect Mr. Bear and others, although we'd never attempt some of the shots he did. I don't see any reason for that to change.

Chad

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

Change that to ........ Most of us admire and respect Mr.LBR, Buster T and others, although we'd never attempt some of the shots they did with the equipment they had back then. I don't see any reason for that to change.


If we can say that now ......... can they say that in the future ?

Reason I ask is this ........ you and I think we're pretty ethical bowhunters, right ? We don't take poor shots, we practice, we know our weapons and limitations etc.

You think Fred didn't ?

Maybe we're not giving credit where its due, just like in the future when technology advances, when the demands of society insist on instant killings or 100% recovery rates and sportmen cave to those demands ....... maybe they'll look back and call us unethical shot takers ?

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

after reading this thread i think i need a cig and a glass of Jonnie Walker black on the rocks;)

....the only thing i can ad is...

regardless of improved hunting equipment and a different code of ethics....hunting is still a very primal activity....where the only thing that really matters is Beast vs. Man regardless of who wins for the day(if you look at it in this light, its easier to see thathunting hasnt changed sinceman has walked on two feet)....

i dont pay much attention to the way others hunt or what they say about the way i hunt (not that i hunt differently than others)...im not worried about PETA or others that naysay hunters, or those that say you have to do things this way...i strongly believe that the naysayers will never beable to take away our right to hunt (or should i say hunting privledges[:'(]), as their politics are unpure, andused for their personal advancement/greed, also their followers are ignorant to the way hunters feel about the woods they hunt and the animals they kill.

....believe whats in your heart and bowhunt the way that makes you happy...regardlessof what anyone says.

nowtime to be a hipocrate spelling?

with that being said there are a few bow/gun hunters that give everyone a bad name when it comes to hunting...

i got very upset this year when the shotgun season came around and my dad and his buddy went out to our property to hunt, and the people hunting the neighboring property fired 19 shots in one afternoon...

i know they didnt kill 19 deer. there were only 4 guys hunting....

later that week i spooked up a small doe that has her back hoof blown off, shestumbled 60 yards downa Revien and laidin the middle of a creeK...

long story short i couldntget a shot off at her because sheended upcrossing the fairly deep creek and entered the neighbors propertyI didnt cross paths with her again, but my buddy did and put her out of her misery after two weeks of suffering(he said she couldnt even walk)...

my dad/his buddy fired one shot and killed a nice 10 pntr near Boone and Crockett... one for one!!!!! thats the way it should be when hunting with a gun! i understand that a miss happens....but those other guys werent hunting they were just shooting...and if you want to go shooting do it at the range not in the woods....as far as im concerned those guys shouldnt call themselves hunters....(I would have liked to "meet" them!!!!)....its things like this that non-hunters see and remember.

all i can say is i can see why things are the way they are....and thats all i can say i guess.

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

You missed my point Brad. None of us can predict the future, but my guess is hunters will be hunters. Even with all the improvements in rifles, muzzleloaders, compounds, optics, arrows, broadheads, etc. etc. etc. more and more people are still coming back to the roots of archery. Hunters hunt for the challenge. Not to say there won't always be people that just want to kill something with the least effort possible, but I think it's in our blood to hunt. Human beings are preditors--nothing PETA can do to change that.

There's just so much that can be done to a stick and string. I see new claims pretty regularly, but when you get right down to it, the equiment touted to be the absolute best isn't far ahead of the equipment used 40-50 years ago. As I've noted before, Fred Bear killed an elephant, with a recurve, with one shot. How much better can it get?

If it ever gets to the point society demands instand kills and 100% recoveries, we are screwed anyway, and the sport will be dead. Anything that guarantees that is not hunting. We already have that in existence now--canned "hunts", and thankfully society in general seems to be against that.

The best we can do is try to recruit more hunters, pass it on to the next generation, and do the best we can to make a positive influence on non-hunters.

Chad

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

4 pages here and nobody has asked the most important question.

Are therepictures in this book?!

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

There are some pics. Best thing to do is get some of the Fred Bear videos as a companion to the book. Mozambique Game Trails is a good one, and the Fred Bear Museum Tour is really good--it has several short clips of hunts in it as well as a tour of the old museum given by the late Mr. Frank Scott.

Chad

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

Fred liver shot his elephant according to the book I read I believe. An elephant ...... and he missed the lungs.

I just finished a book last night, a guy who's killed a LOT of bucks, Booners, and really knows his hunting. He shoots a Widow ...... and he missed several times, hit one in the ham, took a shot at a frontal neck shot (finally found the deer and killed it) and took several running shots. This guy is well known - very well know - yet the shots he took and his % wasn't great. 1960's through late 1980's was the time frame

So what then ? (A) we've "grown" as sportmans or (B) we've regressed to a world of sportsman who're afraid to simply go out and try and kill game ?

Or is there a (C) ?


Yes, there are lots of pictures in the book. I've watched a few Fred Bear movies and had the same comments - he took shots I wouldn't have, missed etc.

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

Will Thompson: Snowy egret in the top of a tree 80 yards away. Shorebird at 100 yards. Talks about hunting ducks, going out in the morning with several hundred arrows and coming back to camp for more arrows at lunch. Recommends shooting woodpeckers for practice. Hunts in the dead of night. Shoots several animals before he even identifies them. He and his Indian friend, Tommy, put a half dozen arrows into a cougar before it finally dies... A whole book of that kind of stuff.

He might not be as revered today as Bear is, but he was Fred Bear's equivalent in the late 1800's. The kinds of things he did then are absolutely shocking to us today, but it was the norm for HIS time. And I think it does us good to look back on these historical figures and see how far we've come. Hopefully, those that come after us will learn from our mistakes too. That's how the human species adds to it's knowledge base. Learn from mistakes and build on successes.

At least, that's how it SHOULD work. Doesn't always happen that way, due to mental deficiencies in key positions. ;)

If you're so all-fired worried about what people in the future are going to think about your hunting - and if people in the future are anything like you, you're probably justified to be worried - maybe you just better quit hunting and take up chess or tiddlywinks.

Personally, I've got enough to worry about just looking out for my own set of ethics.

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

I don't remember where Fred's shot landed, but he killed an elephant with one arrow all the same. My point being he got the penetration required to kill the largest land animal on earth with a bow that had no wheels, cams, carbon, let-off, etc. How much better can it get in that respect?


Everyone has to set their own code of ethics. Big name or not, nobody sets mine for me, and I can't tell them what shots they are comfortable taking. Ben Pearson is one of the archery "icons" I most admire, but Ben is on film shooting (and making a kill) a javalina at somewhere between 130 and 160 yds (depending on whose account you listen to). NO WAY I'd try that, even if I was a good shot at that range, but I still respect Mr. Pearson.

I don't think it's so much "growing" as getting better educated. The pioneers of the sport pushed their limits--but they were still learning what their limits were. Some people still try to push the envelope. The biggest concern we have today, again my opinion, is the impression we leave on the public. Far fewer people kill their own chickens, hogs, and beef. More and more people seem to think that meat come from the store, set on a plastic or styrofoam tray and wrapped in celophane. People that never consider that the steak they are enjoying tonight was grazing in a pasture last week--but would be disgusted to hear that a wild animal was wounded by a careless hunter.

Like I said, these people vote.We need to give the best impression we can, and educate them, else they are liable to vote against us. We have idiot and hypocritical organizations like PETA and the HSUS putting out false propaganda already--no need to add fuel to that fire.

I don't think things will change all that much in the future, at least not for some time. The reason is the same as I already stated. Back in Fred's heyday, even housewives and kids participated in killing and cleaning the chicken that was going to be cooked for Sunday dinner, the Christmas goose, the hogs and cows--even if they never hunted, they were exposed to this and understood that in order to eat something, first you have to kill it. My grandmother was a very compassionate person, anddidn't want anything to suffer needlessly--but she didn't have a problem wringing a chicken's neck before she cleaned and cooked it. The same chicken that she would have whipped her kid's tail for if she'd caught them throwing rocks at it, orotherwise tomenting it. I can't see society getting much more "sanitized" than it already is.

Chad

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

Very well said LBR.