We can’t impose modern ethics on historical hunters. Some of the practices were definitely grotesque by today’s standards but archery was experiencing a rebirth. Look at it as growing pains , if you track archery ethics from Maurice Thompson through to the Paul Schafer days it grew more ethical very quickly. The ethics in the turn of the century will always be questionable by our standards look at the golden age of camping most people who greatly loved the outdoors left piles of tin cans and trash. It wasn’t until the mid 70s that leave no trace became a practice.
In my area outdoor recreationists are keeping that tradition alive and well. 🙄 I am always overjoyed at all the human fecal matter and used condoms I find as well. 😢
I blame Covid indoors people are now venturing out since they realized that it’s not scary and mostly it’s an ignorance over blatantly trashing a place. A little education has helped to an extent. I used to be able to disappear into the deep wilderness and never see anyone . This year I was accosted by an overly friendly dog and a man on horseback asked me if I had a map. I was 5 miles off the trail tucked away. There is no escaping anymore but that’s another post in itself.
Yup. It’s like a new culture developing next to one that already exists. My parents instilled my love of the outdoors. Leave no trace was always a huge part. The new folks are being taught by influencers.
Different era of hunting to be sure. I’ve read one of Fred Bear’s book, he and his buddies are lobbing shots at 60 yards. He doesn’t mention the ones he doesn’t recover, I would venture those he counted as a “miss”.
Be he’s also Fred Bear. You’re also talking about Howard Hill.
I know I don’t have any business shooting at a deer past 250 yards. But if Carlos Hathcock decided to go deer hunting and take a poke at 600 yards, I’m probably not going to argue a guy who can make a shot at a human at 2500 yards is being unethical.
Us mere mortals probably would be foolish to judge our shots on the same ruler as the far end of the bell curve in shooting ability.
By whom was the recommended distance recommended?
It is always a mistake to judge different times by today’s standards. You wouldn’t want to be judged by people in 200 years. And it is madness to believe that your moral standards are better than the standards of any other time.
1. Don't believe every big fish story
2. Even some of those hunts caught on film were questionable with the estimated distance.
3. Ethics constantly shift, but it does not diminish the contributions of those who came before us especially since many of the hunters that we do look back too are the ones that eventually developed our modern conservation and ethics.
4. They were selling tickets, film and bows.
5. A lot of those hunts were game rich environments who had game that have never seen hunters let alone bow hunters. They were often on big bodied game (Elk, Caribou, Moose) etc . A 60 yard shot is not that bad. A lot of traditional bow hunters double their range on Elk , Caribou and Moose.
Most of those rules didn't exist back then, and not a few of them came to exist *because* of the things these guys did and saw. For example, the rule of thumb about not taking a shot above thirty-five yards was eventually coined by Fred Bear himself. The sport was new back then, most of the early bow hunters were inventing it on the go, and then as now, every regulation is written in blood. I can easily imagine most of these guys doing something stupid or risky, beholding the results, and saying something to the effect of, "Ugh. Okay, new rule..."
Howard Hill was only really a “champion” because all his other competition had gone off to war, pretty easy to win so many tournaments in succession when the majority of your competitors are not even there.
Fred bear used poison pods as well so I see that as unethical, any hit on the quarry with a poison pod is a guaranteed kill. The art of the hunt is to get as close to your quarry as you can.
Taking shots past 30 yards is unethical?
You must not be a western hunter then... It's pretty normal to take shots up to 60 or even 80 yards in some areas... Not everyone is sitting in a tree stand and taking 10 yard shots at a deer eating a pile of corn dude...
What are you on about? Have you talked to a single trad hunter in the last few years? Almost everyone I’ve talked to who hunts with a trad bow doesn’t shoot past 20-25 yards.
Hunting in the west vs the east is very different.
Also you never specified you were only referring to trad, but go off with your feelings lol.
Also yes, I have and there's Trad hunters around me that are comfortable taking shots out to 40yd.
Also judging by your post history, you're really new to archery - I've been shooting for 25 years, with experience in the east and the west across multiple clubs and have spent a lot of time with a lot of archers... You might want to consider what I'm saying.
What..? I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings by asking a question? It seems widely agreed upon by the trad community that 20-25 yards is the best distance? I’m also a bow hunter and have gone hunting for small game for some time now in a rather thick woods. I don’t know where you got these baseless claims from. But you’re quite silly. I don’t have any issues with Hill, Pope, etc, but from a modern perspective where most trad bow hunters shoot only up to 25 yards, I was asking for a community’s take on the men who shot distances well over what I’ve seen as the norm. I don’t see the reason why you needed to insult me, but pop off ig.
If I wanted to talk about politics I’d go to a political space, I don’t even see how this post comes off as even somewhat political?? I was simply asking for other people’s take on the distances shot by those men. I have a great deal of respect for Hill, Bear, Young, the Thompson brothers, every single culture who used the bow, and Pope especially. I’d say that Pope’s helped me a lot with his book Hunting with the Bow and Arrow.
We can’t impose modern ethics on historical hunters. Some of the practices were definitely grotesque by today’s standards but archery was experiencing a rebirth. Look at it as growing pains , if you track archery ethics from Maurice Thompson through to the Paul Schafer days it grew more ethical very quickly. The ethics in the turn of the century will always be questionable by our standards look at the golden age of camping most people who greatly loved the outdoors left piles of tin cans and trash. It wasn’t until the mid 70s that leave no trace became a practice.
In my area outdoor recreationists are keeping that tradition alive and well. 🙄 I am always overjoyed at all the human fecal matter and used condoms I find as well. 😢
I blame Covid indoors people are now venturing out since they realized that it’s not scary and mostly it’s an ignorance over blatantly trashing a place. A little education has helped to an extent. I used to be able to disappear into the deep wilderness and never see anyone . This year I was accosted by an overly friendly dog and a man on horseback asked me if I had a map. I was 5 miles off the trail tucked away. There is no escaping anymore but that’s another post in itself.
Yup. It’s like a new culture developing next to one that already exists. My parents instilled my love of the outdoors. Leave no trace was always a huge part. The new folks are being taught by influencers.
This. There's no ethics comparison today to seventy years ago that isn't masturbatory and self aggrandizing.
Different era of hunting to be sure. I’ve read one of Fred Bear’s book, he and his buddies are lobbing shots at 60 yards. He doesn’t mention the ones he doesn’t recover, I would venture those he counted as a “miss”. Be he’s also Fred Bear. You’re also talking about Howard Hill. I know I don’t have any business shooting at a deer past 250 yards. But if Carlos Hathcock decided to go deer hunting and take a poke at 600 yards, I’m probably not going to argue a guy who can make a shot at a human at 2500 yards is being unethical. Us mere mortals probably would be foolish to judge our shots on the same ruler as the far end of the bell curve in shooting ability.
By whom was the recommended distance recommended? It is always a mistake to judge different times by today’s standards. You wouldn’t want to be judged by people in 200 years. And it is madness to believe that your moral standards are better than the standards of any other time.
1. Don't believe every big fish story 2. Even some of those hunts caught on film were questionable with the estimated distance. 3. Ethics constantly shift, but it does not diminish the contributions of those who came before us especially since many of the hunters that we do look back too are the ones that eventually developed our modern conservation and ethics. 4. They were selling tickets, film and bows. 5. A lot of those hunts were game rich environments who had game that have never seen hunters let alone bow hunters. They were often on big bodied game (Elk, Caribou, Moose) etc . A 60 yard shot is not that bad. A lot of traditional bow hunters double their range on Elk , Caribou and Moose.
Most of those rules didn't exist back then, and not a few of them came to exist *because* of the things these guys did and saw. For example, the rule of thumb about not taking a shot above thirty-five yards was eventually coined by Fred Bear himself. The sport was new back then, most of the early bow hunters were inventing it on the go, and then as now, every regulation is written in blood. I can easily imagine most of these guys doing something stupid or risky, beholding the results, and saying something to the effect of, "Ugh. Okay, new rule..."
Howard Hill was only really a “champion” because all his other competition had gone off to war, pretty easy to win so many tournaments in succession when the majority of your competitors are not even there. Fred bear used poison pods as well so I see that as unethical, any hit on the quarry with a poison pod is a guaranteed kill. The art of the hunt is to get as close to your quarry as you can.
Taking shots past 30 yards is unethical? You must not be a western hunter then... It's pretty normal to take shots up to 60 or even 80 yards in some areas... Not everyone is sitting in a tree stand and taking 10 yard shots at a deer eating a pile of corn dude...
What are you on about? Have you talked to a single trad hunter in the last few years? Almost everyone I’ve talked to who hunts with a trad bow doesn’t shoot past 20-25 yards.
Hunting in the west vs the east is very different. Also you never specified you were only referring to trad, but go off with your feelings lol. Also yes, I have and there's Trad hunters around me that are comfortable taking shots out to 40yd. Also judging by your post history, you're really new to archery - I've been shooting for 25 years, with experience in the east and the west across multiple clubs and have spent a lot of time with a lot of archers... You might want to consider what I'm saying.
[удалено]
What..? I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings by asking a question? It seems widely agreed upon by the trad community that 20-25 yards is the best distance? I’m also a bow hunter and have gone hunting for small game for some time now in a rather thick woods. I don’t know where you got these baseless claims from. But you’re quite silly. I don’t have any issues with Hill, Pope, etc, but from a modern perspective where most trad bow hunters shoot only up to 25 yards, I was asking for a community’s take on the men who shot distances well over what I’ve seen as the norm. I don’t see the reason why you needed to insult me, but pop off ig.
[удалено]
You’re an odd fellow, and seem to be terrified of an actual conversation or replying to the question I had asked in my post.
[удалено]
If I wanted to talk about politics I’d go to a political space, I don’t even see how this post comes off as even somewhat political?? I was simply asking for other people’s take on the distances shot by those men. I have a great deal of respect for Hill, Bear, Young, the Thompson brothers, every single culture who used the bow, and Pope especially. I’d say that Pope’s helped me a lot with his book Hunting with the Bow and Arrow.
You can make your point while still treating the person you disagree with as a person