Author: Crooked Arrow

Why I Hunt

When in casual conversation with strangers or other people that don’t know me well the topic of hunting comes up, inevitably I get asked the question “Why do you hunt?” This can quickly be followed by other, often intentionally provocative statements, such as “Can’t you buy meat at the store?” or “Are you one of those trophy hunters?”

There are many ways of answering these questions, assuming you have the gumption for a potentially lengthy and volatile conversation, each with a different angle: wildlife management, food acquisition, and personal motivation being a few of them. And though invariably the asker wants to know about the latter, I like to start from the broader perspective and talk about the role that hunting plays in the conservation and management of wildlife, and maybe follow that up with the healthy food angle. If we can get through that without calling each other names, there is a chance that the more nebulous drivers behind my motivation to hunt will find an open-minded audience.

Conservation and Wildlife Management

Wildlife needs to be managed. The concept of all animas living together in a dynamic equilibrium stopped being a reality when humans started expanding their footprint across the globe by other means than just their feet. Increasingly large tract of wildlife habitat was lost to development, and what is left is often fragmented by infrastructure such as roads, railroads, intensive agriculture and so on. Some species have adapted (whitetailed deer), other species suffer (grizzly bears). There is no room for predator-prey relationships to play out like they did centuries ago except for in the most remote regions. Animals are no longer free to migrate away from predator pressure, and often already live in habitat that is far from optimal for the species. Some people seem to think that if we humans just keep our distance, things will be OK. They are not in touch with reality. Hunting is an indispensable tool for managing wildlife numbers of both prey and predator species, to minimize damage to crops or reduce the number of collisions with vehicles, or curb disease outbreaks or starvation by keeping populations in check with the carrying capacity of their living environment, and avoiding excessive reduction in numbers by unchecked predation. It is not the only tool. Management of access for development or recreation, as well as attention for conservation or restoration of habitat is equally important. But it is an essential part.

Healthy Food

If the individual that asked the original question is still listening, and maybe even nodded a time or two, I like to bring up the food angle. Getting meat has been the predominant reason for hunting for time immemorial. The taste and quality of wild meat beats anything store-bought. The wild animal lived a life of freedom, and its death is swift and without the stress that cows, pigs and chickens are exposed to before they are killed and butchered. Nobody who eats meat, or uses animal products of any kind should have any argument against hunting. If you buy a steak, you pulled the trigger on the pin gun that killed the cow. Eat McNuggets, and you hung the chicken in the butchering facility. Your leather shoes did not grow on a tree; it used to be the hide of an animal that was killed for you. Even if you are a vegetarian or vegan, your hands are not clean. Many animals are killed on your behalf, accidentally most likely, but still killed, during the production and transport of your vegetable and meat alternatives. We all leave a footprint. The only difference is that the hunter doesn’t delegate the responsibility for the killing to someone else.

Personal Motivation

Most often however the poser of this question is probing into personal motives. “Why do you hunt?” There are many facets to my motivation for hunting, and not all are equally easily explained. Donnie Vincent, in his short video “Who We Are?” (https://vimeo.com/105686970) gives it a genetical spin. The fact that you are here on this planet, means that you are a descendent of strong hunters. If your forebears hadn’t been good at hunting, your line would have ceased to exist. It’s in our blood, there is no denying.

Despite the venomous attempts of the anti-hunting crowd to convince the world of our bloodlust, hunting has little to do with the desire to kill something. If that were the case, everybody would always use the most efficient weapon available and shoot the first legal animal they encountered. While I have certainly done that, I have also let animals walk that were mine for the taking, if only I had pulled the trigger.

When I am hunting, away from our digitally connected world, I am a part of nature, not a mere observer. The purpose becomes singular, the mind focused, relying on experience and skills; decisions are mine, the burden or pleasure of having to live with the outcomes of those decisions is also mine. There is a deep satisfaction in traveling wild country, relying only on your wits and the gear you can carry on your back. You are not just camping or hiking, you are searching for prey. Movements are determined by the necessity to stay out of sight, by the seemingly erratic but sometime predictable patterns of the wind, by your knowledge of the terrain and the needs of your quarry. It is a puzzle, and successfully solving it will put me in the same place at the same time as the animal that I am after.

Whether I kill anything or not is of lesser importance. It has to be, because the killing only happens a few times per year in a good year, but seeking those few moments goes on year-round.

Working out to stay in shape, optimizing gear, practicing shooting, visiting new places or old haunts to check for sign of animals when no hunting season is open, learning about animal behaviour, studying maps and satellite imagery, planning time off to hit best seasons; there is not a day in the year that hunting is not on my mind. It’s is not a hobby, it is not casual, it is something that is part of me, like breathing.

“So are you a meat hunter or a trophy hunter”? This seems to be a popular question these days, a loaded question, and judgement is looming. To me, there is no such distinction. The animal is the animal. Some parts are edible, and everything that leads up to putting the meat on the table is something I enjoy doing. A glimpse at the neatly stacked freezer makes me feel very accomplished, happy even. And I feel a little proud when I can cook up and serve this meat to my family, and share some of it with friends.

Some parts are not edible or no longer have the function that our ancestors were able to give to it. Some of it stays in the field, for other creatures to feed on. Some of it comes home with us, alongside the meat. Often I clean the skull and antlers or horns or fur, and sometimes those find their way onto a wall. Only when the experience was something special I pay a taxidermist and the animal’s head and shoulder become a permanent part of my home. They bring the mountains or the woods into my daily life, they help me remember the good times spent outdoors, the smells and the sounds and the friends, the effort and sometimes physical hardship that went into the hunt, and they brighten up my day over and over with their beauty. Is that a trophy? You call it what you want. To me it is all just part of hunting.

F.

 

Speed kills! Right?

Traditional archers generally shoot heavier arrows than compound archers. Traditionalists tend to not speak about arrow speeds, and may have never chronographed their projectiles. However, the average compound bow commercial boast about the feet-per-second that can be achieved. Apparently arrow speed is important; or is it?

From the perspective of a relative beginner the amount of information that can be unearthed with a simple internet search is staggering. Unfortunately any click on an online forum or Facebook group yields the all-too-common contradicting statements. And while getting it right is important for competitive endeavours on the archery or 3D range, getting it right for hunting can be the difference between life and death, or worse.

As always, when the problem looks overwhelmingly complicated, breaking it down into smaller questions can help. Let’s ‘break it down’.

Accuracy

“A heavy arrow/faster bow/insert-any-discussion-topic-here doesn’t mean a hill of beans if you can’t hit them where it counts!” is a very popular, and true, one-liner that pops up in most discussions. That statement hides two aspects: performance of the bow-arrow combination and ability of the shooter. Since obviously we can all challenge Robin Hood to a shooting match and win, let’s focus on the equipment. Given a certain bow and a certain distance, and Howard-Hill-like abilities, is a lighter, faster arrow inherently more accurate than a slower, heavier arrow?

The consensus seems to be “no”; overall weight doesn’t seem to have an influence on accuracy in ideal conditions. Some say that heavier arrows are “more forgiving”, which supposedly means it responds less frantically to shooter error. I am not experienced enough to judge that claim. However, two factors enter the equation in hunting conditions. One is wind. The heavier arrow is accredited with better wind-bucking characteristics, more prone to stay close to the intended path. Where I live and hunt (bald-ass prairies, and high mountain ridges), that could become a major factor.

Trajectory

The second factor is trajectory, not an issue if we have flawless ranging and aiming abilities, but important for those mortals who may occasionally have trouble calling it 22, 26, or 31 steps to a deer. The lighter, faster arrow has a flatter trajectory in the near to medium ranges, our hunting ranges, and therefore is less likely to punish the shooter for ranging errors. With heavier arrows, and draw weights at the lighter end of the spectrum, estimating the range correctly becomes critical especially on longer shots.

Penetration

So why would you consider a heavier arrow, if you lose out on a flatter flight? Here is where the fun starts, and the topics of contention is arrow penetration. In the blue corner we have those that feel the need for speed. “Speed kills” says a compound bow commercial. In the red corner we have those that live by big brass inserts, and point weights in the hundreds of grains. Traditional archers don’t care about arrow speed, right? Let the bout commence.

Round 1: Kinetic Energy

At the risk of boring you to death, here is the formula for calculating kinetic energy once more, you have probably seen it a hundred times:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x m x v2

The weight* of the arrow is in there (m) multiplied by the square of the arrow speed (v). Speed makes the biggest contribution. The faster you can push the arrow, the more energy you have flying through the air. Since from a bow of a given draw weight the heavier arrow will go slower than the lighter arrow, this round goes to the lighter arrow.

* If you want to get really particular, the formula asks for the mass of the arrow. For this purpose the weight is an acceptable substitute. Check here for some very basic explanations about the difference: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae321.cfm

Round 2: Momentum

More formulas:

M = m x v

Momentum equals the product of arrow weight and speed. So from a bow with a given draw weight, the heavy arrow goes slower, and the light arrow faster, but which has the advantage? Using 3Rivers Archery’s spine calculator (http://www.3riversarchery.com/dynamic-spine-arrow-calculator-from-3rivers-archery.html), which also estimates arrow speed, we can plunk in some numbers to see who wins.

Using a generic 50# recurve at 28″ draw weight as our weapon, how do the following two properly-spined set-ups perform (theoretically)?

Carbon Express Heritage 90 – 29″ – 125 grs tip – 10 grs insert

Total arrow weight 420 grs: calculated arrow speed is 200 fps

Carbon Express Heritage 350 – 29.25″ – 200 grs tip – 100 grs insert

Total arrow weight 663 grs: calculated arrow speed is 160 fps.

A quick session with the calculator shows that the momentum of the lighter arrow is about 21% lower than that of the heavier arrow (and coincidentally, the kinetic energy is roughly equal).

So why is momentum important again? One of the many online dictionaries says it nicely. Momentum is “the property or tendency of a moving object to continue moving”. And that is what we want from an arrow, keep moving into and preferably through the animal’s body. A heavier arrow, with the same kinetic energy, does that better than a light arrow.

Round 3: FOC

FOC stands for Forward Of Centre. Usually expressed as a percentage, it is a measure of how much weight of the arrow sits forward of the balancing point of the arrow. The formulas are getting more complicated:

%FOC = 100 x  (A – L/2) / L

A is the distance from the low-point on the nock to the balance point of the arrow (where it sits in equilibrium on a sharp-edged object) and L is the total arrow length from the nock to the edge of the insert. There are more than a few sites that explain this in detail and even provide a calculator, here is one: http://www.grizzlystik.com/Calculating-Forward-of-Center-FOC.aspx

FOC is worthy of consideration because it is one of the most important parameters that influences penetration, according to Dr. Ashby (http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/PR/ATA_Handout_Text_Web.pdf). This discussion can become way too technical quickly. An arrow is a pretty flexible projectile, and the more mass sits towards the back of the arrow, the more awkward the moment of impact becomes. Mass towards the back end can push the arrow out of its path of perfect flight, negatively influencing penetration. If you have a lot of time and interest, you should try reading some of Ashby’s findings that results from years of studying and field testing (http://www.grizzlystik.com/Dr.-Ed-Ashby-W26.aspx).

All of this is relevant to our discussion on arrow weight because a higher percentage FOC is easier to achieve with a heavier arrow; a heavier arrow that is achieved mostly by increasing the point weight. Heavy tips and brass inserts help putting together an arrow that is “tip heavy”, and therefore has a high FOC.

Round 3 goes to the heavier arrow as well.

Conclusion

We looked at three factors that presumably influence penetration. Kinetic energy, momentum, and FOC. There are other factors that were ignored for now (arrow integrity – it can’t break on impact, arrow flight – we assumed that your arrow was perfectly tuned to your bow, relative diameter of broadhead ferrule and shaft – if the shaft is narrow, there will be less drag on the arrow from body tissue, shape of the broadhead – length to width ratio and type of bevel, and more).

One of these has only an indirect influence on penetration, and that is kinetic energy. Momentum is what counts when it comes to resisting the slowing-down forces of the animal’s body. Arrow speed does increase momentum, so it definitely has an effect. But not as dramatic an effect as the mathematical number of kinetic energy seems to suggest. As indicated by the example, for two arrows with practically the same kinetic energy, the heavier one has significantly more momentum. By the way, it also has a significantly higher %FOC (21.8 vs. 14.8).

So why doesn’t everybody shoot 1000 grs arrows? Because of trajectory. A lighter arrow shoots flatter than a heavy one. And if your arrow gets so heavy and the flight so curvy that aiming becomes difficult, you may just have lost all advantage. You can make up for that by increasing your bow’s draw weight, but not everybody is physically equipped to handle that (including me).

In this treatise that already ran on too long, we haven’t even touched on what stands on the receiving end of our arrows. It makes a difference whether you are hunting rabbits, a turkey, a small Southern whitetail, a big Northern mule deer, elk, moose, or bigger. Or shooting 3D targets. As a totally unbiased TV show watcher, I get confused by the number of whitetail deer of medium size that I see running off with considerable lengths of arrow sticking out of them on the shooter side. These are shot predominantly by compound bows of recent manufacture. And they are not shoulder hits, where the arrow might encounter heavy bone. In my layman’s perspective that means that something is not right. If they can’t get an arrow through a broadside deer, with all the power of their compound, how am I going to kill one with a light longbow? Are they shooting ultra-light arrows, chasing the speed that the bow manufacturer claims kills? I don’t know. All I have figured out is that I am going to build the heaviest arrow I can shoot out of my bow with a trajectory that still makes sense for hunting. What exactly does that mean? Once I have it figured out I will report back.

Frans Diepstraten

Tradbow vs Compound – Why are we fighting?

 

Every self-respecting podcaster these days seems to have an episode about the “controversy” between tradbow shooters and compound shooters in his line-up. It is a big deal right now. The compound shooters call out the traditionalists that they can’t hit the broadside of a barn from the inside, and the traditionalists blame the compound shooters for taking irresponsible shots at unethical distances. The debates are laced with with sweeping statements such as “Compound shooters are substituting hunting skills with technology!” or “For a tradbow, the hunt begins at distances where it would end with a compound!”, an observation that, by the way, is also often used by compound bow hunters to disparage rifle hunters, and my favourite from a tradbow hunter (if I hear it one more time, I may smash my iPhone): “I could have shot it with a compound!” (Sorry Aron). In the process of trying to get on the victorious side of the debate, there is also a lot of talk about wounding: “If you are going trad, expect to wound a lot more animals than with a compound!” or “How often do you think those compound shooter wound an animal at 80 yards?”

What on earth are we doing?

We are not having this discussion around the campfire in the woods, with nobody listening but the birds and the trees. Have we become so entrenched in this debate that it is OK to use every argument, even arguments that could easily shine a less-positive light on hunting as a whole? Apparently it is not a problem to confess on public media to having wounded not-insignificant numbers of animals , without providing some context about the circumstances, the follow-up, the (hopefully) happy ending. It makes me cringe.

Let’s step back for a bit and analyze the issue. Killing animals with a bow (among other less discriminate killing methods) has kept our ancestors alive for a long time. However, when rifles appeared on the scene, the bow became a lot less popular quickly. It is probably safe to say that towards the end of the 18th Century not too many white men ran around the woods trying to get dinner with a bow.

Generally Saxton Pope and his buddy Art Young are credited with reviving the lost art of hunting with a stick and string. Pope’s book “Hunting with the bow and arrow” published in 1923 is an interesting read (https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/pope/hunting-with-bow-and-arrow/). There are earlier publications though, by fellows who took to hunting with a bow, such as “The witchery of Archery” by J. Maurice Thompson published in 1877 (https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/witchery/). All their equipment and materials used were what we now refer to as traditional or primitive.

In the 1940s one Fred Bear initiated his bow company, and towards the end of that decade started incorporating fiberglass in his bows. It wasn’t until 1953 that he patented the recurve bow limb. Fred and his contemporaries used these bows on all matter of game. They shot at distances that would make even the most open-minded traditional shooter these days scratch his or her head. Some old footage of Fred Bear’s hunts even shows an archer using a “traditional” bow with a sight pin! (http://www.3riversarchery.com/fred-bear-dvd-collection.html).

This little journey back in time goes to show that what some so lovingly refer to as traditional, is only about a century old, as far as use by non-native North Americans is concerned, and the recurve bow made with modern materials is even younger. It is, in fact, only about two decades older than the first compound bow, which emerged on the scene in 1969 when a fellow by the name of Holless Wilbur Allen was granted a US patent for a bow with pulleys at the end of the limbs.

Though I have no numbers to back this up, I would argue that the majority of bowhunters that would claim they hunt with traditional equipment, in fact use technology that was patented exactly 16 years earlier than the patent that kickstarted modern archery equipment. I own several rifles that are older than that.

So now that we have filled up some trenches, knocked over some pedestals, and we are looking each other in the eye, what is the commotion really all about? We all hunt with a bow. The technology that we use was developed within two decades of each other. Even most individuals that build their bows from trees often use modern tools to get things done. And what does it all matter, really?

Unfortunately, the trend of pitching one kind of hunting or hunter against the other started early. In Saxton Pope’s book already you can read: “For by shaming the “mighty hunter” and his unfair methods in the use of powerful destructive agents, we feel that we help to develop better sporting ethics”. The “powerful destructive agent” in this case was the rifle, and “we” were the emerging breed of bowhunters, in Pope’s mind clearly having the moral high-ground.

In the end, we are all hunters. Long-range shooters, regular rifle hunters, muzzleloader enthusiast, crossbow people, compound shooters, traditional-method hunters, the primitive guys, the gap-shooters and instinctive aimers, and even the poor fellow with the spear, we all get out into the field to follow our passion. We don’t have to agree on our choice of technology, but it would be nice if we could agree to not criticize each other on every imaginable media outlet at every opportunity.

If we could put only half of the time and effort we put into fighting each other over frivolous things towards conservation initiatives, promoting hunting as an essential wildlife management tool, educating ourselves about what is happening to our public lands, and writing to our elected officials about our issues that affect us, we would be in a much better place. Yet we take to the keyboard with vitriol in our fingertips ever chance we get, and bash the ones that do not exactly do as we do, or think as we think, or use the equipment we feel is superior. “We have met the enemy…”

Frans Diepstraten

(this article, with some edits, has also been published in the May 2017 issue of the Journal of Mountain Hunting

Beginnings

My first foray into traditional archery ended abruptly, when a brutal swing of sharp-edged axe cut my bow in half.

As a young boy, I spent at least one of each weekend day at my uncle’s place, where my cousins and I did our best to find trouble and often were successful. My uncle owned a swimming pool, a large vegetable yard, a small orchard and a piece of wooded land that backed onto many square miles of fields and pastures. The neighbour’s property was likewise wooded and even had a few wild apple trees that produced small rock-hard green apples. The edge of those woods was home to a healthy population of rabbits, that burrowed under the roots of century-old trees.

Given those circumstances it doesn’t take much imagination to see how we were in desperate need of tools that would allow us to reduce some of those rabbits to possession. We tried spears without success. Obviously a bow would give us the striking range we needed. A saw was quickly borrowed from my uncle’s shop and sisal rope was lying around in big bundles everywhere. Hazel nut bushes provided long and straight and bendy sticks, and bamboo sticks from the vegetable garden made for pretty good arrows.

I don’t recall that we ever killed a rabbit. But I do remember that it didn’t take long for us to tip those bamboos with small rock-hard green apples. Soon we were flinging arrows at each other, pretending to be Robin Hood, or a tribe of warring indians. Most arrows were crooked and after given flight rarely followed a straight path. One lucky arrow however left my bow, and after an impressive arc, landed square on my cousin’s leg. He did not take kindly to that, and made an equally impressive run into the house, wailing like a banshee. Which led to the unhappy scene described earlier.

However, this early success planted the seed deeply in my being, where it lay dormant for forty years, waiting for the right circumstances to sprout and find fertile ground.

Sometimes all it takes is a little misfortune. Like the cone of the jack pine will not release it seeds until a fire rages, it took a time-out in my working life to create the right circumstances for the next step into traditional archery. I mean, how many hours a day can you really be looking for a job. I was in dire need of a keep-sane project, and building a bow seemed like the right combination of manual labour and research into the how-to. It started the journey that will be documented on these pages.

If you are a newby you might learn something, if you are old hat you’ll probably shake your head over all the mistakes made. In summary, I built a bow, learned to shoot, bought another bow and went hunting. In the process I corrupted the mind of my hunting partner, so I didn’t have to suffer alone. Follow along, if you please.

Frans Diepstraten