Johan van der Merwe

Nelius Mostert

Rean Steenkamp

By Rean Steenkamp

It’s true, a longbow isn’t as accurate as a compound bow over longer distances. Does that mean it isn’t a good hunting weapon?

We can also ask whether a compound is as accurate as a rifle at even longer ranges. The compound is fairly accurate, and some of our best compound archers have challenged pretty good rifle shooters and actually beaten them over the compound hunting distances. No one can dispute the compound’s killing ability. Although it is an excellent hunting weapon it does have its limits and over a certain range cannot compete with a rifle. Since a weapon (the rifle) exists that can shoot more accurately (over longer distances), does this mean you should abandon the compound and rather use a rifle? No, just stay within the limits of the compound bow.

The same applies to the longbow, including, of course, the recurve bow. I use the term “longbow” as it seems to be the only word used by compound archers when referring to traditional bows, including longbows, recurves and selfbows.

Do I sound a little upset and am I making an issue of this? Well yes, I guess I am! I have recently heard rumours that the traditional bowhunter’s days are numbered, and I believe it is because we are negatively represented in negotiations with government.

A few weeks ago I hunted with a few traditional bowhunters at a game ranch near Potgietersrus. All had longbows. Of the five hunters, three had a chance at an animal and all three made good.

My friend Johan van der Merwe, a maker of fine longbows, was the first to bag his prey. He shot a blue wildebeest with a fibreglass-laminated longbow he built himself. The 65-pound longbow shot the arrow tipped with a 1,56-inch Lan Shark right through the animal, puncturing both lungs and downing the animal within 50 yards.

The next day was my turn. At dusk I finally had a chance at a wildebeest. It was standing broadside, but as I released the arrow a wildebeest next to mine gave my prey a nudge with its horns and my target turned sharply into a very quartering-away stance. The arrow, tipped with a two-inch cutting edge Tree Shark, penetrated the stomach, severing the aorta and puncturing a lung. The animal was down within 75 yards. I used a 58-pound bamboo-Osage orange laminated bow – in other words, an all-wooden longbow with no fibreglass laminations. The wildebeest was standing at ten yards when I took the shot.

Early the next morning, another good friend of mine, Nelius Mosterd, took an impala with a 55-pound all-wooden longbow made only from hickory, what we call a selfbow. The arrow, tipped with a razor-sharp Zwicky, zipped right through the impala, puncturing both lungs. The animal was down in no time.

Three shots and three kills. Were we merely lucky? I don’t think so. We practised hard, almost destroying Johan Pont’s broadhead butt with our wide-edged broadheads the day before our hunt ­– and we shot within our personal limits.

Had one of us wounded an animal, would that have changed anything? Isn’t there an amount of uncontrolled circumstances involved in any hunting? Don’t all hunters make unintentional mistakes? Are all the shots taken with a rifle or a compound bow always a kill, or are animals also wounded with these weapons?

My friend Johan Smit, also a builder of excellent longbows and recurves, has hunted very successfully with his traditional bows over the last six years. Here are some of his results:

• 60-pound Martin Dream Catcher – springbok – full penetration at 24 yards.
• 60-pound Martin Mamba – blesbok – full penetration 15 yards.
• 60-pound Martin Mamba – warthog – full penetration at 24 yards.
• 65-pound own take-down recurve – 3 x warthog – full penetration at 12, 15 and 20 yards.
• Same bow – blue wildebeest – full penetration at 17 yards.
• 60-pound longbow – impala – full penetration at 15 yards.

Johan, who also hunts with a compound, reckons that the animals he shot with the traditional bow died quicker than the animals shot in the same area with a compound, reason being the bigger cut-on-impact broadheads traditional archers use, more damage and more profuse bleeding is caused.

Johan is also a rifle hunter. He says certain calibres are made for certain conditions. For example, you would not hunt springbok in the Kalahari with your .416 Rigby, he says. This is not the purpose of this rifle. The same goes for hunting with a handgun. All equipment has its uses and limitations. Hunters should know their weapons and the limitations thereof. No one can say they never wound with their choice of a hunting weapon. We should just try to make sure we do all in our power to make a clean kill and avoid wounding at all costs. However, things do go wrong and animals are wounded with rifles, compounds and traditional bows.

To sacrifice traditional archery for the benefit of bowhunting as a whole is certainly not the right course to take. When one section of bowhunting is banned, we move one step closer to the complete banning of this weapon in the South African hunting industry. When the fight for the survival of bowhunting is fought, everyone should stand together. Personal preferences should not influence the officials chosen to represent the bowhunting fraternity.

We are very fortunate that SABA and the ABO are very positive towards traditional archery and have done everything possible to incorporate stickbow archers in their competitions, broadhead shoots and Certificate of Proficiency.

Why should we be different from countries such as the USA and Australia, where traditional bowhunting is well accepted and growing in popularity? Since traditional archery is growing in these countries and in Europe, are we really ready to deny longbow and recurve hunters from those countries a chance to bowhunt in South Africa?

Updated: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:28 PM