Doc

I can recall every bow killed deer. It may take a bit of prompting on some, and maybe I would have to consult my records a bit, but eventually I can recall every detail of each bow kill. I can even recall a lot of details of bow-hunts where I got nothing .... lol. Unfortunately, I cannot claim the same with my gun-killed deer. A few may stand out, but most gun shot deer have been relegated to "meat gathering" status. I'm not real proud of that, and have always considered that I had the same attitude toward all my hunting that you talked about above. But apparently my memories and appreciation of the kills are tied very much to the challenge and method of the hunt and the weapon that I used.

Never underestimate the power and impact of technology. I have seen so many things become reality that were once said to be flat-out impossible. We can't even imagine the extents and potentials of technology in hunting. My example of "computer hunting" was just one example of hunting technology gone crazy. That is definitely one version of hunting success "being completely dictated by the efforts of some set of mechanical and electrical designers". I suspect the future will continue to surprise us with how invasive technology can become in what we consider to be hunting. Maybe we will pay attention and recognize it when we see it or maybe, as has already happened, we will simply come to accept it all simply because of the slow evolutionary way that it comes on us.

Great video, but I still haven't figured out how the fawn got in there in the first place. In the second place, how did anyone know it was in there?

Not nice to have our legal system bent by the social issues and biases and hot-buttons of the day.

Will those stop the penetration of a thorn from a multi flora rose?.....lol

But it's all true!

Wow! That video nailed it.

48.7 degrees this morning.

What an interesting video. Did you notice all that "deery" behavior of the head bob and the foot stomp. I love that little feint of dropping the head down in a faked indication of eating or not paying attention and then whipping it up trying to catch you off guard. Where do they learn all that stuff so quick. That uncontrollable curiosity that they have is really something to watch. He just couldn't help himself. Just had to check out that new critter in the corn field. By the way .... nice camera work. You did a heck of a job keeping it framed and following him around. I thought it was one of the better videos that I've seen lately.

Conspiracy theories can be fun..... . But seriously, the only Bilderbergers that I take completely seriously was that promotion that Denny's was running where you actually told them how to construct your burger, item by item. No wait ..... that was "build-a-burger". ..... sorry! By the way, how did that 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll ever make out?

I am reminded of an experiment that I conducted years ago to settle an argument about the possibility that a deer can move out of the way of an arrow. You would be surprised how controversial that theory was among bow hunters. What I did was to prove that humans can "jump the string" and can do it quite effectively. I set up a large sliding cardboard target that had wire loops at the top that slid easily along a taught horizontal length of stretched wire. One of my sons volunteered to help with this test, so I set it all up with him standing way off to the side, behind a shed (for safety and also to ensure that he had no visual cues). A length of string connected him to the sliding target. I stood back at 20 yards with my tournament equipment and the instruction was that as soon as he heard the sound of the bow being released he was to take off and move as fast as he could. Interesting experiment ....eh? Well guess what. We conducted the experiment 1 dozen times and he consistently moved the target approximately 12" each time. I figured that really wasn't too bad for a human. With sound being the only stimulus, and a slight delay due to a little slack in the string, I thought that was amazing. Now, if you take an animal like a deer with their fly-like reflexes and their super-tuned ears and their skittish personalities, there was no longer any question in my mind about their ability to move significantly away from an arrow. It was quite a few years afterward that I saw the first slo-mo video evidence in Bowhunting October Whitetails that clearly showed a deer dropping down, loading up those legs for a full retreat, and the arrow flying harmlessly over its back. It was not a big surprise to me and my son, but was interesting to see the theory proved using a real deer.

Lol ..... It took me 7 years to get my first deer back in my recurve years. I've got to tell you that almost every bowhunter that I knew at the time (all 4 of them) didn't do even that good. However, that first deer was such a great trophy, that you cannot believe the overwhelming satisfaction and sense of accomplishment that was involved in that harvest. I also will say that I never really became frustrated or entertained any thoughts of giving up because all of us bowhunters were in the same boat. There weren't a whole lot of deer around back in those days, and sometimes "almost" getting a shot was the highlighted story at work on Monday morning. So yes, the equipment and the short seasons and the low deer populations made bow hunting a very skilled activity that required a whole lot of work, dedication and unfilled tags. But that was the challenge of bowhunting, and that's what made it different from gun hunting and we all accepted those challenges and understood that harvesting a deer (we called it killing back then .... lol) was likely to be a very rare event. But when you did connect, what a feeling and having success with a bow was recognized as a demonstration of extreme hunting skills. But I do understand what you are saying. Today, success is expected. And if you do tell someone that you got a deer, the first thing out of their mouth is, "What did it score?". And if you come back with, "Well it was only a doe", forget the conversation continuing. Nobody wants to hear about that .... lol. Expectations today are a whole lot different than they were years ago, and almost forces people to use whatever aids and technology that they can get their hands on just to keep up with those expectations of today. So, I never said that I don't understand this evolution toward using technology to bolster our skills. Hell, I have succumbed to it myself. One look at the 11 very expensive bows on my rack downstairs will attest to that. Also the drawers full of techno-junk in my shop show that I too chased the "perfect weapon" and "fool-proof equipment" as it all came out....lol. I do understand it, and I am merely commenting on the existence of a pattern that has taken over bowhunting. I am also wondering if there will ever be an end to it all, or wondering what bow season will look like a decade or two down the road with this ever-increasing quest for hunting solutions through technology. And of course I am always interested in whether anybody even cares about such things anymore. It's kind of an interesting subject, I think.

It seems to me that there will come a day when our hunting success will eventually be completely dictated by the efforts of some set of mechanical and electrical designers. I often wrestle with that thought and I try to focus my hunting as simply me against the animal and the woodslore required to take that animal and the knowledge of the prey. Hopefully, my success does not rely on the skills of some inventor working away in his office. One look at my pile of equipment amassed over the years will tell you that I have not been real successful at cutting technology out of my hunting .... lol. But anyway, I do believe that there is some point where technology has gone too far. We had these guys that tried to come up with computer-hunting.... hunting without the hunter/client ever stepping foot in the woods or laying a finger on a trigger. There was no doubt in my mind that that was going way too far, and yet I do see us heading for that sort of thing at some point in the distant future. No one seems willing to set limits as to what they will allow science and technology to do for them when it comes to hunting. Every generation seems to break down those limits farther and farther. I think it is an amazing topic and that is why I commented the way I did. I find it interesting as to where everyone today sets their limits. Unfortunately not a lot of people want to even think about such things and seldom ever offer an opinion. Sometimes the silence on that subject is almost scary.

That is a tool, not a skill. If you set down your bow and pick up a rifle, have you increased your skills? You have increased your success, but exhibited perhaps even less "skill". You have simply utilized a piece of superior technology (a tool). Utilizing someone else's creation (mapping programs) is a similar sort of thing. It has not increased your personal hunting skills. Someone has invented something to replace your inability to get that over-all visual advantage, but that is not a skill. It actually took a lot more skill to successfully read sign on the ground, and the mapping programs merely serve as a shortcut that makes those skills unnecessary. Oh well, enough nit-picking over skill vs. technology. The fact is that technology's primary function is to take over the need for individual skills or make them less necessary. Good thing for hunting? .... Bad thing? .... you decide.

No, I consider one of the prime bow hunting skills to be the ability to get nearly within touching distance of your prey as there was a time when that was a hunting skill that was required of any successful bowhunter. It all has to do with woodslore and stealth. That IS a hunting skill. A lot of today's technological advances equipment and concealment have taken away much of that requirement. And yes, a lot of the hi-tech peripheral archery and hunting equipment have indeed been invented and sold to cover up lacking hunter skills. These are basic hunter abilities that have lost some of its importance because we have bought our way past the problems. One way to show the effect of technology on bowhunting is the fact that compounds still enjoy an overwhelming popularity, and there is not a mass movement of people back to recurves and longbows. People are still for the most part staying with compounds and now are even looking towards crossbows. The reason? .... It requires far less skill and dedication to shoot technologically superior weapons. The other piece of evidence is the changes in bowhunting success rates. Absolutely, technology has lessened the required skill level for hunter success and we have the success rates to prove it. I am not trying to pass judgment on this evolution, but am simply pointing it out. Whether it is a good thing or not depends on point of view, but let's not deny the effects of change and technology.

There was a time when we didn't have the video evidence of deer "jumping the string". The whole subject was a hotly contested discussion and not everyone believed that deer could get out of the way of an arrow. Today there is no doubt that deer not only can, but frequently do move in such a way that they aren't there when the arrow gets there. The discussion of whether it is the sound of the bow or the sound of the arrow is one thing that hasn't been discussed adequately. Listening to that video, it was surprising just how much of a noise is generated by the arrow. It does also clearly show that there are differences in noise intensity due to the different designs. Glad to see this topic come out of mothballs. It would be interesting to see if there are any new opinions on the subject. It would appear that bow noise is only part of the problem.

First of all, understand that I am speaking pretty much exclusively about bow hunting. I have lived through the evolution of bowhunting to the point today where the equipment doesn't even look like the archery equipment that I grew up with. There is no question that the viable shooting distances have grown tremendously such that the up close and personal requirements of the initial hunting skills have been relaxed somewhat. It used to be that close up shots of 15-20 yards was not simply an option, but was a requirement. I think we all understand the benefit of doubling shooting range when it comes to hunting deer. And then there is the technology of camo, scents, treestands, and all the peripheral equipment that has allowed some relaxation of basic stealth skills. Also, in terms of mastering the archery equipment, I seldom ever find anyone willing to argue that there has been substantial advantages that have assisted mastery of archery. While the techniques involved in shooting a compound are essentially the same as shooting any bow, and the disciplines are the same, there have been more parts of the bow equipment technology devoted to assisting in the strength aspects and equipment has been made more efficient (speed and light-weight arrow materials) such that trajectory errors have been reduced. Part of the skill of mastering a recurve or longbow involved that wild arc of the arrow that has been reduced by modern bows and arrow materials. I believe anyone who has ever mastered a recurve and then moved on to a compound understands the skills that have been replaced or enhanced through technology of several decades. Also, a lot of us who have tried to step away from the compound and pick up a recurve have been rudely reminded of exactly what additional skills have been lost over the decades ....lol.

False (it can sometimes), True (yup!), Exactly!!! I think you are mistaking "purchasing success" with actually obtaining hunting skills. There may be some skill involved in using items of new technology, but that does not the same as learning hunting skills. I'll stand by my original statement unless you have some good examples.

I'll be looking forward to it. Its funny how the story-line can extend even beyond the original actors. It'll be interesting to see if they can put some changes into the usual theme which has gotten to be very predictable.

Well, wait a minute ..... That theory of practicing at longer distances than you would shoot while hunting is something I completely agree with. I do that all the time. I always spend at least some time practicing out to 50 yards even though I don't take any hunting shots beyond 30 yards. It is a confidence thing. I may have misunderstood what you said the guy was saying. I thought you were saying that he was advocating longer hunting shots because of what he could do on targets.

Ha-ha .... why stop at 100 yards? I guess that's just a nice round number. Isn't it in the FITA tournaments where they shoot at 100 meters? And that is not just with today's technology, but is done with recurves. Ever watch old movies of Darrell Pace shooting. The freaking arrow starts heading up into the sky and takes forever to get to the target. Really the guy was a machine, but it's probably not too realistic to think that anybody can go out and do that. It all puts me in mind of a demo that the late Stacey Groscup put on at the old Creekside Gun Shop, where he was shooting aspirins out of the air with his recurve. Yes, it can be done. But a archer could drive themselves berserk trying to do that if someone were to lead them to believe that that is an expected level of bowhunter marksmanship. As far as trying to transfer archery range proficiency to hunting potential .... well we have volumes previously written here about all the different ways that kind of mentality can foul things up. Some people simply don't worry about wounding potential and they will continue doing as they please. It's just unfortunate that there are those that will spread that non-sense over the TV airwaves.

There it is ...... As soon as the apples all disappear, I'll know they were ready.....lol.

My gosh! Some of those deer look absolutely panic-stricken by the camera. I was always a bit concerned that there were signs that deer were casually noticing my cameras, but some of those look downright terrified.

The thing is that technology does NOT improve hunting skills. In fact it usually attempts to replace hunting skills. The trick is to find the stopping place for each individual where they can utilize some level of technology without being crippled by it. That is a decision that each hunter has to make for themselves. That Mathews bow that you use does actually represent one heck of a pile of modern-day technology, and I'll bet one could take a look at the rest of your set-up and spot all kinds of fairly high-tech stuff when compared to what I started out with. I also might mention that the equipment that I started out with represented some monster technological steps past the weapons of history. Consider those high-tech recurves with laminated limbs and with the modern glues and plastics, manufacturing procedures of Fred Bear's early mass produced bows along with that super-duper Dacron bowstring and that Hoyt arrow rest with that plastic finger that was adhered to the bow with double sided tape was the latest thing on the market. I started out with the hottest bow hunting setup that made the ancient bows of the Turks look like true crap. The point is that everybody has to make up their own minds as to where their comfort level is with the technology that belongs in this so-called primitive weapons season called bowseason. I understand what you are saying, and it appears to me that somewhere along the line, we have crossed some invisible line when it comes to bowhunting. But the fact is that no two people really can agree on where that line is. I am beginning to be convinced that there is no such line and never will be. Someone will always be trying to push the envelope until eventually you will not even know how to define the sport anymore.

What we need is some credible way of evaluating these internet "news" outlets. Everyday, somebody posts links to some unknown, unfamiliar source of some interesting story, but there is no way of determining whether these sources have any credibility. I'm not saying that this one does not have any credibility. I am just saying that there is no way of knowing.