Trad Gang
Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: boznarras on December 20, 2009, 08:05:00 PM
-
I just finished reading Bowhunting for Deer, by H.R.Wambold, copyright 1964. This book was mentioned on a thread here in July on reading material suggestions, and I found it in our library. He talks about hunting with Howard Hill, and the preface is written by Fred Bear. Big credentials for sure.
It was interesting to see what has changed, as well as what hasn't. An example of a constant is that he really emphasizes the often heard (and still valid) mantra, "Pick a Spot". He also tells us to sharpen our broadheads shaving sharp. Many other things are very familiar.
On the other hand, something that did surprise me were his tales of taking shots at 40, 50, 60 yards on deer, sometimes on running deer. :confused: He felt it better to shoot at 40 yards on an incoming deer than let it get too close, and then see you. 20 yards was related as too close. This was not just his personal practice, but what he suggested to the reader. (BTW, he was using a 50lb recurve with 28 inch cedar shafts with Hilbre heads.)
I don't have any trad archers here to compare notes with, so I am bringing this to the campfire. :saywhat: which again is a shot I would just choose to pass on.
I did enjoy the book but, as always, have to temper what it said with my own thoughts; "A man has to know his limitations" as Dirty Harry said. Just wondering what is common amongst TradGangers. I won't be taking those shots, will you? Was this once more common, is it common now, or was this just Mr. Wambold talking (or bragging)?
-
You're not going to find many here that take shots much over 20 yards on game with our gear, most seem to make it a rule to stay under 20. I guess there was just a different mindset then. Call it "Evolutionary Ethics". I also understand that big bame was nowhere near as plentiful as now, so I suppose waiting for what we consider high percentage, ethical shot opportunities could be tough on a hunters patience. Just a different time I guess.
-
The book was written in the mid 50's, and published in 1960, so they were still in the learning process. Again, we have the luxury of hindsight, and can be a little bit arrogant towards their escapades. Just remember, it's good to know where we came from, and guys like H.R. "Dutch" Wambold helped get us there, whether or not it conforms to our ethics quotient now. We know those shots are inadequate in the long run, because they tried them.
If you could have talked to Dutch later in his life before he died (at too early an age), he would have a different story, more than likely.
Take those books for the era in which they were written, and try to imagine yourself in their place, before we knew what we know today. I'm just sayin'......you weren't around back then.
-
It was very common. I have had the good fortune of spending many hours on phone and in person, and hunting with some great bowhunters who had been doing for a very long time. Guys like Fred Anderson, Bruce Witzel, Chuck Jones, Deano
Farkas. To a man they have told me that 40-50 yard shots were common. Fred said where he hunted in the North West long shots were what you got and you had better been good with them or no meat in the locker.
I was with Deano one day and we spotted a nice fat doe in the field a good 45-50 yards away and he offered me the shot and I said it was too far for me. Ho got between some small trees along the trail, canted that bow and launched an arrow from his recurve and put it right in her.
It is what you practice. Fred said he practiced out to sixty five yards on his property all the time.
When I went hunting in Montana for Elk I practiced out to 45 yards all the time and was very comfortable taking that shot with my longbow.
Stump shooting at distance, roving, is probably the best practice overall. And I found I could routinely hit something like a pine cone on a bank or a tip of a rotted stump doing so all the time.
I prefer close shots, it is what all bowhunters strive for. But those that practice and live the game will take long shots without hesitation and bring home the meat.
JMHO
-
i personally would never shoot a deer going away unless i was hungry and it was last resort ! moving yes i can do that, 50 yrds yes that can happen , would i suggest anyone shoot anything they think they won't clean kill --- no that won't happen!i've killed poorly at 10 yrds,i hated it but it happened. to know your shot and confidence in the shot is what makes the shot . from 10k years till now we kill we eat and we have compassion for our pray ! do your best and the best is done.
-
It was not uncommon for shots in the 40+ yard range to be considered desireable back in the 50's. Bear, Pearson, Hiil, Wambold, Dougherty , Lee....almost anyone who was big in bowhunting back then did it and wrote about it on a routine basis. I even saw a movie where Ben Pearson shot a javie at 100 yards! One thing about Wambold, however, is that he had a column in one of the magazines back then and he became very fond of the Black Copperhead Slicer broadheads and pretty much stopped using all others in favor of them. I followed him closely as a kid and remember how much he liked those Slicers. I still have a few of them that I got just because he was so positive about them.
Another thing to remember about those days was that most all tournaments were Field Archery and not 3D. We shot four arrows at 28 targets all the way from 10 feet to 80 yards. After shooting at 80 yards 40 was a piece of cake for most of us so seeing a deer in that range and taking a shot was not considered to be unethical or even unusual. A 25 yard shot that you missed was an embarrassment. Tree stands were rarely in use then unless you actually went out and built a wooden platform.
It is true however that some things have not changed. Sharp broadheads, picking a spot, tuning your equipment, hunting with the wind....the basics are still the same. The biggest change and it is a paradoxical one is that trad equipment is better than it ever was but accurate shooting distances have shrunk from 30-40 yards to 10-20 yards. Go figure!
As for the accuracy of those who took long shots....I hunted at Mike Palmer's a few years ago. We are both "old timers". We talked some about hunts and I told him I took a caribou at a paced 55 yards. He grinned and said he had done that, as well, except that his was a running shot! I have to say, but am not necessarily encouraging it, but some guys, like Paul Shaefer, Barry Wensel, John Schultz, Ferguson (and I wonder about Ron Leclair) and others, have taken game on a routine basis with shots that many of us would consider unethical in terms of distance. The long game is not a game for everyone, but there are guys out there that can do it and do do it.
-
Congrats Walter. You have drawn the line in the sand. This sport is about accountability to the game, each other, our laws, and the nonhunting public. It is our responsibility to self moderate as you have done. The "shoot/no shoot" switch in our brain has to be tempered with our conscience. The game deserves that level of respect. The nonhunting public expects that of us. Shooting a running animal at thirty yards between the tail and the porthole is not my idea of a great shot. (I know that isn't what was said, but if each is alright, why not add a few more challenges to the mix?) Where does one stop? Well, if one doesn't know then they are an extremely good archer, lucky, are just haven't taken a personal inventory.
A couple of things. I think we have evolved in many ways in this sport. We have learned more about anatomy, refined equipment, processed a more suitible education system, and developed a better understanding of our abilities and those of our bows. Honestly, during the golden age of field archery, there was a lack of understanding in the sport. Those took to the hunting fields and saw no reason why they shouldn't shoot at game 75 yards away. They were proficient at that range with field targets, but it didn't dawn on them that game moved, sometimes a lot, from release to impact.
This brings me to a point that I feel we are more educated hunters, not necessarily more ethical than our forefathers. I feel like you are on track to understanding and living within your abilities. Good job.
-
You have a conscience don't you.Plain and simple reply, do what you can live with.
-
There in lies the answer to the question posed. Where do you hunt, how often do you practice. How far away do you practice regularly. Knowing when to take the shot is probably one of the toughest things to learn. Distance is relative to your abilities.
Western bowhunters have a different game many times than their eastern counterparts. Are you in a treestand, or on the ground?
While all things evolve, and bow hunting most certainly has, many things stay the same as said in previous posts. I believe a lot of things have been learned but I do not believe for a second that we are more savvy of what our equipment can do than our forefathers. Were there incompetents in the woods in the so called golden Age, sure. There are a h@ll of a lot more of them now.
These types of questions have brought many a campfire conversation into the wee hours.
What do you practice, how does the shot feel to you? Can you read the quarry and know when the time to loose is upon you. Shooting anything moving was always a foolish thing to me until one day at 15 yards I had a nice buck trailing a doe while I was on the ground undetected and swung with him, lead him just a little for his pace and loosed and made a nice shot.
It felt right, I knew I was on it. I did not think at all about the shot and don't hardly remember what the heck I did.
Don't be afraid of a shot, but don't shoot if you have not the confidence to make it.
It is different for every man, and every shot is its own story.
-
I think hunting distance is more relative to the hunting situation than your abilities. If you shoot sixty yards regularly, and are able to shoot a four inch group at that range, it does not mean that the game is going to be in the same place when the arrow arrives home. Then one hopes for a miss over a poor wound. Even if you can read game better than Walt Disney, you can't account for everything a critter does in the woods. I have seen game jump, or run or duck for no obvious reason in the wild. If a deer can jump a string at 15 yards from a 300 fps compound, i am not sure they will be in the right place at forty yards shooting 200 fps.
-
I'm sure all the archery pioneers that have been mentioned could out shoot me blind folded, so I'm not trying to question their archery skills, but don't assume that just because these guys regularly practiced at long range that they didn't take lousey shots.
A year or two ago I wrote a letter to the editor at TBM. It was in response to an article they ran recounting a hunt of Fred Bear. In the article Fred described all kinds of crazy shots- at night with flash lights, through thick brush, cold fingers...etc. I commented on how poor the shots were and was surprised TBM thought it a good story to print. My letter was printed followed by a response from TJ Conrads pretty much giving me a tongue lashing for questioning their editorial practices and the actions of archery's pioneers.
These folks bagged a lot of animals in their day, they also wounded many. I think I could have a lot more game to my credit if I went out with a quiver full of arrrows and shot at pretty much anything I could arc an arrow at. Some I would miss, some I would wound, and a certain percent would die.
I understand it was a different time and era, and hindsight is 20/20, but I can't help but think these guys should have known better with some of their shots. How to shoot a deer from the rear (aim between the tail and anus)???? huh??
-
The entire culture in America has changed from the 50's and 60's until now, so there should be no surprise that bowhunting would change also. One of the first archery books I ever read (the title and author of which is long forgotten) stated that the mentality of the sport had changed from one of "many arrows in the air", where an archer wouldn't dare leave on a week long hunt without 10 to 15 dozen arrows, to one of "one shot - one kill". Just an example of how things change over time.
Ethically, I believe one is bound by his ability. For me, that precludes shots on game at distances much beyond 20 yards. If however, I could shoot as accurately at say 80 yards as I can at 20, I would have no quelms about taking a shot that long. It is only unethical to shoot at any range if it is beyond your ability to CONSISTENTLY make a clean, one shot kill. We all have to decide for ourselves what that range is.
-
You have got to show me that todays trad bowhunters have got more ethics or gained more knowledge. What was the recovery rate then compared to now. There are a couple of studies done on military base hunts that have a pretty depressing recovery rate (IMO)
Maybe we have just dumbed down the sport to the point that we can barely hit the kill zones at 20 yds.
rusty
-
I believe close was the goal, for all the greats and all the other greats that have never been written about. There are a lot of them.
They took dozens of arrows with them on hunts because they would hunt everything when they hunted, small game especially, crows. Ducks, geese. Whatever flew slithered crawled ran or swam.
They would go into the field set up a base camp and hunt for a week, two weeks, a month or more.
They hunted mostly from the ground or a natural blind and they did not just fling arrows in the air.
Some did of course, some still do whether they are hunting from fifteen yards from a tree stand or for that monster buck that walks across the field at fifty yards.
Most of these men were very conciencious about what they did and lived to hunt the field and glade. They knew their equipment intimately, often made all or most of it and could shoot like no buddies buisness.
Yes they often would shoot longer shots, but most only did so having the confidence they could.
-
Please let's put the 40s, 50s, and 60s in perspective. Field archery was the big game in town and 10-80 yard shots were common place in field archery. I still remember shooting the 80 yard target barebow style and what a thrill it was to hit in the scoring area. So it was natural for those archers to attempt longer shots than we do now. And of course they practiced these shots week in and week out so were a lot more proficient at them than we would be.
-
The North American Field Arhcery Championship were held Dec 12-13.
there were
6 longbows
1 Adult bowhunter recurves
4 veteran bowhunter recuves
out of the entire USA. I think that about says it all.
On the other hand the IBO trad championship did not exaclty blow the doors off with attendence.
?????
rusty
-
Remember, as a rule, they hunted from the ground, not treestands. It's easy to say you never shoot from past 20 when you only hunt from trees and are able to avoid detection.
In the last few years I have started practicing longer range shooting. It's not impossible. I also use a rangefinder if possible.
I have actually had success while having failures at some of the very close shots I seem to set up. When you're on the ground it's amazing how fast they react when you're under 5 yards and try to shoot.
-
Champion field archer or not -- you are going to wound more than you kill at those ranges---and thats going to get to your consciencence sooner or later, if you have any respect for the animal. I have taken several of these kind of shots as a young man--thankfully they all missed cleanly, BUT there was one I did wound,and watch hobble off--that was 40yrs ago, and I can still see it clearly and am sicken by it now,even more than I was than. Its not the kind of Hunting memories we want to have--they will haunt us, even though we suppress the it. The more we hunt, the older we get, the greater our reverance for life becomes -- Dannybows, description of it as an "evolution of ethics" about sums it up. -- an evolution taking place in the individual and community.
-
A couple of things we often seem to forget in these discussions.. One is that a deer is far more likely to react (Jump the string) at a close range shot than at greater distanced one. (Say the 40 yard range). Even a noisy bow is subdued at longer ranges.
Second is the fact that many of our bowhunting fore fathers were 10 times the woodsman most of us are today. Consequently they were confident in recovering their game even on marginal hits.
I think to assume we are some how more educated in hunting than they were is pure folly.. Most of us get our education in our living rooms reading magazines (there is a joke) or on the internet. They actually got theirs in the field, doing everything from trapping, fly fishing and bow hunting, and probably mentored under someone who actually did hunt for subsistence, a true predator
-
Chuck - I don't know where you get the stats to back up..
"Champion field archer or not -- you are going to wound more than you kill at those ranges---and thats going to get to your consciencence sooner or later...."
this statement.
There is a very good trad bow hunter in northern Idaho that has a range well out side of 20 yds on mule deer and elk. His recovery rate is remarkable. I have a picture of a 100 yd group he shot that will about explain everything to you.
I don't think you guys have any numbers to back it up with facts. I will sure agree that the general trad bowhunter can't hold the KZ at 40 yds but there are some that can. do you have data backing up the fact that those bowhunters have a greater non-recovery rate???
rusty
-
I am ready to be corrected about the time line; but the Thompson brothers; confederate soldiers - started using bows way back after the civil war; and wrote about it.
There was a lot of tournament archery going on; and it was not gender based- a lot of women shot bows and they shot at long distances.
When Ishi turned himself in; the bows that Pope and Young used were not like what Ishi used. They used the bow of the day; which was a longbow.
Long range shooting was common then; it was Ishi that was a hunter; and whose love of the woods: dragged Pope and Young into his world.
But they did not hunt up close like Ishi did; and it wasn't until later that Fred Bear got tired of his longbow snagging branches and such - and was then involved in the birth of the 'bush bow' a shorter bow meant for hunting.
Fred took long shots; and shots that worked perfectly well but would be frowned on now.
But - he was a hunter; and that was the fascination about him.
I asked him what he wanted to be remembered for in the future; and I was really thinking something all earthy and traditional. He thought for several minutes and said for the words " pick a spot".
That means a lot in bowhunting ! Not what I expected - but really important.
Seeing him up close and personal with a brown bear-- really got peoples attention.
The bows became shorter; and easier to use while hunting. Fred invented a bow quiver; making going under and through brush a little easier.
His appeal though was his hunting; and his modest way of going about it.
Hill on the other hand was a showman; and yes he hunted; but he was a different type of character.
Nothing wrong with either.
I see the Wensels being more 'Bear' than 'Hill'; and Ron LaClair being more 'Hill' than 'Bear'
Archery shooting fell out of favor - it was all the rave at one time; and although it never stopped; bowhunting became the more powerful of the two.
If you ask yourself; 'how do you know what the right shot placement is- gotta figure some things were learned through experience.
A lot of it you don't want to know about. But the result is that we now hunt more like Ishi than anyone else.
Up close and careful.
Animals to Ishi were living things to be respected for having a life and place on earth; and I think white people came into bowhunting- via the concept of shooting targets at different ranges; and then transferred their thinking to the targets they hunted.
It was Bear that steered us back 'on path' (in my opinion).
There have been bowhunters for thousands of years; and 'we' are new to it really. Still finding our way.
I watched a 'bowhunting show' tonight; where they sat around laughing hard at the blood pumping out of a huge hole in an whitetail- as it ran off ('its like shoving an axe through an animal !!) - then laughing when the deer fell.
Then the comment was made: ' the only thing that is better than shooting a big buck is watching it happen again and again- with your friends'.
See we are still evolving; because I found what they said: to be very revolting.
-
There have already been, and probably always will be, many good points made upon which to ponder.
Just to add a bit more to the assortment, and highlighted by mention of using a range finder, is that plugging organized shooting events into the equation, with familiar known distances, is an entirely different animal than being able to judge “long-distance” shots off the top of your head, in unfamiliar surrounds.
Personally, that is some of my favorite type shooting and I do it as often as I can, but I do not take such shots at game. The present atmosphere, non-hunting public aside, simply does not justify/arouse any need in me to make meat beyond more conservative distances…but I would be less than satisfied if did not know my limits, should some true need arise.
Were any of the older stories exaggerated or not?...kind of parallels even today’s level of competitiveness in many venues; it’s the credibility of witnesses that comes into play. Some probably should be given their due…but many we will never know for sure. Myths, legend, and folklore have their place…better they inspire, than spawn endless questionable debate.
What we have to draw from the past relies much on written accounts, almost always having promotional value of some sort. Influence of the “Two Season Hunter” campaign, gaining archery seasons, drawing from more immediate histories of the day, glorifying what was viewed to be accomplishments…the entire setting of which we speak, I’m sure, offered more tasty bones of contention than are likely to be available today. The positive is where we find it…as it was then.
Wound rates are always speculative…even recent data I’ve seen is suspect…but it always has been more of an unspoken truth and less apt to be the highlight of any story. Respect/reverence for the game…well, if I thought more needed to be said then I would be speaking to the wrong people. What has greatly influenced me from younger days, sending arrows at small game, is a single purpose that has to be satisfied before choosing to loose the arrow, “End the chase.”
Soon enough, we will be “the past”…and we, too, will be judged. Do the best you can with what you’ve got...give the future a break. Rick.
-
Shoot within your confident range, not based on what others do.It may be shorter than discussed or longer. Be comfortable with your equipment, know what you can do. Hunt small game a lot. Rove thru the woods with blunts or judos. Practice at longer distances makes you a better shot at all ranges.
Shoot at game only when you as a hunter are confident that you can make the shot. That is our responsibility.
-
Well said.
-
A deer wounded at 40 yards is no less wounded at 10. Distance is not the issue. Total respect for the animal is. That means you'll secure the animal if hit. That reigns in a bunch of folks doesn't it myself included?
No worthy ethical hunter would ever carelessly lose an animal. Limiting distance shots should improve percentage; however, no less than woods skills, practice, equipment, & confidence, as well as tracking & recovery. Some hunters are better shots at 30 yards than others at 10. It is your responsibility as hunter what setup, skills, distance, & judgement will ethically allow.
-
Originally posted by straitera:
A deer wounded at 40 yards is no less wounded at 10. ...
I can't agree with that because the percentage of wounding an animal at 40 yards is so much higher for reasons mentioned above. I do agree with the points regarding how important it is for recovery of a wounded animal. Whatever it takes.
I was face to face with this issue hunting elk this fall. A nice 6x6 broadside at 45 yards for 20 minutes. 20 minutes is a long time to watch a nice bull and have to hold off.
Thing was, he knew I was there. I was caught out in the open. He had his eye on me the whole time. Not alarmed, but if I 'd flung an arrow I couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't have become so and jumped the string.
Every time I start to regret not shooting at that animal I go out and pace off 45 yrds and the regret goes away.
Joshua
-
Joshua, read my post above. You did what every hunter needs to do. Choose you actions based on the circumstances, your knowledge of the game, your limitations.
You did the ethical thing, we have all made these choices.
-
I read The Witchery of Archery by Maurice Thompson. They regularly shot at flying birds. Sometimes at 100 yds or more. If they could see it, they shot at it. Shot deer at night then let the dog loose on it. Go to the swamps & take several dozen arrows for a month log hunt. They were also very happy if they hit there game. Much like we are today. Times were different. Were they right? They were for the times.
-
You all need to keep this in mind, all those stories were writen for entertainment value. A 50 yard shot sounded a lot better then a 25 yard shot in print. Yeah those guys told a lot of long shots but I bet they stretched the truth just a wee bit most of the time.
-
Originally posted by killinstuff:
You all need to keep this in mind, all those stories were writen for entertainment value. A 50 yard shot sounded a lot better then a 25 yard shot in print. Yeah those guys told a lot of long shots but I bet they stretched the truth just a wee bit most of the time.
What? You mean a hunter telling a Huntin' story, that never happens. :saywhat: I agree that for print the stories probably were exaggerated. Heck a lot of people stretch their stories just for their buddies.
All that aside, if it doesn't feel right don't shoot, no matter how close or how far. On the other hand if it feels right go for it. I like to keep it inside 20 yds. but I've taken game at ranges longer than that, but I follow my consience and shoot if it feels right. I never know the distance until after I shoot.
I'm no expert by anymeans but those are my thoughts.
-
They were great shots, and not near as politically correct as we are. You can put an arrow on a dime at 100 yd. but you can't know what the animal will do while the arrow is on the way. I do think many of them were top notch hunters, trackers, and woodsmen so they could handle a marginal hit and make it pay off. I will give them a few more yards for that and their shooting skill. Most unsuspecting game will not jump the string in a quiet bow much over 30 yd. Sometimes a 30 yd. shoot is better than 20 if you can make the shot. They were good and I would not think bad of them shooting 40-50 yd. on a calm animal feeding with a good shot angle, and plenty of time and space to follow it up. Past that and I have to say it was not ethical.
I have heard a lot about the out west hunting. I don't know about that and I wonder if an elk jumps a string like a whitetail. I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I am a little surprised, pleasantly, that I don't read more about 30-40 yd. shots on TG on elk. They seam like a big target for a proficient shot. I am very impressed when all you guys shoot them at very close range along with all other out west game. Looks like it can be done to me. I guess we have some better hunter in the here and now maybe than the back then.
We are different hunters now and it is a good thing. Back then I think there were a lot fewer bow hunter than now. When I was a kid I knew a lot of people that shot bows, but few that really hunted much if at all. If every bow hunter today shoot arrow at anything they could see, we would not have much to hunt. Most compound shooter I know limit their shots to about 30-40 yd. max even if they have a lot longer target range accuracy.
I think you can chalk it up to the mentality of the white man that hunted most things in this country to near extinction in a lot of areas. They had no respect for animals at all for the most part. It has taken may years to get past that thinking. We don't want to go over board with that like the tree huggers, but I think we are in a better place than the early pioneers of modern bow hunting. I think many of us today have more the mentality of the Indians. We respect and value the animals much more as a whole.
As for me, arrows are too hard to come by to shoot a few dozen of them off in the great beyond in hope of hitting something. I lose just one arrow in a season and I am bummed out. I lose an animal and I never forget it.
-
Cj: Unless you were around during those days your points are mere conjecture. There were many films of the greats that showed them making those long shots and it was not always "for entertainment value"....the pictures don't lie. Anyone remember Fred Bear shooting his tiger in India, for example, or Jim Dougherty's moose? How about Bill Shatner shooting a running grizzly on American Sportsman?....or the amazing running shots on some of the early Wensel videos?
Back when there was field archery tournaments every weekend judging distance sort of became second nature. Estimating distances out to 60 yards or so and being off by only a yard or two was not an uncommon skill...one that I have had and lost. Here in the northeast those long shots at game that were missed had more to do with the brush deflecting an arrow than lack of skill or game movement. Hunting field edges was also practiced more than it is now. It was also a pretty popular past time to shoot woodchucks in the summer. Taking and making shots in the 40-50 yard range was not all that uncommon.
Things have changed...better equipment, but.......!
-
One thing I've noticed after reading several hundred articles from that era is that there is a near total lack of tales regarding wounding and not recovering game. It seems they either killed or missed cleanly. Then again, today's outdoor writing is much the same way.
Does this mean folks didn't wound anything back then (or now, for that matter)? Of course not. If a guy wounds three deer at 60 yards and then kills one, guess which animal you'll read about after his typewriter goes silent.
Call it a byproduct of promoting bowhunting as a humane pastime, or just chalk it up to human nature. Either way, I have a very difficult time believing those folks were that much better than good shooters today, especially since national championship results are still available via archive from that era.
As a group, bowhunters have learned a lot since then. And we should be thankful for those who paved the way for us. But one thing we can't do is judge yesterday's actions by today's ethical standards.
-
Rusty said "...we can barely hit the kill zones at 20 yds".
That works for me. If I can keep doing just this amount I will pile up a huge amount of carcasses every year and keep my freezer full all the time!
-
For the most part, animals are safe from me at those kinds of distances. There are plenty of folks that are quite competent at those distances when shooting targets. I'm not one of them (or at least not consistent enough to be one of them).
-
I'm not a field archer. I'm a hunter. The area I hunt rarely offers a shot of over 25 yards...too much brush, limbs, etc. I don't practice beyond that distance very often unless I'm stump shooting. I can easily hit the kill zone at 20-25 yards because that is where most of my practice shots take place and most of my shots at game will be inside that distance. If the game I hunted and the area required it, I'd practice at longer ranges, and I'm confident I would be able to hit the kill zone at whatever range I needed to.
Fred Bear left Zwickeys and Razorheads stuck in trees all over the world. He thought nothing of practicing with broadheads because he had a pretty ready supply of them. I've seen film of him shooting at a big maple leaf stuck to a tree. Those arrows may still be there! Fred was a good hunter. He was a fair target archer, not great. I don't know that he was that much better hunter than we are now. He had a lot more opportunities than most of us could ever dream of. He also had some great guides along on many of his hunts. That would be pretty nice too...probably aided in the recovery part.
It's kind of funny that some people think it was fine for the hunters of the 50s and 60s took long shots at running game, yet have a fit when Tred Barta does it. Tred may not be the world's best archer, but he has shot ducks and geese on the fly with a longbow and has taken more big game with a longbow than most of us could ever imagine as well. His misses or miscues don't get cut, so he doesn't always look good, which is both his blessing and his curse.
To answer the original question, I'll probably stick with 25 yards or less at stationary or at most walking game.
-
I have noticed watching Tred Barta's shots ( where else can I see trad shooting) that he very often hits brush and misses.
If you hunting in thick stuff; close up is in order; but out here where I hunt there is nothing over a deers ankle to worry about.
Not that that I am excusing poor shots- its I have hunted in Michigan and Wisconsin with a bow; and I have hunted here in Idaho with a bow .. and to sit in a Michigan thicket; and make a judgment about shooting distances 'out west' - especially after hunting in one place over the other for decades is kind of prejudiced.
When it comes to elk- my killing shots on elk have all been at the 20 yards or less range.
Elk have bones that are thick and strong; and in my opinion the kill zone on an elk is only slightly bigger than on a whitetail. A shot that would kill a whitetail will often not kill an elk.
I have seen in Michigan ( I think 'Michigan Bowhunters' organization) where members recorded where animals were hit; and how far they ran before expiring; and their is a correlation; in that the further the distance of the shot; the further the distance the animal runs.
When you can see the animal you hit run 20 yards before it disappears into the brush- well its different than being able to see it run for a mile- literally.
In a way we are like blind men describing :saywhat: an elephant...