dgibson
New member
Not by my definition, no. Public land=goverment owned, like national forests, state forests, whatever. Private land=owned by private individuals like ranches, farms, etc.
P&Y to drop let-off rule?
- Thread starter dgibson
- Start date
Moosie
Grand poopa
I'm guessing someone will disagree with ya D' ?
Also, Should we break out Limited Draw hunts ? If someone Shoots a Bull on a LAte rut hunt, is it FAIR ?
Also, Should we break out Limited Draw hunts ? If someone Shoots a Bull on a LAte rut hunt, is it FAIR ?
JoseCuervo
New member
I kinda look at the relaxation of the minimums as being a complete devaluation of the Books.
As the old saying goes, "I wouldn't be a member of any Club that would accept me". If I could get into the fancy Country Club, I would not be advocating the lowering of admission requirements to allow the rest of my neighbors in the Trailer Park to be able to join.
Same goes for the Books. They are SUPPOSED to be hard to get into, and represent the best of a Species. If anything, they should be raising the minimums.
Moosie, a Controlled Hunt is still a Fair Chase hunt, just not an easy tag to get.
As the old saying goes, "I wouldn't be a member of any Club that would accept me". If I could get into the fancy Country Club, I would not be advocating the lowering of admission requirements to allow the rest of my neighbors in the Trailer Park to be able to join.
Same goes for the Books. They are SUPPOSED to be hard to get into, and represent the best of a Species. If anything, they should be raising the minimums.
Moosie, a Controlled Hunt is still a Fair Chase hunt, just not an easy tag to get.
dgibson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are SUPPOSED to be hard to get into, and represent the best of a Species. If anything, they should be raising the minimums.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can agree with that. When every TV show you see turns in a "book buck" it would seem time to raise the standards, not lower them. Shouldn't an animal so honored be exceptional?
Moosie, the terms of the season have nothing to do with whether a hunt is fair chase or not. Whether it's fair to hunters is an entirely different subject.
Moosie, the terms of the season have nothing to do with whether a hunt is fair chase or not. Whether it's fair to hunters is an entirely different subject.
Nut
New member
Truthfully for me the only book I care about is my photo album to show to friends and family.
But I did check my let off on my bow (65% btw) for a "just in case" scenerio.
I am not to the stage where I measure a deer for taking or passing. (I like the doe scoring thread better ) However I will be having TE's deer scored for Boone and Crockett.
Am I a hypocrit?
But I did check my let off on my bow (65% btw) for a "just in case" scenerio.
I am not to the stage where I measure a deer for taking or passing. (I like the doe scoring thread better ) However I will be having TE's deer scored for Boone and Crockett.
Am I a hypocrit?
dgibson
New member
Hell, no, Nut!
I'd whomp ya if you didn't have him scored.
Like Buzz said early on, if for no other reason it's good as a standard of comparison. Saying "Codie shot a 164-inch buck" is a lot more meaningful to everyone than saying "Codie shot a buck that was about so wide, and so tall, and with so many points, and the beams were pretty thick, and...."
I dont think the new ruling makes killing a trophy animal any easier than it was when the rule was originally made. I agree that the emphasis is far too strong today on the size of the rack and how well it will score. I guess I am not a purist...if the day ever came that a mature P&Y class deer ever walks in on me I wont care if they write my name in the book with pink ink I will pull back with my 85% letoff and stick his sorry hide...a trophy animal* is a trophy animal*
BuzzH
Well-known member
buckfish, I dont think the issue is about the ease of killing a critter with 85% let-off, even though it may very well be...I dont begrudge anyone who uses whatever they want for equipment (within the law), and anything they kill with their equipment is no less of a trophy. But dont ask me to change the rules so you and your equipment can get into a book with has restrictions against the equipment you CHOOSE to hunt with.
The issue I have is that the P&Y club, many years ago adopted a set of rules. One of which was 65% let-off maximum on compounds. The rules were set for a reason.
They get a little pressure from the bow manufacturers and the people shooting 65+ percent let-off and they fold up and now anything goes.
Maybe its just me, but in my opinion the P&Y club just sold its integrity down the river. The club shouldnt be just about getting more entries, it should be about conservation, recognizing animals, promoting archery etc. Seems all they care about now is how thick the book is...
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-09-2003 22:35: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
The issue I have is that the P&Y club, many years ago adopted a set of rules. One of which was 65% let-off maximum on compounds. The rules were set for a reason.
They get a little pressure from the bow manufacturers and the people shooting 65+ percent let-off and they fold up and now anything goes.
Maybe its just me, but in my opinion the P&Y club just sold its integrity down the river. The club shouldnt be just about getting more entries, it should be about conservation, recognizing animals, promoting archery etc. Seems all they care about now is how thick the book is...
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-09-2003 22:35: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
JoseCuervo
New member
It is kind of like Baseball. Babe Ruth has an awesome Home run record for HRs in a single season, and we all look at it as mythical.
Then Mantle and Maris chase it for one Magical season, and Maris gets it, and we all know that was "Once in a lifetime".
Then guys start taking steroids and they wind the ball tighter, and some company up in Canada (always the Canadians mucking things up...) starts making bats out of Maple, and lo and behold, every year somebody is hitting 60+ HRs. And McGwire/Sosa shatter the record, and it stands for 2 years, and Bonds gets it...
Lo and behold, the record no longer means anything, and we won't talk about McGwire/Sosa/Bonds in the same way we talk about Ruth/Mantle/Maris. And even worse, we will all put mental asteriks next to their accomplishments, due to the nutrition/supplements/etc... that they were taking.
Pope and Young of 2004 will not be as impressive as the book of 1964///
Then Mantle and Maris chase it for one Magical season, and Maris gets it, and we all know that was "Once in a lifetime".
Then guys start taking steroids and they wind the ball tighter, and some company up in Canada (always the Canadians mucking things up...) starts making bats out of Maple, and lo and behold, every year somebody is hitting 60+ HRs. And McGwire/Sosa shatter the record, and it stands for 2 years, and Bonds gets it...
Lo and behold, the record no longer means anything, and we won't talk about McGwire/Sosa/Bonds in the same way we talk about Ruth/Mantle/Maris. And even worse, we will all put mental asteriks next to their accomplishments, due to the nutrition/supplements/etc... that they were taking.
Pope and Young of 2004 will not be as impressive as the book of 1964///
BuzzH...I see your point and agree that as long as an animal is taken within the limits of the law then I have no problem with the method. I respect your view on P&Y lowering its standards and agree for the most part. I hunt because I love the experience and not for the chance to have my name in a book. My point was that regardless of the equipment anyone who has ever hunted knows what is involved in taking such an animal that meets the minimums for P&Y and that accomplishment alone is noteable.
Elkmaster
New member
The reasoning behind P&Y original limit of 65% was that they believed it was an unfair advantage to allow a hunter to hold a bow at full draw for an extended period of time. A 60 lb bow set at 65% let-off requires 21 lbs to hold at full draw. The same bow set at 85% needs only 9 lbs of force to hold. I feel that the difference is significant. At the time P&Y set that limit, they were fearing that technology was going to take away from the 'tradition' of bow-hunting. Was is different now? The only difference now is that manufacturers are making high let-off bows readily available to consumers because consumers want them. They are everywhere, and it is manufactures,,NOT hunters that have been challenging the P&Y limits.
I do feel that P&Y has sold out. Manufacturers are constantly making beter, faster and easier bows,,,where do we draw the line? Manufacturers are currently in a race to 400 and soon you will be able to buy bows that shoot arrows at 400 fps. Folks will be able to shoot deer and elk well past 100 yards. Wheres the tradition in that?
I like the idea of having a seperate listing for 'traditional' bow-hunting. What they should do is raise the minimum score of animals shot with these high-tech bows. That would preserve the integrity of the traditional hunters!
I do feel that P&Y has sold out. Manufacturers are constantly making beter, faster and easier bows,,,where do we draw the line? Manufacturers are currently in a race to 400 and soon you will be able to buy bows that shoot arrows at 400 fps. Folks will be able to shoot deer and elk well past 100 yards. Wheres the tradition in that?
I like the idea of having a seperate listing for 'traditional' bow-hunting. What they should do is raise the minimum score of animals shot with these high-tech bows. That would preserve the integrity of the traditional hunters!
I see the point of everyones argument but nothing is mentioned of technology as it relates to every aspect of bowhunting from range finders, fiber optic sights, carbon arrows, mechanical broadheads, whisker biscuits, string silencers, carbon clothing, climbing treestands etc. Do these not provide an advantage to the hunter and should using them change the minimum requirements for entry?
JoseCuervo
New member
Buckfish,
Yeah, technology has an influence on it. A bow kill of 30 years ago is more impressive than one of today.
If you read the Big Game section on the kid that killed the Bighorn with a Muzzleloader, I think we kind of agreed that none of us felt it was a real Muzzleloader kill, and the family had lost the "true meaning of Christmas". That would be an entry with an asterisk, as it was an in-line.
In the re-loading section, somebody that makes bullets was bragging about a customer who just returned from Idaho and killed an Elk at 526 yards and a mulie at 520 yards (I think that was the distance), and my comment was "How much hunting was done, if the average shot was more than 500 yards?"
I think all these Record Books, and the Technology Arms race, and the Magazines, and proabably to some extent, sites like Hunttalk.com contribute to this.
Hell, here in Hunttalk, we have the Celebrity TurkeyEye who whacked a big whitetail at 11 years old. And now, thanks to the internet, he and his deer picture are known from coast to coast. And it sounds like his hunt was a great, fair-chase hunt. But, if the next time I go to Wal-mart, and I see TurkeyEye's smiling face on the packaging of DOEinHEAT scent, and I see a set of TurkeyEye licensed rattling horns, then I will be a bit saddened. (Not to say that Nut and TE will do that, just making up an example...).
Maybe I am just getting cynical, but I think the drive for Record Books is taking away some of the joy of the hunt.
Yeah, technology has an influence on it. A bow kill of 30 years ago is more impressive than one of today.
If you read the Big Game section on the kid that killed the Bighorn with a Muzzleloader, I think we kind of agreed that none of us felt it was a real Muzzleloader kill, and the family had lost the "true meaning of Christmas". That would be an entry with an asterisk, as it was an in-line.
In the re-loading section, somebody that makes bullets was bragging about a customer who just returned from Idaho and killed an Elk at 526 yards and a mulie at 520 yards (I think that was the distance), and my comment was "How much hunting was done, if the average shot was more than 500 yards?"
I think all these Record Books, and the Technology Arms race, and the Magazines, and proabably to some extent, sites like Hunttalk.com contribute to this.
Hell, here in Hunttalk, we have the Celebrity TurkeyEye who whacked a big whitetail at 11 years old. And now, thanks to the internet, he and his deer picture are known from coast to coast. And it sounds like his hunt was a great, fair-chase hunt. But, if the next time I go to Wal-mart, and I see TurkeyEye's smiling face on the packaging of DOEinHEAT scent, and I see a set of TurkeyEye licensed rattling horns, then I will be a bit saddened. (Not to say that Nut and TE will do that, just making up an example...).
Maybe I am just getting cynical, but I think the drive for Record Books is taking away some of the joy of the hunt.
dgibson
New member
The only name-brand product that TE used was Winchester.
Buckfish, I'd take that as another argument for stricter regulations, if anything. You're right that technology is making it easier and easier for bowhunters (and there's nothing wrong with that!). But if it's getting easier to kill big bucks, you have to wonder what the point of a record book based on yesterday's standards is.
Buckfish, I'd take that as another argument for stricter regulations, if anything. You're right that technology is making it easier and easier for bowhunters (and there's nothing wrong with that!). But if it's getting easier to kill big bucks, you have to wonder what the point of a record book based on yesterday's standards is.
JoseCuervo
New member
Almost like all the books should be frozen at a certain time, and new entries have to be higher.
Every 5 years, raise the minimum 5"... If you look at B&C whitetail, I think 70% of the All time records are from the last 20 years.... Something seems to be cheapening the book..
Every 5 years, raise the minimum 5"... If you look at B&C whitetail, I think 70% of the All time records are from the last 20 years.... Something seems to be cheapening the book..
I dont agree that the minimums for entry should be raised to offset technological advances. ElkGunner you used baseball as an analogy earlier...if the ruling were never changed would I as a hunter be frowned upon for using supplements to enable me to hold a 65% letoff bow at full draw longer? Any true trophy will not fall due to a change in letoff. I would only agree that the hunter had been given an unfair advantage if the bow could produce enough energy to be effective at 60 or 70 yards.
At some point the original ruling had to be changed to allow 65% letoff compounds and I am sure longbow hunters said the same then that P&Y sold out. I guess I am the only one who is as much as a sell out as P&Y but I applaud anyone who can outwit the game they take without personally selling out and hunting outside of the law.
At some point the original ruling had to be changed to allow 65% letoff compounds and I am sure longbow hunters said the same then that P&Y sold out. I guess I am the only one who is as much as a sell out as P&Y but I applaud anyone who can outwit the game they take without personally selling out and hunting outside of the law.
les48
New member
i agree that the minimums should be raised instead of lowering any other rules. however to hunters like me who don't care about names and sizes in books ,it is a mute point. as far as i am concerned if it's brown ,it's down and a trophy is whatever i get that will go in my freezer. i feel the same about fishing.
I think the thing with what ever the let off of any compound is just semantics any way
...It really doesn't matter one way or another, it still is the defining factor of the the individual behind the weapon. I really like the fact that they are producing a new book for those that hunt with old style archery tackle. I also agree that the people that get their trophy animals on "Free Range" should be marked in some way do differentiate those that have had theirs on special feeds and diets..
...It really doesn't matter one way or another, it still is the defining factor of the the individual behind the weapon. I really like the fact that they are producing a new book for those that hunt with old style archery tackle. I also agree that the people that get their trophy animals on "Free Range" should be marked in some way do differentiate those that have had theirs on special feeds and diets..
