I got to reading in the LEGENDS AND PIONEERS threads last night. Simply because I neglect to read so many other forums here. I get stuck on pow wow and classifieds all to often.
When I got to the Jack Howard section there's a great read by Charlie Lamb. In it he stated that Jack had no losses of animals to wounding with his bow and arrow. Which is truly amazing!
My point... We so often hear about all the greats and their amazing accomplishments. Fred Bear, Howard Hill, Ben Pearson, Jack Howard etc. Hundreds of animals collected by these greats but what about the ones that weren't? We're they always up to par? Always at their best? Always winning?
Be clear, I'm not meaning this as a method of insulting these men or their greatness. AT ALL! Just something that has piqued my curiosity. I'm sure these accounts exist out there. I would like to know about them.
We've all heard someone say after someone loses an animal "it's ok man, it happens to the best of us"
But the question is...did it happen to them?
Matty,
I am sure animals were lost however....
These men had great woodsmanship skills, and often had guides. Even a poorly hit animals was tracked for long distances. I have heard stories of a mile or more tracks after blood ran out.
Of course they lost animals the modern concept of "ethics" didn't exist then Hill, Pearson, Bear would shoot at animals over a hundred yards. They believed more in giving the animals a "sporting" chance. This by no means diminishes their greatness. Hill won like 160 consecutive field archery tournaments! They would not have dreamed of waiting for the perfect 15 yard broadside shot!
I haven't read Charlie Lamb's read on Jack Howard. And may stand corrected. However, way back then, I was shooting a Jack Howard and read his comments on wound loss. Jack said he glued half a schick razor blade on each blade of his 3 blade heads and had not lost an animal with any hit.
I did that, too. And the results were quite rewarding.
If you can get the trad-gang DVD, the sharpening tips are great.
Perhaps a number of guys don't understand the necessity of RAZOR sharp heads.
Actually Matty I just read Trailing A Bear by Robert Munger, Fred Bear's hunting partner and was surprised by the accounts of wounds, misses, and extremely far shot "attempts". Likewise if you read Jay Massey you'll find the same thing.
If you watch the old Bear videos you see on many occasions him leave camp with a quiver full and return with a few or no arrows left. They took a lot of shots that we call unethical today. They also shot longer distances in practice then most do today.
I always find it interesting that the modern traditional bowhunter has immortalized the fantasy of the hunters of old and not the real story.
Mike
I look at it this way, look at what we have, Tradgang, youtube, google just to start. We have enough information that we can learn what probably took them years to do, we can do in days. So I give them all the credit. I have a 1964 Bear Grizzly, just beautiful with the Zebrawood riser and brown glass, it has lasted as long as I have. That shows me they had great knowledge.
As in many things we do, archery and bowhunting has evolved over the millennia to reflect the current way of thinking.
As today, some were very good. most were decent and some were not so decent at all in shooting and in shot considerations.
And of course, some were above and beyond. Of course it is of their exploits that we read.
Nobody wants to read of the fumbles of ChuckC, but many will buy up everything from their perceived heros or icons as a better word.
They then often get quite defensive at the suggestion that their icons may have done things "differently". Remember, that was then, and we are judging them now under a different set of norms.
ChuckC
I guess just between me and the fence post...I would like to never read, on a public forum, about another lost or wounded animal. I've been doing this for more than 50 yrs. and anybody who hunts knows it happens but I just feel it should be something that is a learning step between us, the animal and God. Just my thoughts. In a book, it can be talked about very tastefully and has been done so because it happens but anti hunters don't buy those books normally yet they thrive on-line.
I have no reason to doubt what Jack told me himself about wounding loss. He was an exceptional shot and hunter. I even tried razorblades glued to my 3 blade broadheads with amazing results.
There are accounts from the greats of misses and wounds. I know of a deer that fred shot they spent days looking for and found it. As was said above the woodsmanship and skills of these guys were above what we have today.
Another thing to think about was Fred Bear and others like him were not only exceptional shot but there lively hoods were based on the growth of archery. In order for it to grow they had to show the public it was absolutely effective.
QuoteOriginally posted by wingnut:
If you watch the old Bear videos you see on many occasions him leave camp with a quiver full and return with a few or no arrows left. They took a lot of shots that we call unethical today. They also shot longer distances in practice then most do today.
I always find it interesting that the modern traditional bowhunter has immortalized the fantasy of the hunters of old and not the real story.
Mike
VERY WELL SAID!
I study the Howard Hill videos very closely. I watch shots over and over in super slow motion, watching for the particulars and little variations. I talked to man in Wisconsin that came from Pennsylvania, that shot with Bob Swinehart at his local outdoor range. One day he asked if he could watch Hill and Swinehart shoot. During the various practice shots, Hill stopped the process and claimed that his release was off. So he spent some time shooting at a stack of bales shooting up close. Then went back to shooting at the game targeted bales. When I asked how bad did he shoot when he lost his release. The old fellow said that he never missed one, but he did notice that at times Hill had an inch or two of arrow in front of the bow, then after he fixed his release, he pulled the point onto the bow and was really baring down on the bullseyes. Even Hill and Bear could make bad shots, they were not gods or machines.
Yep, many of us used the Schick blade option. They even made a broadhead that allowed the blade to be injected it.
A llost animal is hard on every ethical hunter. There are some, however, that just continue without the comensurate reflection on the why and how of the wound and loss.
I saw Howard Hill setup two wood disks on a spindle each had a hole in it. He spun one in one direction and the other in the other direction , walked back about 15 yards and turn and shoot and the arrow went through both holes at the same time and into the backstop stopping the disks. Yes He was that good. Not sure about the others because I never saw them shoot. I did see Fred on American Sportsman ect. Saw a movie of Ben shooting a javilina clear across a canyon and running . He pinned the little pigger. Pretty amazing stuff.
However the finest display of shooting I have ever seen is by a present day guy called Lars Anderson. U Tube, It is the most amazing thing I have ever seen.
God bless, Steve
i doubt if we will ever know, as the witnesses are also gone. I think we have to admire their extraordinary abilities, as these have been thoroughly documented. They lived in a different time, however.
Teddy Roosevelt was a great rifle shot, but read his records of African hunting. They took running shots at game at 200 yards because the game was wary and they couldn't get closer. The fact that they connected at all is testimony to their ability, but there were a lot of misses too. Not what we would consider ethical today. (Doesn't mean people aren't still doing it, though).
It is nearly impossible to have candid, objective discussions about the old timers seeing how many are practically worshipped these days. None were perfect. Shot selection left a lot to be desired. When you read accounts of their hunts you often come across tales of emptying the quiver at an animal at long distance. These gentlemen had many accomplishments worthy of admiration. Having the opportunity to hunt virgin areas where animals had experienced little if any hunting pressure helped to ensure the success of many ventures.
Swinehart said in his book about Hill, how he found it amazing that sometimes he would miss relatively easy shots, but he hit a running deer at eighty yards. The book does not say that they found the deer, but then it does not say that they did not find the deer either. Hill also said that over the years when people talk of game shots they made that they get longer with the passing of time. I have read of some accounts of Hill's shooting that are a bit unbelievable. Perhaps he pulled the shot off, but it could not be done consistently enough to use or perhaps it is just something from someone's imagination. another like the film of Ben Pearson shooting a passing duck, pretty impressive. I shot a passing goose once that was pretty impressive. It would not have happened if the farmer with plowed and disked field next to the public marsh would not have given me permission to land my arrows in his field and promised to keep everyone and everything out of it for me. I should have taken a picture of those 17 bright red Howard Hill arrows stuck out in that field.
I keep seeing things like shot selection was poor and what not.
What is completely being missed is the progression and the change in ideal these Greats brought to the forefront. They were on the leading edge of the learning curve. Modern bowhunting was being born and these were the men and women that changed how hunting was viewed and developed the Ethics we value today.
I've not read of any of us who have shot with Fred Bear. Many have met him and I believe Mike Mitten was in the same camp with him and handled his bow but didn't shoot with him. I believe he was an above average shot with a bow.
I believe the old timers were very comfortable with their shooting ability and the ability to put an arrow into an animal's vitals. I believe they didn't obsess over the weight of their bows, their FOC, their aiming methods, how far to practice from, how they gripped the string or anything like we do these days.
That they took some questionable shots at game I have no doubt and have read about that in books. That they lost and wounded a few I have no doubt either. Chances are they didn't write about it because that wouldn't sell books or bows. One of the most pure archer/hunters in my mind was Bob Swinehart and books about him are worth reading.
I think most people have already said it. The "greats" were good shots, some were actually great shots. But to me a large part of that "lore" lies in more than just their shooting abilities.
There were fewer of them back then. These are the guys who paved the way for archery hunting. In times where conservation and management were the exception, it was more common for most hunters to be meat hunters or trophy hunters and with guns, guns that were going through some revolutionary advancements too.
How many different bows were out there? Sure, Fred Bear and some other larger bowyers had a "line" of bows and these guys shot the latest models, though even Fred had his faithful bow he shot when he wasn't out drumming up business for the current model. I think many people (myself included) get Trad ADD and bounce from bow to bow (style to style) so much their true potential doesn't get realized. If you're shooting and dialing in the next great bow, you're not hunting, your tunning and practicing. "Fear a man with one bow".
Woodsmanship skills. Members of this group and a few others like it are actually preserving a dying art. Tracking. Reading sign. Blending. Calling. Not to get with 200 yards. Or 100. Or 50; but within 10-15. Then, not being surprised when the animal takes off - we expect it! These guys did just that over wilder land and greater expanses. Would make my hunting lots look like a chip shot I bet.
So where they great? Yes. Do we live in a time with greats? I think so. Fred Eichler comes to mind. So do many members of this group. Guys like Charlie Lamb and others are the Bears, St Charles', and Popes of today in my eyes. Only now these aren't fighting to prove archery is relevant, but that the old ways are relevant, and effective. And, in our twighlight, our children will sit back and talk about Thumper Dunker taking down coyotes with a self bow like popping robbins in the yard. Haha. Well, hopefully anyway.
QuoteOriginally posted by FerretWYO:
I keep seeing things like shot selection was poor and what not.
What is completely being missed is the progression and the change in ideal these Greats brought to the forefront. They were on the leading edge of the learning curve. Modern bowhunting was being born and these were the men and women that changed how hunting was viewed and developed the Ethics we value today.
Very well put. There was no bow season for a long time and now we have bow seasons in every state. Bow hunting and hunting in general has evolved over time and will continue to do so. We should always be thankful for those that paved the way for us.
Were the greats that good? When I get to the big hunt I'll be sure to ask them :archer:
I've read similar discussions here before...
I commented then and will reiterate once more 2 points I think are relevant...
1) These guys were in the era of Field Archery and LONG shots were something they cut their teeth on... and likely what we consider way too long a bow shot, to them, might have been more commonplace and they had confidence from field archery shooting
NOTE: That is not a note of support for excessive distance shooting at live game! Personally, I learned a few years ago there are things at the bewitching hour my eyes cannot see well that can cause deflections in the woods, so I limit myself to 20 and under in brush or woods.
2) When an animal was wounded, they reported and have videos of some of the long trailing as was mentioned by glossed over it seems. Nowdays, with checker board posting and smaller woodlot hunting I've known, I couldn't begin to trail an animal very far without risk of arrest... even have asked and were told "NO!"... then the landowner we hunted was harassed for allowing us to hunt for the whole next year.
Point being it was different times, different circumstances... much has been said well about how it was the fledgling days of archery as a hunting tool... not the ugly duckling hunting is now portrayed to be in the press and general society. Times change. We change with it or perish!
When I read the books of yesteryear I seldom think twice about the shot.... too dang caught up in the story of the hunt itself. Were they great???? Who really knows, but those men left their footprints in a lot of places still on my bucket list.
GREAT is like many words that can be used in many ways. I think my dad was a great tournament archer. He won or placed in 300 archery tournaments and was the Midwest National champion in 57.
I would consider him a very good hunter. He killed most everything he shot and stalked as many deer as he shot hunting on the ground. I have over 100 arrows that used to kill deer, bear, fox and other small game so we really don't know how many animals he took with a bow because he didn't recover every arrow.
I think dad was the BEST father a kid could ask for.
Kind of like the word LOVE, I love this car or that bow. You really don't love an object. You may like it a lot but to me ,love is an emotion between two people yet you hear the word love being used all the time.
A person can be great at something or really good. To me that means the same thing.
I re-read this and am not sure myself if I made any sense but I think you may get the drift of what I am trying to say.
There was an article on ESPN about Steph Curry hitting 77 consecutive three-point shots in practice earlier this week.
I played basketball in high school and for one year in college and consider myself a good 3-point shooter, but the most 3's I've hit in a row is 13 or 14...most days I couldn't hit more than 4 or 5 in a row without shooting all day.
Some people are really just that much better than almost everyone else. A capable person totally dedicated to their craft can achieve some pretty remarkable stuff.
So yeah, I don't believe EVERY story I hear, but do believe they are at least based in truth. Heck, you can watch guys shoot in the 290's with a barebow on YouTube...this is really an extrodinary accomplishment.
I see both sides to the coin. Hitting an Elk with your first shot at 125 yards is quite a feat. Hitting an Elk at 125 yards with your 21st shot not so much. The old saying is Hunters Lie and Wait, Fishermen Wait and Lie...
We have a tendency to build up our heros after their death and the longer they are dead the greater they become. This is is human nature but not necessarily bad. Howard Hill in his prime was great but his shooting declined quite severely in later years. I once watched him do a shooting demonstration and with the reputation he had I was disappointed.
NFAA shoots in the early years in our area would draw 2 to 4 hundred shooters every weekend. There were very few shooters that ever reached A class though. There were very few good instructors back then with the exception of Al Henderson whom I believe to be the most gifted instructor to ever live. The average shooter at 3D shoots today is somewhat better IMO. We have so many more options to learn from.
Many of our "heroes" from trad archery's fledgling days were target archers, winning many championships-state, regional, national. That means thousands upon thousands of shots at long distances. Gun company exhibition shooters like Herb Parsons could do amazing things with a gun-he broke 7 hand thrown clay pigeons with a Model 12 Winchester pump, before they hit the ground, a feat rarely duplicated-thousands of rounds in practice. As noted above, some people are exceptional from their natural ability, and only get better with practice.
On the short film with Ben Pearson and Howard Hill, the goat hunting segment is very adventurous. If you look real close at some of the longer camera shots at various goats, you will see some very optimistic arrows lobbing into the scene. I understand that they are just overbreeding goats and all of that. But a couple of years ago, when drawing on a pheasant that was about 80 yards in a field, that short with those missed lob shots at goats flashed in my head. The pheasant messed up and walked into my arrow. Another that comes to mind is the Fred Bear hunt for mule deer in North Dakota. Sneaking around the shallow break country stalking for mule deer, there is a definite element of high adventure in it. Perhaps the shots were long, not judging that, but the fun factor was obvious.
I imagine that some of them were "that good", but "that good" still is not perfect. Probably, we just did not hear so much about the shots that did not work out so well. We willingly dwell on the fantastic performances of those we admire and seek to emulate. We just as willingly choose to ignore their less productive encounters. After all, in our own hunting/shooting lives, don't we prefer to emphasize those rare instances when we really shine? The "heroes", just like the rest of us, fall into this scenario - some days I'm an archer and some days I'm just some clown with a bow in his hands.
I think you are right Sam, the other day I was awful, today I was a dandelion killer extraordinaire. To bad I could not find a turkey to run into my arrow like that pheasant did a couple of years back. I am pretty sure none of those helpless dandelions jumped in front of my arrows, they sit pretty still for the most part. The thing about longshots, a bit of luck is always required even when you have the accuracy. The animals have to stay still long enough for the arrow to get there or they have to get real unlucky and walk into a shot that was not so good. I always wonder how many unlucky shots there were, but the zest that archers of old had, disserves our respect.
I have talked with Ed Bilderback (Fred Bear's brown bear guide) and quickly discovered that Fred was "human" just like the rest of us. No details are needed. The owner of Rose City Archery (located about 10 miles from my home) was a student of Howard Hill and talked about many hunting situations that would make most of us cringe today. Again, no details are necessary. They were great pioneers for all archers and we all owe them a debt of gratitude!
Many of us have seen an interview of Fred Bear back around '85 where he was asked the question, "what is the best shot you've ever made?" After pondering a bit he recalled a shot on a deer in Nebraska that he killed at about 60 yards. He thought awhile longer and told of a shot where he killed a Bengal tiger at around 100 yards but said he was really trying to shoot over the animal to flush it toward him for a better shot but the shot hit the animal right in the kill zone.
In so many words he attributed those kills to luck and admitted these were shots that he shouldn't have taken.
Fred and the other 20th century pioneers were human, did a lot of bowhunting, got excited, and made mistakes.
His real contribution was to make bowhunting appeal to the average hunter and make good equipment available / affordable.
My opinion has been that those guys took different shots than we do for several reasons.
1. They had fewer shots than we do, due to game management being much more refined in our time. Simply stated, many of us have more animals to shoot at because game populations are better now. I'd bet that people's definition of an ethical shot in high game density areas is more conservative than the opinion of those people who live in low density areas and get relatively few shots.
2. Back in the old days, Fred Bear and Howard Hill lived in a society that was much more comfortable with the killing of animals. Let's face it, many of us have been impacted by our bleeding-heart culture, whether we like it or not. While I do not advocate the senseless wounding of animals, I am conscious of the fact that an animal may end up wounded, by one of my arrows, and I may not recover it. That animal will be eaten by a predator or scavenger, and I can accept that. (Now, I try to take careful shots, and have only wounded one or two deer in my 10 years of hunting them.) I do not worship those animals, I recognize that they are not spiritual creatures nor equal to human beings, and if they get wounded I can live with that. I think hunters from older generations felt somewhat the same way... and more so.
3. We have refined hunting to a great degree. Bowhunters take an incredible number of deer nowadays, compared to bowhunters of past generations. This is due to a greater understanding of the animal, technological advancements, and being able to hunt from tree stands. Hunters in past generations simply did not have the luxury of waiting for the perfect shot like many of us do.
Again, I'm not an advocate of flinging arrows at anything that moves, be it near or far. But I will never forget when I first got into traditional archery, when an older generation bowhunter with hundreds of kills under his belt advised me, "Learn to shoot that bow well. Lots of guys can't shoot anything that that's further than 20 yards away, and frankly, that's embarrassing." I can't shoot much further than that myself, but I've never forgotten those words. I think there was a pride in being able to make those long shots in the older days, that we don't really value now.
Archie, I know you were quoting someone else, but you know, the same can be said in reverse about distance shooting, yeah, i need to be close, but Lots of guys won't or can't take the time to learn to hunt well enough to be able to get close, and THAT is embarrassing.
That was then, now is now, we are different, the world is different. Plus, there are other factors involved that we will never truly know about because they aren't talking anymore.
ChuckC
Chuck, I agree with you 100%.
I should add that his comment was directed towards those whose archery skills did not allow the option of long shots. I think that was because of the ethical climate he was used to, and the fact that he considered the long shot to be a necessary skill.
Short answer.. Yes and no
They are human like all of us and are far from perfect.
However, they were still able to accomplish amazing things.
Bottom line, unless you have first hand knowledge and facts don't be too judgmental, either positively or negatively
I've read a couple of comments here about the tales getting "taller" as time went by and to a point that is true. But listen to the words of a true legend from his book "Hunting the Hard Way".
On page 93 of my copy Hill wrote, "In my earlier years of hunting, any animal under 200 yards was close enough for me to shoot at if I could not get closer- not that I ever killed one quite that far. Yet once in Wyoming I killed a bull elk at 185 yards, and I once got an eagle in the same state at 150 yards, but during that time of SILLY shooting I lost and broke hundreds of arrows and wounded several animals and birds. Now unless I am in pursuit of predatory animals or birds, I never shoot at game beyond 60 yards.
Any quarry above 50 yards from me must be in an ideal spot before I will shoot. If all the kills I have made, shooting big game, were closely estimated, I am sure the average distance would be under 40 yards. As for rabbits, squirrels, and birds, the average would be not more than 20 yards, I am sure. For every rabbit or squirrel I have killed above 30 yards I have killed a dozen under 10 yards. Almost all hunters, including the writer, are prone to remember all the long shots ever made, forgetting the short ones: and if we are not careful the distance gets longer as we grow older!
I think Howard put it in perspective.
Thanks Charlie. That's definately the answer I was looking for!
I think old Howard knew what he was talking about. That is great stuff Charlie.