I've always believed that attempting to take game animals with a bow and arrow is a close-range proposition. Even if the animal is unsuspecting, and even if the shooter is an experienced 'good shot' and can get decent groups on the target range all day long. I've no statistics to prove it but I think most who choose to hunt with stickbows agree with this approach. Their respect for the animals and for uncontrolled variables that affect shots more as distance increases (wind, animal movement, unseen obstacles, equipment flaws, malfunctions, etc.) weighs more than the killing urge.
So when I read the following statement from a celebrity of sorts (one of the featured shooters ina recent 'barebow' shooting DVD promoted here and at other sites) I was both amazed and disappointed. Here's the statement:
'If you can't hit the spot/kill zone out to 30 yards how can you expect to make a killing shot? I think a lot of this 'Its about getting close and mystical BS' came from the hippes in the 70's.'
What's your take? Is bowhunting simply a matter of what the individual decides (skilled or not), irrespective of what effects other variables not related to the shooter's skill can have? I don't know how to do a poll here, but the results of such a mini-survey would be very interesting.
bowhunting is a close range sport....although I suppose "close range" is subjective. even if a guy regularly takes game at 40 yards, it's still close in relationship to other forms of hunting. For me, in bowhunting, "close" would be anything ten yards and under, an average hunting shot would be anything from 15-25 yards and a long shot would be 35 yards and over.
larry
If you are comfortable at 30 yards then by all means take a shot. However I think most of us would much rather be around 15 yds.
For me target archery is seeing how far away from the target I can shoot from and still hit the bull, bowhunting is seeing how close I can get without missing.
It should be what you want it to be..........for me it is all about the stalk, and getting to within 10 or 15 yards is the challenge and the fun. Whatever happens after that doesn't really matter as much as the rest of the experience; but to each his own-Right?
Being able to group consistantly at 40 yards is good. Then when you stalk a deer up to 15 yards,your confidence will be there.
Long shots are for targets. Bowhunting is a close range sport. I believe we owe it to the animals to do our best to get close for a clean kill.
Even then we make mistakes.There are a lot more variables at 40 yards than there are at 15.Just my 2 cents. :campfire:
P.S. I've never "lost" a mortally hit animal.Neither are there any cripples by my arrows.
As mentioned above there are a lot more factors involved than accuracy. It is up to each hunter to determine their effective range based upon the conditions at hand. I like them close and have a personal preference for 17.3 yards!
QuoteOriginally posted by LV2HUNT:
As mentioned above there are a lot more factors involved than accuracy. It is up to each hunter to determine their effective range based upon the conditions at hand. I like them close and have a personal preference for 17.3 yards!
What is that in meters? :campfire:
Hunting is what it is. What I feel is different from what you feel. We shouldn't put a name to it or boundaries upon it, that is exactly what that "person" is trying to do. We are, once again, telling somone else what to do.
I guess I will get a bit snappy here. I am / was a hippie....so what.....
ChuckC :mad:
I'm sure I'll catch heck for the following statement, but IMHO (and the opinion of my former math teachers and professors): A bowhunter who can consistently take game at 15 yards is twice as good at HUNTING as a bowhunter who is only able to get within 30 yards of his quarry.
Go easy on me... :pray: :pray: :pray:
Bjorn
"It should be what you want it to be"
i completely agree! everyone is defferent, and hunting situations are all circumstantial, so like said above "It is up to each hunter to determine their effective range based upon the conditions at hand."
QuoteOriginally posted by Deadsmple:
For me target archery is seeing how far away from the target I can shoot from and still hit the bull, bowhunting is seeing how close I can get without missing.
Need anyone explain it better than this???!!! :notworthy:
-Ron
Bowhunting has always been about how close you can get, not how far you can shoot. I would say his shooting skills outshine his woodsman ship. Hopefully he can get close enough to a big game animal to hear its innerds working. Hopefully then it will click for him.
Bowhunting is a close range form of hunting, in comparison to other forms but, what is close range depends on opinion. Getting within 30 yards of a mature whitetail is a feat in itself, especially out West in some of the more open terrain. Getting closer is even more so. I always hear folks talk about the variables when shooting longer, but anytime you drop the string it's never a sure thing, even at close range. I really get amused at folks that talk about how bow hunting has always been about getting close and target shooting is about how far. You guys need to read up on the hunting excursions of many of trad archerys heralded legends and you'll see getting close wasn't always the case.
I believe we owe it to the animals we hunt,to make a clean kill.The skill of the archer should dictate his/her distance to take the shot.Mr. Wilson-Those were different times,even the old timers learned from their mistakes. Leland
The problem with the idea that folks should limit their shots to their effective range is that for most folks their effective range is a lot less than they think it is. It's one thing to shoot at targets at 30-40 yards. It's quite another to shoot at an animal at that distance. In my 40 plus years of hunting and an awful lot of state and regional tournaments, I haven't seen but a handful of folks who could shoot good groups (six arrows in a six inch circle, no fliers) at 30 yards. And, additional factors come into play when the animal is that far or farther away. Brush that the shooter didn't see, or the animal simply moving a half step while the arrow is in the air are two big ones.
Sure, people kill animals at 30-40 yards and further with trad gear, but very very few are skilled enough to do it and it always involves an element of luck in that there likely was no unseen brush in the way and the animal didn't move while the arrow was in flite. We tend not to hear about the animals that were missed or wounded at those distances. Missing and wounding occurs at closer ranges, too, of course, but the farther one is from the target, the greater that chance and errors are magnified.
QuoteOriginally posted by Dirty Bill:
QuoteOriginally posted by LV2HUNT:
As mentioned above there are a lot more factors involved than accuracy. It is up to each hunter to determine their effective range based upon the conditions at hand. I like them close and have a personal preference for 17.3 yards!
What is that in meters? :campfire: [/b]
Dirty Bill,
Good news on that front. The whole world has come to its senses and is switching over to yards, inches, and feet :D .
20 and under thats the challange
I'd like to be close enough to kill them with a knife every time, then I might never miss. Might being the big word in that statement. I've killed whitetails from two arrows length away to much further but prefer close always.
My slogan on my bows is GET CLOSE. If you are not mano a mano with the game you are hunting then IMO that is wrong. Hence the challenge. If the animal you are hunting does not the have the opportunity to hear you, see you or smell you than you are not close enough. You just out smart him to make sure he doesn't but you must do it while being close. I kind like to think I am like a cougar who has to be very smart in order to pounce on his game to make the kill and he can't do that unless he is close. I know a friend that can hit a deer at 50 yds with his compound. As great as that may sound I told my friend that IMO tha is not what the archery sport is all about. It about getting close and given the game the opportunity to detect you however, you just got to be smarter. That what it is all about.
QuoteOriginally posted by LV2HUNT:
QuoteOriginally posted by Dirty Bill:
QuoteOriginally posted by LV2HUNT:
As mentioned above there are a lot more factors involved than accuracy. It is up to each hunter to determine their effective range based upon the conditions at hand. I like them close and have a personal preference for 17.3 yards!
What is that in meters? :campfire: [/b]
Dirty Bill,
Good news on that front. The whole world has come to its senses and is switching over to yards, inches, and feet :D . [/b]
That's good to hear,because I sure wasn't goin' to change to metric.. :campfire:
U met Who????? Rick??? I'm confused?? Who's rick??? whyed you have to change him??
I believe that most of us would agree with the statement that "bow hunting is a close range sport".
I believe it is for a several reasons. I have seen excellent shots, shooting(modern bows)at six and eighty yards. Putting arrow after arrow into the bullseye. I have also seen a couple of these guys shoot at game at thirty and forty yards, under excellent conditions, have the animal take one step before the arrow arrived and produce a bad shot.
This is one of the reasons I believe it is a short range weapon, and should remain so.. Shooting stationary targets at thirty, forty, fifty, or further is a lofty and honorable goal. I agree that confidence plays an important part in all ranges of shooting, but targets don't move for the most part. There is no moral penalty for making a bad shot on a 3D, or paper target.
The natural limitations of the weapon make it a short range weapon. I too believe that it takes more skill to take game at 15-25 yards than getting within 40-50yards of game. Heck, I can get within 40-50yards a lot of the time, and even though I shoot those shots in practice frequently, I would not take it on game.
It all comes down to what is more important. I know a couple of brothers who just were awful shots at the monthly bow hunter shoots.
Yet, each year they would take a couple of really nice bucks, on the ground, stalking, at ten and fifteen yards.
While I try to balance the woodsmanship skill, with the shooting skill. Trying every day to refine each, if I had to make a choice of placing one over the other, I would take the woodsmanship skills to get closer.
Can't answer without a defined measurement of "close".
Steve
Definately.
Depends on your definition of close. For me, I've always bee of the mindset the closer the better. Even coming from a compound background and the ability hit targets at much farther distances, I still waited for a 20 yds or less shot. Which is kind of why transitioning over to trad gear makes easier sense to me, because I'm already in that close up mindset.
I'll sit there and see how far away I can hit something in the yard, but when I am hunting, I'm there to get my quarry into a range that it is tough to miss.
For me it definately is, while I am there to kill the animal, some of my fondest memories are of encounters where I never loosed an arrow but had animals so close I could literally touch them....
David
I remember earlier in the year (everything is earlier in the year at this date) a man, and I believe it was Charle Lamb, was recounting a hunt where he shot at a stationary doe at 12 or 14 yards. She turned at the shot and was gut shot. It happens even at that range. He then redemed the hunt by making a 40 yard shot to ancor her with a vital hit. His point was to not limit your self to only practice at 20 yards but much farther as we don't know when we will need it. If a man is personally confident to take an animal at 30 + yards then that is his choice without my approval needed. I'm having a hard time making that shot at 15 yards! That distance is still pretty close if you are stalking. In the east most folks don't stalk much as the ground is so noisy. We set up and wait for the critter to walk close to us. So technically we're not getting close, they are.
It is a pretty good indicator that hunting season is winding down when these type of posts start to appear.
Yesterday I was within 25yds. of four does, I was on the ground in a natural ground blind. The lead doe was getting nervous with the other deer watching her,I knew if I attempted a shot at one of the deer watching the lead doe she would spook my target animal,I passed on the shot. Getting close is good, but you have to analize the situation also.
I would ask:
How badly do you NEED to kill? Why can't you get closer? What's important(to you)?
When I answer these questions, I try to get closer. Maybe you have different answers.
Well when im hunting i want them under 20 MY comfort range.I have a problem picking a spot the further they are.But on target i have no problem at 30.
John nail nailed it !!!!
I thought hippies were in the 60's. Sure remember them back then !
If I can hit the spot at 20 everytime (almost), and I only take 20 yards or less shots, why do I have to be able to hit the spot everytime at 30 yards to make a killing shot at 20 or under ? Doesn't make sense.
Who ever said that is full of it. Puesdo- self proclaimed expert.
Who's the quoted hunter ?
It's always hard to put a number on such a subjective matter.
I personally get more satisfaction in getting super close than making the actual shot.
If everything felt right I would probably take a long shot, but to date I don't think I ever taken one longer than 12 yards, most times under 10.
I think we owe it to animal to get close based on our shooting skills. Everyones shooting skill or confidence in their shooting skills are different. It's not right to dictate to anyone how close you should be to shoot. "Close" is as far as your shooting skills allow! Those who shoot a lot of tournaments are experienced in shooting the longer distances. Those that don't or just shoot backyard, will stay within those distances. It's whats your comfortable with! Just my thoughts!
Right on Chuck.
It all comes down to this-HOW WELL DO YOU SHOOT WITH YOUR HEART IN YOUR THROUT. Controlling your adrenaline is where it counts.IMO
QuoteMr. Wilson-Those were different times,even the old timers learned from their mistakes. Leland
My point was, bow hunting hasn't always been a close shooting proposition. Did the old timers learn from their mistakes? Maybe, maybe not. And who's to say that those shots were mistakes. Very few of the archery legends are still around to say how they really feel about shot distances. What's funny is that many of the archery legends routinely took shots at animals well past what the majority would even think about today, and they are revered by many. If a modern day trad bowhunter comes on a site like this and tells of his 40 yard one shot, clean kill, he's labeled by many as being unethical for his shot selection. Not everyone has the skill and nerve to take the longer shots, but some do. Those indivuduals shouldn't be looked upon as any less of a bowhunter.
High percentage shots are what we should all strive for. ALWAYS.
Regardless of a hunters shooting skills, the farther the shot is, the lower the percentage is of making a clean, vital shot. The reasons are the same for all of us.
There is no substitute for getting close.
Bowhunting is a close range endeavor. The closer the better.
Honestly, twenty yards is a long shot at a deer.
As I said, the thread starter needs to define "close range" with a number for us to reply.
QuoteHonestly, twenty yards is a long shot at a deer.
So if you are agreeing with the premise bowhunting is a close range sport, then you are saying bowhunters should not shoot at deer at 20yds? I think more then a few may disagree with you on this.
Steve
"As I said, the thread starter needs to define "close range" with a number for us to reply." SteveB
Steve, thats a bit like saying we need to specifically define big and small when deciding what size piece of pie we want. Most of us kinda' have a ballpark feeling for such terms, relative to the subject matter at hand. But thats actually the issue here...whether "close" should relate primarily to the skill of the archer...or should there more thought involved.
Another way to look at the question might be to pose it in terms of skill level relative to consequence at the personal level. Just for discussion lets say you agree with the celebrity that 30 yards should be an 'easy' shot for a savvy hunting archer pursuing deer (a valued and respected game animal). Now lets say we have a little shooting contest using your favorite bird dog and longtime family pet (an animal you intrinsically value) where contestants can earn a $500 prize if they can knock a grapefruit off the dog's head with a broadhead, at "close range". In that situation, where value and consequence beyond simple shooting skill and 'opinion' is at stake, would you feel comfortable having your dog standing at 30 yards while you take that shot? Would you feel more comfortable at 20 yards? How about at 10 yards? And then, how would you feel if someone else, someone who was personally confortable and confident shooting at say 45 yards, was next in line for a try. He's pretty darned sure he can do it...and there's your dog standing out there with that grapefruit sitting on his head, and theres you watching to see the outcome. That's really what we are wondering about, isn't it? Theres a situation where if the shooter truly DOES hit what he says and THINKS he can then there's no problem...but where the possibilities and consequences of if he DOESN'T are very real indeed...at least for the dog. And for anyone who values the dog.
So I guess the real question is...should bowhunting be ALL about personal preference and convictions, or is there an intangible risk factor associated with the animal itself and its effect on others, that deserves to be considered? Assuming, of course, that the hunter/shooter isn't a straight-out slob.
So once again here we are. Should bowhunting (attempting to kill game animals) be a close-range affair? How far is 'too far', really?
There are so many variables when it comes to hunting, for example, I would rather shoot at a calm unalerted deer at 20-25yrds than one that is wired to the max at 8yrds or less.
Chris
"Bowhunting is a close range form of hunting, in comparison to other forms but, what is close range depends on opinion. Getting within 30 yards of a mature whitetail is a feat in itself, especially out West in some of the more open terrain. Getting closer is even more so. I always hear folks talk about the variables when shooting longer, but anytime you drop the string it's never a sure thing, even at close range. I really get amused at folks that talk about how bow hunting has always been about getting close and target shooting is about how far. You guys need to read up on the hunting excursions of many of trad archerys heralded legends and you'll see getting close wasn't always the case."
Agree, could not have said it better my self! :thumbsup: :clapper:
I would not shoot at the grapefruit at any distance - I will not loose an arrow at anything other then a 110% safe target or something I am trying to kill. So what you present is an invalid comparison to me.
Hunting is a close range sport. But everyone's defination of close is different - and obviously affected greatly by their skill level and thier motives for hunting.
This stuff gets overthought way too much. No shot will ever be 100% - threads every year are posted of mutiple misses at distances well under 20 yds or what should be close range. Replies usually encourage to keep shooting and it will happen. What is never mentioned is that no one will go from multiple misses to 100% kills - anyone honest would admit to having as or nearly as many wounds as misses.
If someone's true kill/miss/wound ratio who shoots to 40(pick a number) is the same or lower then one who shoots to 12, they are the same in my eyes - hunters who stay within thier limitations without me or anyone else having the right to suggest they are doing anything wrong.
Steve
QuoteOriginally posted by Deadsmple:
For me target archery is seeing how far away from the target I can shoot from and still hit the bull, bowhunting is seeing how close I can get without missing.
I kind of like this one myself....
This sport is a very personal sport for many folks out there...there are a wide range of options on what it means to you too....
i had a ball this year spending my entire elk hunting season trying to put the sneak on them, with out ever taking a shot....( When i wasn't practicing climbing trees....) To shoot, or not to shoot, lies within each persons own conscience and abilities....you can get all bogged down and argue till dooms day about ethics....i don't even like to use the word anymore myself....i do believe its important to watch how you present yourself in the public eye. I'm not sure the word "Bow Hunter" does much more than describe a weapon of choice anymore....i certainly enjoy the traditional archery crowd a lot more than the high tech archers though.....
but i'm sure their are plenty of guys using traditional equipment that are the excitable type too, that see game and start launching arrows all over gods creation.... I've seen some darn good target shooters that just fall to pieces when live game is in their presence....its almost comical....their are many who claim to be bow hunters and archers that should really be taken with a grain of salt....
look inside yourself, talk to the lord, or the great spirit that inhabits all living things...the answers are within my friend....
Or as a modern day version puts it, "Use the force Luke"......
Boy there is some good stuff flying on this tread! a bunch of you guys got it going on IMO...
:clapper: :clapper: :clapper:
"I would not shoot at the grapefruit at any distance - I will not loose an arrow at anything other then a 110% safe target or something I am trying to kill. So what you present is an invalid comparison to me." SteveB
You either don't understand the basic point being made, Steve, or you are purposely choosing to avoid it. But no matter, this is an open discussion and all of it is good food for thought.
Personally my very first concern would be for the 'safety' of the dog/animal. If it were a deer I'd want it safely dead. Thats far more likely as arrow travel distance/ trajectory/ speed/ reaction time are favorable for the hit, yes? Not a guarantee of success, mind you. But still far more likely. I mean, If I'm good at 30 then I'm probably REALLY good at 10 or 15, right? Why gamble? Why not increase the odds.
Remember those top-of-the-circle jumpshots that were so much fun back in high school? No 3-point line then...just 'long jumpers'...ya, I'm old. Way out beyond the circle line, elevate, square up, follow-through, 'swish'. Excellent practice for general shooting form. But during the game coach wanted close shots. Higher-percentage shots. Higher likelihood of a favorable outcome. Layups and dunks were (and still are) the bread and butter for a sure thing. Any idea why that might be?
I still like to watch those long-range bombs. But logic says the money shot is the off-the-board finger roll. Getting close.
I would say avoiding it - reason being I would hold the value of my dog way higher then an animal I am hunting. Some/many may not agree with me on that, but that is the way I feel and why I said invalid to me.
Of course the goal is always a clean kill - as it is with my example of 2 hunters with similar miss/wound/kill ratios with vast differences in range limitations. Is one hunter more right in their personal limitations then the other? Results are the same. If so, then why?
Steve
If it's the write I am thinking of...he values his skill way too much.
At best, the shooter is one third of the shot equation. When you can explain to me how you control the other two-thirds of the equation (the target adn the environment), I will support your ability to take whatever shot you are comfortable with.
Until then, longer shots present more chance for a bad outcome. We should all stack the deck as heavily in favor of the right outcome as we can, considering we are talking about the taking of a life.
Jeff - so what is the distance limit that stacks the deck acceptably? Will it not be different as in my example?
Thanks
Steve
Absolutely. It will vary.
Your skill is only one variable, and basing your shot distance on that variable alone is going to land you in the soup.
Me, I'm not comfortable with anything beyond 25 yards. Too much 'green' as we used to say over the pool table.
For me..anything more than 25 yards is a hail mary...but it amazes me that some of the people I think of as bowhunting GODS would shoot out to 70 yards at game.
Best
Bob
As a bowhunter I pride myself in "How close I can get" As a hunter I know inside of 20 yards a lot of things happen I really can't control.. They are much more likely to get spooked at my draw, they are more likely to jump the string due to the bow noise. As well as my adrenalin "Really" starts pumping when I am that close.
Coming to draw at the 20-30 yard range I am less likely to alert the animal, and unless my "Death Harp" is really loud, the sound is less likely to cause a "Jump" Now if the critter is behaving himself by either standing still, or moving steadily at an even pace, I really like the 20-30 yard ops, and will try and set up accordingly.. I have hunted with some guys who through both their shooting and woodsman abilities are totally confident in shots well past that, and I will not belittle them for it.
Likewise I will not limit myself to shots under 20.
Good posts TSP !!!!!
There will always be those who just can't get it, or, don't want to.
Bowhunting should be about what you want it to be as others have said. I don't think there's anything wrong if a person can shoot well inside 20 yards and wants to limit themselves to close high percentage shots. For me bowhunting will always be about the challenge and excitement of getting close to my quarry.
That said, being able to shoot well at longer distances does show that your form is consistent and consistent form will help when making close shots at game under pressure. I think Paul Schafer said he practiced shooting at long distances because it made the short shots fell like pot shots.
I believe it is purely down to conscience and heart. If you truly believe you can make a near to perfect shot at the distance you choose, then good for you. But if you miss or cripple the animal and it can't be recovered, would you be happy? I'm not specifying any distance here, because everyone has a different view as to what that distance is. It is surely up to everyone of us to be the best we can be at the distance we choose. We have an ethical obligation to make a clean kill, and be beyond reproach from those who would stop us doing what we love.
So far there's been some good exchanges here, from both sides of the fence. Interesting views, calmly presented (yay for us!) and certainly none quite as radical as the original 'celebrity' statement (see initial post).
My impression is that some (Group 1) see the animal primarily as they do an inanimate target...a challenge or perhaps as a means to wave a flag signifying their shooting skill...nothing more or less than that. Others (Group 2) place more pre-shot thought on the probable disposition of the animal (dead, wounded, missed) as if the animal is in a sense an active and valued 'competitor' deserving its due (gamesmanship, deference to its right to fair treatment). Still others (Group 3) might regard the outcome (post-shot) as entirely secondary in their thought process, or maybe even inconsequential, prefering to focus on the hunt rather than a kill.
I have to say I can identify at some level with the latter two groups but not with the first group (the celebrity theory). There is no logical reason to choose the bow as a HUNTING weapon if the primary objective is long-range accuracy or a steak on the table. There are far more effective ways to do that and far 'safer' methods to reduce risk and adverse consequence. As for the flag-waving, that shouldbe reserved for target competition.
I created this thread to make you take a closer (pun intended) look at what you, as well as your peers/mentors, really value within the traditional/'barebow' arena. Self-reflection can be a healthy thing. Looks like its working.
Good job TSP and a nice summary.
I hit and miss at 6 or 60 steps. Its a matter of timing; and the factors of the hunt. For instance; when I bear hunt; I set up for shots under 15 steps. When I am whitetail hunting; I set up for shots at 20 and under.
When muledeer hunting or elk hunting; my shot ranges will be what they turn out to be.
I do not practice at 20 yards; I like to rove; and shoot at whatever I think I can positively hit. That ussually turns out to be 33 steps.
How many yards that is- I don't know and don't care.
What I care about is if I am hitting what I aim at.
Nor do I want anyone to judge me based on the distance of my shots- or to judge those in the past...like P&Y.
I like to get close; but close is relative to the situtation. A person that lives and hunts in thick brush; is just not going to shoot at the same ranges as those that live in the desert.
I hope 2008 is not the year we start making decisions for others about shot distances!
Like I said... I don't shoot at known ranges- do you?
:archer:
PS: 'Larry247' member # 10835 ......is MR Chuck :D :thumbsup:
Vaughn great answer brother you aced it as far as I'm concerned, aced it