I was thinking about this, and I thought it would be interesting to get everyone’s opinions. There are so many factors that seperate Hunters. It’s hard to judge the hunter simply because every situation is so vastly different. But is bowhunting itself akin to “sports” like golf or fishing where the best are separated by some talent? Just curious to see how everyone views this. Thanks!
I think it's a talent. Comes easy to some people, others have to really work hard at it and still others can't kill a deer if they hunt hard for 20 years straight.
I think it’s Like most sports I guess,a mixture of alot of talent, a better work ethic than the other guy, and good circumstances as well. Look at people like Tim Wells. He is a better shot than mostly anyone in the hunting industry. Yet his show isn’t the most popular one out there, I am sure there are guys out there who are even more talented than him. But didn’t put the work in, or didn’t make/take the opportunities he has had. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
I believe it is a mixture of both. You can have a guy that shoots well, knows his stuff, does his due diligence and yet doesn’t kill a trophy deer every year because they simply “arnt there” or even if they are they just didn’t come by that day (chess game type situation). Then you have guys who know next nothing but have a good spot or funnel and kill one yearly. Who’s the better hunter? I would have to say “location” factors into it at least 50%. Location is what you can control with money (TV Shows) to give yourself a better chance. What you do with the opportunity decides if you are a good hunter or not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol ohhhh swamp, gotta get your laugh in there huh? It actually was a conversation with my aunt that kind of sparked this discussion, not weed. I know your are just being your comedian self, but I definitely feel its a valid argument. Should I PM my thread ideas to you ahead of time to get pre-approved??
It's undoubtedly a sport of skill and knowledge. And some are "luckier" than others by making their own luck to a great extent. The best in our sport are aware of every part of the big picture and things fall together for them more often than not. My father wasn't a bowhunter but he was an excellent gun hunter. Intuitive big picture wise, he just understood game and the land they lived on.
But if you don’t have access to that land you’ll never kill those deer. Either have to be lucky or rich enough to buy it. Has nothing to do with skill. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of the best southern hunters I know hunts public land exclusively and though a gun hunter, he kills big old deer in their bedrooms inside of 30 yards with his 243 or a 257 roberts. He's like an Indian and is as money-poor as anybody I've ever met. It isn't luck but a lifetime of learned woodsmanship. He can get you in and out of the woods w/o getting lost in the dark. It isn't luck, sir. He's a cut above the rest of us from years of practice.
PS..he's a published author and here is one of his books. I'm proud to say I helped him edit these stories and not ashamed to admit I never would have killed one single coastal plain deer or hog without using bait if not for his mentorship. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Afield-Hunter-Smith/dp/1611174171
^^this. Most people want instant gratification and give up long before they learn much of anything. To me, bowhunting was that first step in becoming a true woodsman. Rifle hunting became a non-challenge but bowhunting forced me to hone those hunting/scouting skills, study my target animal and get to know the patch of ground I was on. None of that happens overnight. So I do not think of it as a sport but as a way to earn the title of woodsman, a rarity in today's world and an understanding of God in nature that could never be obtained sitting in a pew or on a couch.
It is both, to certain extent. The more you increase your skill, the less luck you need. It took me a long time to stop hunting stands in the wrong wind just because I wanted to be in the woods. I used to see a lot of deer, mostly butts, until I learned how to approach and to stay out of sanctuary habitat. Now I usually see them where I expect them, and many times that place is inaccessible to a hunter because you can't get there undetected. When you kill what you are after consistently it has to involve skill. If you get one every so often, you are probably just getting lucky. In both cases you have to be in the right place at the right time. The difference is that skill tells you to be in that place, or you just happen to stop somewhere. Shooting straight is definitely a skill.
LOL! I'm just jokin around with ya! It's defnitely a good conversation. I agree with Caleb. You can't kill what's not there. Prime example is my current situation on public land in CT. I hunted the past two seasons and only saw one deer, made a bad shot, but still recovered him. This is how it always has been on this 10,000 Ac. piece of land. Pure hardwoods, Little pressure, very few deer. I started hunting there when i was 14. If you see a deer you've had a great day. It's humbling, but makes every encounter special. My dad taught me woodsmanship from an early age. When I finally purchased my own land I applied my years of hunting knowledge, and I was immediately in the deer. Passing on bucks I would have never seen hunting on my old public land spot. When I went out to Illinois for the first time in 2013, I applied my woodsmanship learned, and it was the same thing times a thousand. I was immediately in the deer seeing bucks I had dreamt about. Location is key, same with experience. I'd say it's 50/50.
Neither, it is a skill. Anyone can get lucky once, (in regards to your fishing relation, anyone can get lucky and hook a 10lber once) but the skill is being able to be consistent over time. The danger comes judging all hunters on the same scale. If you think hunter A is "better" then hunter B because hunter A kills a 150 every year and hunter B only kills a 125 every year you are missing the point. The most skilled are the ones who are able to consistently take mature deer from their area. Weird question though, maybe im misunderstanding it. Also not many sports are athletes separated by talent anymore, it is the work they put into it-just like bowhunting.
IMO The best hunter is the one that meets his or her goal whether it's to fill their freezer or put down mature "trophies" consistently. Location is key. You gotta have the deer to shoot. I know because growing up I hunted mostly pressured public land with decent success, but now that I own my own farm, I have way more opportunities to grow and shoot mature bucks. Nowadays it seems the only "great" hunters are the guys who put down Booners every year. Those guys have to have access to the best land with managed deer, or years of managed typically leased property selecting for mature deer and making sure the nutrition makes those mature bucks get to size. I would give a bonus to those public land hunters that can get it done on a mature deer yearly despite pressure and no food plots. You could also get into who uses what technology...who is better, the guy who gets it done with 17 trail cams, 23 stands, and a high powered rifle or the guy that has one tree stand, no trail cams and a bow?
Archery is a sport, bowhunting is not. I would hate to try and justify harvesting an animal as a sport. The archery part of bowhunting can and does come naturally to some, where others work for hours to hit the target. The instant gratification crowd try to buy the skill. Every new sight, bow or release that hits the market is in their gearbox. Being an accomplished bowhunter requires you to be an archer, have woodsman skills, have a understanding of your prey and and good dose of luck never hurts. When all these come together, that’s what makes bowhunting truely gratifying.
I see your point but anytime you freely choose to pit your skill and wits against something for a competitive end (i.e. winner/loser) that isn't your personal survival; it is by definition a sport.
