Toxophilite Index
| Toxophilite Index |
Next Article
|
By Dale Sharp
There are rumblings in the world of traditional archery hunting that there is a philosophical need to revisit the roots of our pastime. That our custom has been swept under the “big tent” rug and, perhaps most damaging, that the rationale for lengthy archery hunting seasons has been lost; their basis used to be that hunting with a bow and arrow was difficult and didn’t have much of an impact on game populations. Innovation pushed by manufacturers and embraced by consumers over the past 35 years has made it easier and easier to be an effective bowhunter while abandoning the foundation on which bowhunting was built. Human nature to take the “easy” way has managed to reshape archery hunting in just a few decades.
In a recently republished article entitled “Gadgetry”, from a 1983 issue of PBS Magazine, Roger Rothhaar wrote the following:
“Back before bowhunting was fashionable a few dedicated folks fought for and convinced game commissions that special hunting seasons for this primitive weapon were worthwhile. At that time a 10% hunter success ratio was unheard of and the average nationwide was between 2% and 3%.”
He went on to explain how the need for year-round practice to remain proficient eventually fostered competitions, a universalized scoring system which was controlled by the NFAA and that hoards of people were transformed from bowhunters wishing to keep their shooting skills sharp to target archers shooting for competitive scores. And that human nature led to innovations he called ‘technological gadgetry’ for improving scores; gadgets that were then accepted into the field of hunting.
“...the problems developing are the results of an attitude rather than actions. This attitude is one that not only allows the prostitution of the sport but actually encourages it. It is an attitude that has come about because the bowhunters who really care about the sport are outnumbered by those who think success is measured by the amount of blood drawn or tags filled and are not too particular how it is done.”
“It is people willing to settle for less than the best quality experience in order to try to impress others. In reality the biggest con job is the one they are pulling on themselves. There are a lot of bowhunters who are starting to think about these things. The numbers of those returning to more traditional hunting tackle are growing rapidly. There are many more that are being held back because they know others would be outscoring them on the target range."
Rothhaar went on: “The amount of individual effort put into becoming proficient at finding, stalking, ambushing, and generally taking game is the real key to hunting success. The use of technological gadgetry to decrease or eliminate this amount of effort is flat-out betrayal of the sport.” And, later: “The stark reality we must face today is whether we want bowhunting to be a primitive sport with the long seasons and limited kills or whether we want just another way to efficiently dispatch game.”
Now before crying “Shame on gadgetry!” let me go on to note that Rothhaar dispelled the notion that the gadgetry itself makes one a better killer. He felt it instead was twofold; more game and more leisure time along with improved hunting techniques and information. Because of these realities he stated:“The solution to the problem lies not in the decreasing of the hunter/kill ratio for it is here to stay. The success ratio is not what has the game departments taking notice. What has them taking notice is the kill totals. That figure is the one which eliminates bowhunting from the classification of non-consumptive users of wildlife. The promoters and exploiters of the bowhunting movement who have strived to increase our numbers to the highest possible are now being proven wrong at the expense of everyone.”
As he wrapped up his observations Rothhaar wrote: “No friends, if there is to be any reclaim of “the good old days” in bowhunting it is going to have to be through a return to quality hunting by quality individuals and less emphasis on numbers killed.”
To me, the “good old days” meant lengthy seasons. Are you as a traditional archery hunter willing to accept reductions in season lengths as kill totals continue to climb? Or should we seek alternative ways to reduce the kill totals? This is a question we need to ponder, because the time will arrive when we’ll be forced to debate how to reduce the number of game animals we take. And the outcome will determine how much archery hunting privilege your kids and grandkids will be able to enjoy.
It has been suggested that too much stress is being placed on the game animals from September through December; that they need a break from human activity and that shortening the primitive seasons will provide them relief. Shortening seasons is not right the solution to this problem; the most frequent disturbance is from motorized vehicles traversing the miles and miles of roads in the forests. So ask ourselves if we are willing to turn off the motor and walk a couple of miles into a hunting area to reduce stress on the game animals. Every quality hunting experience I’ve ever know was at the end of a good walk.
Would you be willing to pay a little more for the privilege of long seasons? This is another question that needs to be asked because, unfortunately, our state game department is budget-driven and revenues generated by license, permit and raffle sales are hugely important to them. If primitive season lengths were greatly reduced hunters whose only big game hunting interest is archery hunting will either leave the state for places that offer quality archery hunting seasons or they will simply quit hunting. Maybe rather than loosing the revenue from these hunters the game department will explore options that will keep their money in-state; options that may cost the individual a bit more effort or money but will continue to offer a long season. Such options could restrict motorized vehicle use, electronic communication devices, and equipment choices in order to reduce the number of kills and at the same time provide a quality hunting experience.
We’ve always been told that an attack on bowhunting would come from anti-hunters. Instead I see it coming from the anti-bowhunting hunter. The hunter whose long-range weapon capabilities take more animals in the first half-hour of opening day than archers take all season; but who points to an occasional spike in our kill totals as an sign that we have too much time in the field. I think archery hunters need to look to the history of the sport for guidance and emphasize quality hunting experiences as the motivation to hunt with a bow and arrow. And we need our quality individuals to publicize not how easy archery hunting can be but how difficult it ought to be. We need to tend to the roots.
