Interesting bow and quiver. I will attempt to remember that book and look for it when next shopping for reading material for next work season. Interesting that I also use a Howatt, "The Stick" according to the markings on the bow, my first a 45Lb and the newer one (By Martin) is a 55lb.
Not mine, but the pics on this forum show what I use:
http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=006589;p=1
Now, for a question regarding your beliefs on an "ethical" view of sportmanship and such things. Again, we may disagree.
Your statement: "Sportsmanship matters, which for me means taking game birds only on the wing"
You mention, somewhere I believe, hunting elk with your bow.
My "ethical" question:
Do you believe it is "unsporting" to take a target of opportunity, lets say a grouse, with your bow while out hunting elk?
If not "unsporting", would you let said grouse get off the ground first?
Awaiting your response,
Geno
PS, it is my opinion that the invective you use to denigrate the legal behavior of some of our members adds nothing to the conversation, further inflames them against you, leading to personal attacks on YOUR character, and will not in the least help to convince them that some things "might" be better if accomplished in a different manner.
Good question. I carry a blunt with me while hunting elk in case I run into a grouse, want to practice estimating range, etc. I've killed one with it. I killed one with a rock once, too. Those were incidental kills while pursuing other game, scouting, etc.
In my view that's a very different scenario than riding around in an ATV with a revolver loaded with bird shot specifically intending to pot shoot grouse. It's also more difficult to kill a grouse with a bow than the way that fellow killed his.
Regarding your last point, I came here after the UCC shooting to float a plan to help reduce gun violence. The very first response was to call me a traitor, the second was GFY, etc.
Your suggestion assumes the guys here are reasonable, thoughtful individuals. Their behavior doesn't support that assumption.
Paddler, here's hoping you had a nice enough day.
For the moment we seem to have established that taking a grouse, incidental to the pursuit of other game, or some other activities, is at least somewhat "sporting". Correct?
First, do you know for sure that the OP was using bird shot? If so, is it really a big deal as it seems more "sporting" than a cast or jacketed bullet because the range would be limited and therefor relatively more sporting, no? Another poster also mentioned this I believe.
Second, do we know for sure that the OP was riding around specifically to shoot grouse that day? Perhaps Shrapnel was scouting for other game, riding fence, sightseeing, testing a rebuilt motor on the ATV.. There could be numerous reasons for him to be out in the woods.
Third, do we know Mr. Shrapnel's physical state. Is he capable of walking miles for a few grouse? If no, should he give up hunting them? If yes, and he is capable, how far from his mode of transportation (outside of legal requirements and hunting from "public" roads as in some states) must he be before shooting a grouse (with any chosen method) in order to meet "sporting" guidelines? 100 feet? 100 yards? a mile?
Fourth, your statement:
"It's also more difficult to kill a grouse with a bow than the way that fellow killed his" Is it really?
Do we know his skill level with that revolver? Do we know the accuracy of the load he was using in that revolver? Have we established a distance to each of the birds taken by Mr. Shrapnel? Perhaps a seasoned archer taking a grouse with a blunt while practicing estimating distances has an easier shot at 10 yds or so than a man with a 4" revolver at 25 yds? Is it more dificult to kill one with a rock, as you state you have, if the rock thrower is an accomplished or practiced ball player?
Fifth, your statement:
"Your suggestion assumes the guys here are reasonable, thoughtful individuals. Their behavior doesn't support that assumption"
Yes, I tend to make that assumption first, then decide on the basis of evidence as to which ones aren't. Many seem to be. Some, I agree with a lot of what they say, but not all. A few I really, really DO NOT want to meet. Some of them I especially do not want to meet in a dark alley!
The majority seem to me to be like most folks I know. They tend to be reasonable to a point, thoughtful enough, but don't p--s them off or they get cranky. Their behavior mostly supports my assumption. As long as I do my part to not offend them.
I was questiong your behavior, the manner in which you address them and call into question their behavior (specifically Mr Shrapnel's shooting of grouse with a revolver). It is entirely your choice to use whatever method of communicating your displeasure you think best. I do tend to hold to the old adage of "flies and honey". If you are attempting to sway their thinking and thereby changing their behavior, you may be going about it the wrong way.
You might have noticed I don't do too bad a job of communicating with what limited knowledge of the English language I have. I'm not always good at using it well, my wife is always telling me to "use your words". I have been known to use a certain limited spectrum of the dictionary, that part usually "not used in polite company", too frequently in conveying an idea. I used to use physical means (throwing crap!) to make my displeasure known. I try not to engage the folks here in that kind of discourse, as it tends to rile them (and me) up. And frankly, I don't like losing. Some of these fellas are way better at it than I am!
Discussions about "sportsmanlike" conduct seem to me to be like the one about pornagraphy... "I can't describe it but I know what it is when I see it".
Unfortunately, your eyes, their eyes, and my eyes tend to see thing differently.
In the spirit of politeness, I wish you the best in your field pursuits, even if your ideas of "sportsmanship" differ from mine.
Please forgive any typos and msipleinngs.
Geno
PS, Field Grade, I AM NOT pontificating. Blathering on like a gray haired ol' fool maybe, but definitely Not pontificating. No No NO.
PPS, Paddler and others: Because fishng has been mentioned already, is it ethical and sporting to practice "catch and release" fishing? Essentialy, one is releasing a tired and wounded anlmal back into nature. Sometimes with the idea that one might catch, wound, and release it again in the future? Would you stalk and "blunt" a big game animal, or shoot it with a non-lethal paintball type gun, assuming of course that it was within the law to do so?
