anyone else watch this show. the whitetail hunting shows are nice because they give you tips and are more educational. But it gets somewhat dull/frustrating in my opinion because they always get a trophy buck and are for the most part always successful. Arrow affliction is refreshing because he is shooting a ton of different animals and its more of an action show.
My friend had me watch one on youtube, it was pretty sweet. I watched the one where he shot a bunch of rabbits. He is one of the best bow shooters overall that I have seen. Shooting through a drain tube would be pretty difficult!
This thread will tell you how I feel about it in no uncertain terms. http://forums.bowhunting.com/showthread.php?t=11479
You just described 99% of all hunting shows on TV. Who wants to watch a guy sit for hours and not see anything?
I am so glad you posted that hate-filled thread again Tx... You see that one episode and see him take a shot that you aren't capable of and take it as being offensive. He did not take the shot and say "Yep boys, that is the easiest shot ever... do it just like me". Nope. Every episode he preaches PRACTICE. That is something that I have NEVER SEEN ON ANY OTHER ARCHERY HUNTING SHOW. Sit and think about it. His show is the ONLY one that preaches practicing before going out and attempting to take something with a bow. Period. You don't have to like the hairstyle or the goatee... or the music... but take it for what it's worth. Brackett and AA are the reason I picked up a bow in the first place and I'm not a kid. Never was interested with the old hum drum grandpaws hanging on the side of a tree for an hour talking about their C'mere deer and how awesome their new Mathews was... Bracket doesn't do that on his show. He hunts stuff with his bow but before that... he practices (every episode).
And I'll continue to post my feelings every time I see a post about Brackett or any other hunter who promotes unethical shots. As far as my abilities with a bow are concerned you have no idea what I am capable of. I do know however that as a bowhunter ed instructor we, ( the IBEP), teach that shot as NOT HAVING A SHOT. The amount of practice has nothing to do with it. Its about ethics. Maybe you should look into taking the course. As far as Bracketts hair style, sideburns, music, etc. I could really give a rats ass. I don't like the guy for promoting an unethical shot. I've never posted anything else bashing him for any other reason. EDIT: I am still pretty happy about his contract with AA not being renewed.
No offense, but that's not entirely true. I've seen plenty of TV shows and videos where they emphasize the importance of practicing before you go hunting. Although they may not preach it quite as much, most do make mention of it at some point. Additionally, there are a lot of tools at our disposal for learning about bowhunting these days aside from the ol' Boob Tube. While a show like AA may inspire someone to pick up a bow, it should by no means be the only educational tool that someone uses before heading into the field. That said, I found the show to be rather boring after awhile. Watching someone shoot pretty much every living creature they can just for the heck of it got old pretty quick. Additionally, I agree with tx on this one. Nobody, regardless of skill or disclaimers, should be taking head-on shots at game with a bow on TV. It sets a poor example and you can bet people will at the very least consider that shot in the future despite the host's warnings. In the end though, the greatest part about TV is that you can turn it off whenever you want. :D
Tx, I understand your situation. You are a Bowhunter Ed instructor therefore you cannot agree with his taking of what you believe (or have been taught) is an unethical shot. You see his shot on that deer as unethical, he obviously didn't. You suggesting to me taking a course in bowhunter education is fantastic... so, I don't know what you are capable of... but you know that I haven't taken a bowhunter education course somehow... I am glad that you are happy his contract hasn't been renewed. It hasn't been renewed because he didn't want it to be. He is going to be doing his own show in 2011... Justin, find me a hunting program where the show the hunters practicing before going out into the field and I'm not talking about taking three "after the flight to ensure zero" shots at a foam block. Real practice like Brackett preaches. Not talks about... PREACHES. I never suggested that watching AA is some sort of learning tool for bowhunting... but I also don't agree that it will have kids out there shooting deer in the face from 90 yards either...
I like his show it was refreshing to watch, opposed to the same old giant buck coming in & shooting it. Find a show that has 100% perfect ethical shots that everyone agrees on and you will be surfing a long time, because you ain't going to find it. I have seen few shows, that emphasize and show practice as much as his.
I'm torn (a little). While I agree with Greg on two counts: 1. "Iffy" shots should not be condoned 2. Kids WILL watch what these guys go on TV....and automatically tranlslate what they see to what they do. I also feel that often times hunters project their own limitations and seek to project them onto others......as a definition of the "ethical std.". Would I take some of the shots I see on TV? Nope. Do I think others' actions are "unethical".....if they can do it? Nope. I shot a 20target 3D course, Saturday, chock full of shots I wouldn't take in the field. Is this promoting unethical shot taking? I don't think so. We gotta use our noggins....and know our own limitations. Do I have trust in my fellow hunter to do that .....after watching shows that portray them (i distinctly didn't say 'promote')? Nope.
Dont' have a dog in the fight as I've never seen his show, although I think he was hanging around our booth a little at the ATA show this year... But that sentence lets me know right there I agree with Greg on how I would view his show and thus his ethics that are showcased on it. There's absolutely NO gray area in taking a head-on shot on a deer. You wanna watch a show where you can stand behind the shooter's choices and be proud of his ethics on display? Look no further than our very own Todd Pringnitz, featured on White Knuckle Production's "Ground Zero", among other DVDs... He had a legitmate 190-class buck at 30 yards and didn't take the shot because he was slightly quartering to.... THOSE are the type of bowhunters I'll laud and promote any day over someone taking a head-on shot.
So have you taken the course? If so what did your instructors cover in your shoot/don't shoot scenarios? My suggestion that you take it is one I make to all bowhunters. I really believe that ANY bowhunter can benefit from the course. I don't want to get in a pissing match. The IA_3A and I didn't see eye to eye on this one either. We agreed to disagree and moved on. You asked Greg/Mo if he has seen or taken that shot. I have seen it. It resulted in a doe with an arrow in her head. The landowner wasn't very happy about having to shoot that doe several weeks later. The reason I am so adamantly opposed to that shot is because so much can go wrong. The target,(vital), area is very small at that angle, the slightest movement of the animal can cause a bad hit. The guy that hit the doe in the head is my brother in law. Hes the guy that got me involved in bowhunting. It was a 25 yd shot. The doe put her head down to feed, right into the path of the oncoming arrow. It happens. I will stick with high percentage broadside or quartering away shots. If the animal moves I still have a much greater chance at making a mortal shot.\ I guess I respect the animal more or just don't have the pressure of a deadline to get a shot on film.
I totally understand where you are coming from. Have from the very beginning. So you have personally seen the shot and it ended up with a doe with an arrow in her head. The point is that ethics is a personal thing. You can attack ones ethics all you want but just because YOU aren't comfortable taking the shot, does not mean it is unethical. It means it would be unethical to YOU for YOU to attempt. This is called transference. You don't feel comfortable doing it so it must be wrong or unethical.
It is still a low percentage shot regardless of ones skill or comfort level. That is what makes it unethical. Why not just wait a minute, after all patience is a virtue, and see if that deer turns and offers a higher percentage shot. Is it for fear that a high percentage shot opportunity won't happen? Or could there be some over inflated ego involved? I'm not saying thats the case, just thinking its a possibility. At this point I'm really interested in your views on this. Like I said I don't want to get in a pissing match, I want to try and see it from your perspective. Why not wait and see how it plays out? Will the deer turn and offer a broadside shot? I will wait and see. My skill set tells me I could make a head on shot at 30 yds however I won't attempt it. I have to play it all the way through. If it means I don't get the shot I'll still have that tag tomorrow.
This is the deal. I wouldn't personally take the shot. I don't have the confidence that I could cleanly and quickly take the deer down with that shot. I agree that patience is something that every hunter needs. I just won't tell you that you cannot take the shot or that it is unethical if you do take the shot. Ethics are a very personal thing. What one person (or even a group of people) deems ethical does not make it golden rule for everyone. You don't like that shot because you believe it is a low percentage shot. It may be a low percentage shot for you, me and the guy sitting in your next bowhunter education class. It may not be a low percentage shot for certain folks out there. I can't hit the broad side of a barn with my .308 from 1000 meters but I ain't gonna tell Carlos Hathcock III that he is unethical for attempting a headshot at that distance...
If the target never moved then a lot of iffy (unethical?) shots would just not be iffy. But the fact that the target can move a couple inches before the impact of the arrow makes even a high percentage shot iffy at times. Movement of the target never seems to be taken into account when discussing these questionable shot scenarios. Your gunner may be able to hit a quarter at a 1000 yds but how does he do when the quarter can move?
You don't like that shot because you believe it is a low percentage shot. It may be a low percentage shot for you, me and the guy sitting in your next bowhunter education class. It may not be a low percentage shot for certain folks out there. Thats where we'll have to agree to disagree. The person behind the bow doesn't dictate whether or not that is a low percentage shot. (At least in my opinion, and thats all it is, opinion). The size of the exposed vital area and the chance of the deer moving make it a low percentage shot. The ends don't justify the means.
I made a follow-up shot on my 13pointer 6 years ago - and it really did the trick. I thought my first shot was better then it ended up being, and I'm not sure it would have killed the deer, without the "deer facing me" shot. This is my only experience with this type of shot.
I am not talking about the deer... or the hunter... or the deer moving... or the bumblebee that just buzzed by your ear... or the rage that opened in flight... or the twig you didn't see... This is about judging ones ethics by your own standard and then projecting those ethics and personal standards to bash or discredit another person. Bowhunting is a low percentage sport and I hear it all the time from rifle-only hunters and such... not gonna tell another bow hunter his method is less ethical or that I am morally superior to him due to the shots he is comfortable taking. I also don't care if you high fence hunt, hunt over huge piles of corn or shoot deer from 1000 yards. Your life, your sport, your ethics... do what you wish as long as it is legal. I guess it is the conservative in me that makes me feel icky when I see folks trying to tell other folks what they can and cannot do (when that thing they are doing is well within the legal boundaries of this great country). The person behind the bow certainly does dictate whether it is a low or high percentage shot as low or high percentage is an opinion, not a provable scientific fact. The simple fact is that your opinion of what is ethical and what is not... is simply your opinion and your own personal code of ethics.
