my latest little hunter 50" hard maple (50# @ 26)

[willie]

they probably didn't know better

adb-
I think that you are selling the native american bowyers a little short with that conclusion. The historical record shows a consistency of design, of at least of what has been preserved. If it was a lack of design, I would think that the bows would be all sizes and shapes. 

[adb]

I don't know... I'm just guessing.

[half eye]

Fellas, I posted a bow, I said it was not my usual, I told you why I did what I did and threw the mic on it for ya.

Let me clarify, abd and pat m, yall must have run out arguements on the other threads,eh? I dont recall asking you what your preffered bow style is/was. You dont like this one thats fine, all ya got to do is say so. You do yourselves no service by belittling Native Americans either. You have no idea what their thought processes were, or what their knowlege base was. I'm not native armeican but a crack like that embarrasses me as a white man. That arogant distain of Native Americans is what got General Braddock killed, too bad he had to take 800-1000 souls with him.

I never held this bow up as poster child for "great bows". I said I made me a hunting bow, and thats all. So thanks for your input, I'll be sure to give it the consideration it justly deserves.
rich

[ajooter]

Agreed

[adb]

Careful Rich. I have native blood. My Great Grandmother was Iroquois. My Grandson is half native. That has nothing to do with it. I said I was guessing. I'm not embarrassed to guess what some of my distant relatives might have been thinking or not thinking. My Grandson's father is Cree, and he's married to my daughter. Careful what brush you use to paint people you don't know. If you're trying to make me out as prejudiced, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[half eye]

You sir should be careful then of saying your ancestors used bent sticks and strings.....because "they probably didnt know any better". If you cant see that remark as offensive (especially to your blood) then there is no hope.

Once again you two have highjacked a thread with off topic matters and comments of no constructive value.

I leave my thread in your all-knowing hands gentlemen.
rich

[JonW]

Dang it I thought I was seeing white and gold. Or maybe blue and black.....

[willie]

adb-

sometimes a quick guess is just that, and I appreciate that you came back and as much as said "after consideration, I don't really know",

Rich, you have made as many of these style bows as any one anyone, and if I may say so, probably more than the rest of us put together. I was really hoping to hear your views on the plus side of these traditional designs.

I will be more than willing to open another thread. Sorry for taking your presentation off topic.

Willie

[PatM]

I just stated what I saw in the shape and made no judgement on it at all. That's your hypersensitivity kicking in.
 Grandmother came right off the reserve in Manitoba FWIW.

[Slackbunny]

I agree that the consistency of design shows that Native Americans set out with a design in mind. But that doesn't mean that it was necessarily a good design. If you asked a Native American from 400 years ago why they were building a bow the way they were, I imagine a great many of them would shrug and say "that's how I was taught to do it, and it works for me."

Primitive peoples had a lot of other things on the go, and when it came time to hunt for food, most of them were likely more concerned with what had worked for them before, than what might work better for them next time. They didn't always have the luxury of time and energy for experimentation, and they certainly couldn't jump on the internet and have it out about what the best design was. Experimenting with a new design was often gambling with the well-being of your wife and children.

Its foolish to assume that primitive peoples didn't put any thought into it. After all, they were just as intelligent and inquisitive as we are today, and most people are always looking for ways to improve their lot. But neither is it wise to attribute them supreme knowledge. They didn't have the wealth of information that we do, nor the time or energy to spend all day experimenting. They arrived at designs that worked based largely on trial and error and natural selection. That's not putting them down by any means. All of modern science and technology is built on a foundation of trial and error, and more than a little failure and hardship. Every one of us on this site is informed by their success and failure.

I can respect the work they did and the things they learned, while still acknowledging that they may not have been entirely right, or went about about it in the best way.

All we can really say is that Native Americans knew at least one way that worked pretty for well them. Was it the best way? Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. But it worked well enough to support a thriving population for generations.

Think of it this way. If you had to put dinner on the table for your family tomorrow, what bow would you grab off the shelf? Your tried and true shooter? Or an untested design that you thought might work a little better? This kind of mindset is necessary for survival in primitive groups, but it tends to hold back innovation and creativity once a solution has been found, even if that solution is only a marginal one.

[adb]

I am also just offering what I saw as well. I see a bow with little taper in thickness or profile, bending too much in the handle, regardless of what design it is, or who maybe made them in the past. And as a matter of fact, I don't think it's a copy of a bow my ancestors would have made.

[adb]

I agree that the consistency of design shows that Native Americans set out with a design in mind. But that doesn't mean that it was necessarily a good design. If you asked a Native American from 400 years ago why they were building a bow the way they were, I imagine a great many of them would shrug and say "that's how I was taught to do it, and it works for me."

Primitive peoples had a lot of other things on the go, and when it came time to hunt for food, most of them were likely more concerned with what had worked for them before, than what might work better for them next time. They didn't always have the luxury of time and energy for experimentation, and they certainly couldn't jump on the internet and have it out about what the best design was. Experimenting with a new design was often gambling with the well-being of your wife and children.

Its foolish to assume that primitive peoples didn't put any thought into it. After all, they were just as intelligent and inquisitive as we are today, and most people are always looking for ways to improve their lot. But neither is it wise to attribute them supreme knowledge. They didn't have the wealth of information that we do, nor the time or energy to spend all day experimenting. They arrived at designs that worked based largely on trial and error and natural selection. That's not putting them down by any means. All of modern science and technology is built on a foundation of trial and error, and more than a little failure and hardship. Every one of us on this site is informed by their success and failure.

I can respect the work they did and the things they learned, while still acknowledging that they may not have been entirely right, or went about about it in the best way.

All we can really say is that Native Americans knew at least one way that worked pretty for well them. Was it the best way? Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. But it worked well enough to support a thriving population for generations.

Think of it this way. If you had to put dinner on the table for your family tomorrow, what bow would you grab off the shelf? Your tried and true shooter? Or an untested design that you thought might work a little better? This kind of mindset is necessary for survival in primitive groups, but it tends to hold back innovation and creativity once a solution has been found, even if that solution is only a marginal one.

Thank you.

[adb]

I can't wait to teach my Grandson to embrace his heritage. If he's willing, I'll teach him to make bows, and when I do, I'll tell him to make sure the limbs bend nice and even... not too much in one place or another, and I'll help him to learn how and why.

This is NOT a personal attack on you Rich. Only an attempt to challenge your ideas, and try to get you to see alternative views, and to provide a sharing of knowledge and understanding for new people.

[half eye]

Then go back to the original post...where I said this was not usual, my Native Armerican replicas are circular tiller (even bend tip to tip) Secondly ....nowhere did I say this was a na bow or copy of one NO WHERE.  I made me a hunting bow to accomodate some skins I was given, and even said I didn't like the bend so where did all you come up with all this other stuff from?  How many circle tiller bows do I have to post before you get the idea of what my usual is.

Dont cover your fannys with "thats not NA"  never said that it was, ya all just jumped on the crap wagon and so now there is no post of " my latest little hunter" just you all's side track. I guess the way to not get highjacked is to just not post, eh?

rich

[paco664]

For what it's worth. . I think it's sweet and would totally enjoy having it. .

Especially if it pulled 29"