Post by Russ Koon on Apr 10, 2007 14:26:48 GMT -5
Woody, yes I think we agree on many points, even though we still disagree on others.
I'm afraid I still haven't mastered the quote box to the extent that you have. I can box up your entire post, but don't seem to ba able to separate out the paragraphs in the manner you did, to discuss the points one at a time.
I'll proceed the old way for now.
Regarding the idea of separating seasons based on equipment advantages, this seems to be a very well entrenched practice that prevails just about everywhere. If we want to drop the whole idea and just bring in deer season and let everyone shoot whatever weapon they want, I suppose that argument could be made. I think the industry kind of likes to sell us more stuff, though, and probably wouldn't like the idea of dropping all that income. I suspect we'd run up against quite a bit more non-hunter sentiment as well, if we turned the orange army loose on Oct. 1 with the camo one.
No, I think the separation based on comparative likelihood of success is probably a good thing overall, even if there is some bickering over who's getting the bigger piece of the pie from time to time.
As to whether there's a sufficient difference in the two main camps of bows (or "vertical bows" as you prefer to call them) to warrant different season start dates: after many years of hunting both ways and shooting both ways, and mixing the two, I have some very strong opinions on the matter. The compound itself was not the separating factor between the two types of equipment. I recall when I saw my first old Allen rod-limb compound at a club shoot in Bedford. I think Johnson was still in office, and dinosaurs roamed the earth. I had sights on my recurve, and so did quite a few other shooters there. The classes were for those shooting with sights or those shooting without them, and the scoring ranges reflected that equipment difference. As the compound became more prevalent, those who shot a lot tended to shoot them, as they were easier on the shooter that practiced a lot. I remember in the days when I shot recurves a lot, having that annoying callous constantly on my middle finger of the string hand, and sore shoulder muscles after a practice session that I can easily still double without pain at my age with my 80% LO Browning. The two equipment camps parted company mostly as a result of the trad gang going to their own shoots and not allowing any sights or stabilizers or such to be in their company. They kept going in that direction, and sneered at anyone who admittedly used the gap method or even consciously aimed, preferring to keep their purity and shoot instinctively, even though it meant their average effective range for a group dropped to spitting distance. That was their choice, and I respect their choice. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own. But to the point, any separate license between the two camps of bows now would probably be based on the fallacy that the compound has the advantage in accuracy, when in fact it doesn't. If any such separation did occur, in order to make any real sense the regulation would have to read much like the NFAA rulebook, disallowing any markings on the bow that could be used as range indicators, stringwalking, single anchor point, etc.
I have also during that time shot with a few very, very good shots using trad gear who were tough to beat on the bowhunter type shoots back in the day before foam targets, even by those of with the newest and best wheelbows of the time. I think the biggest increase in bowhunter accuracy came with the release aid. But even there, the device brought the group average accuracy up, and made the learning curve shorter and the shooting easier on the shooter, but did so in a way that still left us diehard fingershooters able to compete in the woods while hunting.
The reason is that in real hunting situations there isn't that great a need for the hairsplitting accuracy that gathers those few points difference that separate the frontrunners from the mediocre on the 3D course or the indoor shooting line. A deer twenty yards in front of the stand of the top 3D shooter is in mortal danger, but so is the one twenty yards in front of the stand of the guy who comes in with a score somewhere in the middle of the pack at local shoots with his longbow. True, the guy who's competent with the modern gear can expand his range somewhat, and out west that would be a much more noticable advantage, but here in our woods it's helpful, but less important.
Both have to draw their bows when the game can see them do it.
By the way, during all those years of shooting all kinds of archery, I've never seen anyone release a good arrow after three minutes of holding, with any bow. I'll take your word for it that Beatty held that long. Doesn't that show that he was afraid to let down draw again when needed, because he figured he'd be busted? Guess he knows the importance of that factor. And wasn't the Beatty buck the one that was found a few days later after becoming coyote food? Maybe his shot location wasn't ideal after that three-minute hold, either.
I've got to get out of this chair and go do something actually productive. Catch you later.
I'm afraid I still haven't mastered the quote box to the extent that you have. I can box up your entire post, but don't seem to ba able to separate out the paragraphs in the manner you did, to discuss the points one at a time.
I'll proceed the old way for now.
Regarding the idea of separating seasons based on equipment advantages, this seems to be a very well entrenched practice that prevails just about everywhere. If we want to drop the whole idea and just bring in deer season and let everyone shoot whatever weapon they want, I suppose that argument could be made. I think the industry kind of likes to sell us more stuff, though, and probably wouldn't like the idea of dropping all that income. I suspect we'd run up against quite a bit more non-hunter sentiment as well, if we turned the orange army loose on Oct. 1 with the camo one.
No, I think the separation based on comparative likelihood of success is probably a good thing overall, even if there is some bickering over who's getting the bigger piece of the pie from time to time.
As to whether there's a sufficient difference in the two main camps of bows (or "vertical bows" as you prefer to call them) to warrant different season start dates: after many years of hunting both ways and shooting both ways, and mixing the two, I have some very strong opinions on the matter. The compound itself was not the separating factor between the two types of equipment. I recall when I saw my first old Allen rod-limb compound at a club shoot in Bedford. I think Johnson was still in office, and dinosaurs roamed the earth. I had sights on my recurve, and so did quite a few other shooters there. The classes were for those shooting with sights or those shooting without them, and the scoring ranges reflected that equipment difference. As the compound became more prevalent, those who shot a lot tended to shoot them, as they were easier on the shooter that practiced a lot. I remember in the days when I shot recurves a lot, having that annoying callous constantly on my middle finger of the string hand, and sore shoulder muscles after a practice session that I can easily still double without pain at my age with my 80% LO Browning. The two equipment camps parted company mostly as a result of the trad gang going to their own shoots and not allowing any sights or stabilizers or such to be in their company. They kept going in that direction, and sneered at anyone who admittedly used the gap method or even consciously aimed, preferring to keep their purity and shoot instinctively, even though it meant their average effective range for a group dropped to spitting distance. That was their choice, and I respect their choice. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own. But to the point, any separate license between the two camps of bows now would probably be based on the fallacy that the compound has the advantage in accuracy, when in fact it doesn't. If any such separation did occur, in order to make any real sense the regulation would have to read much like the NFAA rulebook, disallowing any markings on the bow that could be used as range indicators, stringwalking, single anchor point, etc.
I have also during that time shot with a few very, very good shots using trad gear who were tough to beat on the bowhunter type shoots back in the day before foam targets, even by those of with the newest and best wheelbows of the time. I think the biggest increase in bowhunter accuracy came with the release aid. But even there, the device brought the group average accuracy up, and made the learning curve shorter and the shooting easier on the shooter, but did so in a way that still left us diehard fingershooters able to compete in the woods while hunting.
The reason is that in real hunting situations there isn't that great a need for the hairsplitting accuracy that gathers those few points difference that separate the frontrunners from the mediocre on the 3D course or the indoor shooting line. A deer twenty yards in front of the stand of the top 3D shooter is in mortal danger, but so is the one twenty yards in front of the stand of the guy who comes in with a score somewhere in the middle of the pack at local shoots with his longbow. True, the guy who's competent with the modern gear can expand his range somewhat, and out west that would be a much more noticable advantage, but here in our woods it's helpful, but less important.
Both have to draw their bows when the game can see them do it.
By the way, during all those years of shooting all kinds of archery, I've never seen anyone release a good arrow after three minutes of holding, with any bow. I'll take your word for it that Beatty held that long. Doesn't that show that he was afraid to let down draw again when needed, because he figured he'd be busted? Guess he knows the importance of that factor. And wasn't the Beatty buck the one that was found a few days later after becoming coyote food? Maybe his shot location wasn't ideal after that three-minute hold, either.
I've got to get out of this chair and go do something actually productive. Catch you later.