I think Fred was a fan of trying to legalize the Poison Arrow pod if I remember right.
Yep... But he did not pursue it very hard….for good reason.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM FRED BEAR
Introduction by...Adrian Benke
INTRODUCTION:
I began communicating with Fred Bear in 1974, when he and Bear Archery were still in Grayling, Michigan. In the 1960s Bear invented the pod, and somehow talked Doc Herrington of Jackson, Mississippi into producing the mechanisms, and catching the brickbats that otherwise would have been hurled at him and his company. Bear said he'd given talks to some large bowhunting organizations and had made the mistake of advocating an open mind toward succinylcholine chloride (SCC) or, as he refers to it, the "tranquilizer." Calling for mere open-mindedness infuriated the "elitists" who dominated organized bowhunting, and continue to do so. The consequence was boycotts that nearly bankrupted Bear Archery.
The company was then sold to Victor Comptometer Corporation, and I believe it was then that Bob Kelly took over as president of the company. Kelly had been a lumberjack, a really colorful character, who at times worked as a handyman during some of Bear's promotional bowhunts in the 1950s and '60s. Kelly went to work full time for Bear Archery, and within a few years he was the most powerful individual in the archery industry. If I recall correctly, in the mid-'70s, Kelly said his company accounted for 45 percent of all archery sales. Of course the company has been battered by the competition and has changed ownership several times since then.
Early on Bear gave me a copy of a letter he'd written to Glenn St. Charles and Dick Cooley in 1964. Both were from Seattle and were officers of the Pope and Young Club which was the "brainchild" of St. Charles. In 1980 I'd had enough of the archery industry and decided to write a two-part book on bowhunting and SCC. When I completed the first half, I mailed a copy to Bear who promptly returned a note and a check for a thousand dollars. By phone he asked that I come and visit the new plant in Gainesville, Florida before I completed the manuscript. I finally made the trip to Gainsville in November or December.
At that time a glassed-in walkway overlooking the factory was under construction. The walkway was for tourists, and Bear mentioned it had cost a quarter-million dollars. During this day-long visit, Kelly and Dick Lattimer (now president of the AMO) seemed to hover over Bear and me, until mid-afternoon when both had to attend some sort of emergency. Fred and I had only 15 or 20 minutes of privacy, strolling by mounted trophies and looking over mementos in his cluttered little office. He commented on being pushed to complete his manuscript of memoirs and gave the impression of feeling exploited and exhausted. In fact I believe he was exploited. He then asked whether I still had the copy of his "confidential" letter of 1964, and suggested my book would have far greater influence if it contained that letter. I agreed. However, there was a stipulation: If I chose to publish the letter, I was to wait until after his death so he "wouldn't have to take the heat anymore."
Bear was troubled that he had promoted bowhunting and couldn't transform the sport into an honest and humane endeavor. Further, he sincerely believed, as do I, that truth eventually comes to light; and he didn't want posterity to see him as a callous promoter. Only in the letter is it obvious that he tried to correct a monstrous problem, and that he was coerced into silence. The evidence of coercion is in the letter's third paragraph. When I first received that letter, I read it only once and put it away for several years. On reading it a second time, however, that third paragraph seemed to have erupted from the page and struck me like a hammer. I was absolutely stunned. How could I have missed it the first time? If I had caught it, there are many things I would have done differently.
But the lesson learned is this: If something is potentially important, read it at least twice. Nine years later I finally published Bear's letter in my book, "The Bowhunting Alternative," which is no longer in print. If you want to keep an insight to bowhunting's history, I'd suggest downloading Bear's letter. It is written without editing and, hopefully, with very few typos:
BEGINNING OF LETTER
Mar. 6, 1964
Dear Glenn and Dick:
I want to thank both of you for writing me in your frankness expressing your great concern over my endorsement of the tranquilizer for use in bowhunting. Have no misgivings about offending my feelings as I do not expect everyone to agree with me and have a higher regard for those who express themselves as you have. I think that the Pope and Young decision to stand by their fair chase laws is a wise one. It covers the whole issue without specific commitment as to tranquilizer. It also leaves the door open to accept trophies from areas where at present drugs are not illegal.
Kelly lowered the boom on me about two weeks ago. Your two letters followed. I suspect collusion. My guns have been spiked. I will not legislate in any manner whereby my name or the company name can be associated with the issue at hand. For the time being at least I will hide my head and ignore the facts. You have expressed yourselves, partly I hope with tongue in cheek. I would like to express myself and I do so with the understanding that this is in confidence.
About two weeks ago I met with a small group of top conservation department officials in a neighboring state. They had apprehended a bowhunter using tranquilizers for deer and wanted information on the drug. We talked for an hour. I was amazed to hear the head of game and fish say, "The use of this drug would make bowhunting too deadly, the take would be increased to the point where the long season now enjoyed by bowhunters would have to be reduced."
Fortunately his thinking was not shared by the whole group. What he was really saying was that we were leaving cripples but that if all were tagged the take would be too high. What percentage of these hit deer are dead deer I do not know. If we go by the report attached on the Fort Custer hunt it is found that three deer are wasted to harvest eight. I would guess that at a minimum, two deer are hit to get one. I personally know many bowhunters whose average is much worse.
As against this negative thinking of our neighboring state, I met with top men of our conservation department, the Director, Executive Secretary and Chief of Game and Fish. In a closed meeting (both meetings were closed and confidential), they were for setting up a test area to find out what bowhunters could do with tranquilizers. I warned against this because I feel that northern states are too highly organized by affiliated sportsmen's clubs. I mention this reaction to point out that not all game departments fear public reprisal in the form of moral legislation from the do-gooders. I should also point out that our director of conservation, Jerry Eddy, who has been trying to kill a deer with a bow for fifteen years, was greatly upset on the Fort Custer statistics.
It is true that hunters of all kinds make up only ten percent of our population if we count children and oldsters. If we count the voting population the ratio is considerably different. Even so, we are outnumbered but I have no fear whatever of losing hunting privileges and feel that this is a poor argument against improving our crippling loss record. We are kidding only ourselves to pretend that the Defenders of Wildlife and their kind do not know statistics on losses by both gun and bow. Are we so naive as to think that articles like "Butchers with Bows" and such stories like the one enclosed are not contained in their files for reference? Is it better to stick our heads in the sand and deny facts when we do know how to cut our crippling losses but are too stubborn to act?
I am aware of the fact that diplomacy must be used and that public opinion is a stubborn monster not to be trifled with. Here in Michigan we did such a good job of selling the idea of shooting bucks only that it took twenty years to resell the public to crop the harvest and shoot does also. The argument always is presented that the tranquilizer (I use this word always meaning an overdose of the stuff, poison if you like.) will provide the poacher with a better weapon. Our Michigan poachers are smarter than that. They use .22 shorts. Don't have to get out of the car and can't be heard over 500 yards. A much more successful weapon than the bow or crossbow with tranquilizer.
Reading on in the Fort Custer story it will be found that gunners had a far superior record even though they used shotguns, leaving only nine dead deer for 153 recovered. The 41 does and fawns were illegal kill. Compare this ratio of one lost dead deer for 17 taken as against three dead ones for eight taken with the bow. Not a nice picture and that, in my opinion, is just about the average. The gun, in the hands of the average hunter is at least three times as deadly as the bow. I started killing deer with a gun when I was 14 and kept at it until the age of 31. My dad was a hunter and gun crank. I became one. During these 17 years I killed one or more deer each year. I never shot at one that I did not kill. None ever lived more than 30 seconds after being hit. I don't wish to sound egotistical but for the purpose of proving a point I will say that I was an expert with the gun.
For the same cause I have reason to assume that I have been an expert in hunting with the bow. This would seem to qualify a comparison of the two weapons from a common point of view. Without quoting figures I can assure you that the odds in favor of the gun are much greater than comparison of the two weapons from a common point of view. Without quoting figures I can assure you that the odds in favor of the gun are much greater than those quoted from the Fort Custer report. My conscience gives me fits and spoils my days afield when I get hits and no game. When I say hits, I mean body hits that will either cause death or prolonged agony. The tranquilizer used in crystal form behind the broadhead will not affect the animal when the hit is through the ear or nicks the leg or body. It will however, knock it out quickly on a shot through the guts, hips, shoulder, neck or head. I once tracked down a deer and shot it that I had gut shot 24 hours before. I could recount many lurid tales like this. I don't like it.
Again I want to go on record as being aware of the public relations problems that are faced. I am reminded of my personal position and of the Bear Archery Company if we were to become too closely associated with this movement at this time. I do however, deny the threat to the archery business as a whole and frankly I feel that you fellows should give the whole problem another good look and decide whether you wish to take sides with the alarmists or look at the problem from a long range point of view.
If we don’t so something to clean up our ranks the time will most surely come when we will be unmasked, the impotency of our weapons revealed, and we will stand there with bowed heads faintly mumbling, yes you are right. When this time comes our seasons will not only be shortened, they will be eliminated. The next generation will stumble on some trophies in the dusty back room of some beer garden along with the remnants of Pope and Young records and declare what a mess their forefathers made of bowhunting when they had the key to the whole situation but lacked the guts to back it up.
As for the purist who is all for blood and to hell with conscience and insists on either hitting the animal in the right spot or walking away from it I suspect that he would be happy to lay claim to an animal that was taken by a poorly shot arrow that deflected from a twig or one where the deer jumped the string into the arrow. I strongly suspect also that this same fellow would secretly use the tranquilizer.
The acceptance of the bow as a hunting weapon is handicap enough. One still has to hunt carefully, stalk close and hit his target. No archer, no matter how good he is, except under certain circumstances, can be sure of hitting an animal where he wants to hit him at average bow shot distances.
What is wrong with killing what you hit? I can answer this one. The whole thing is very simple. It is the word poison. It's a bad word and conjures up visions of skull and crossbones. Of elephants stuck in the belly by poison spears of pygmies who follow the victim for days before he succumbs to the venom. The type I am speaking of kills quickly and if we are to believe the release enclosed from Maryland, is not fatal to humans.
My interest in a more humane arrow prompted me to spend $50,000 in developing the Razorhead and machines to produce it in quantities. This at a time when we could not afford an investment of this size. I believe it is the best but it still falls short of the job to be done. If, on the other hand, we had come up with a broadhead of devastating design that would spill the guts to trip up the escaping animal it would have been accepted with great acclaim but now, there are those who are tearing at their hair at the idea of placing a tiny capsule on the shaft back of the broadhead to do the job quickly and humanely. I know that it is a shocker.
I also have hope for the future of bowhunting. I don't expect results quickly. I have no reason to expect ANY future for bowhunting if some of us don't quit this scare attitude and at least assume a non-committal attitude when dealing with the subject. We don't have to endorse the idea but we don't have to knock it.
It has been mentioned that if the method received too much public attention the gun people would develop bullets with the stuff in them. Hells fire, they have fences to mend too. All of the ammo people are trying to out do each other in developing the best killing bullet so why not join hands and come up with the answer that would completely disarm the do-gooders.
Some states have laws for minimum bow weights, some have laws about size of broadheads and arrow weights. How about one prohibiting the use of hunting arrows without tranquilizer?
I have stepped on some toes I know but this is how I feel. Personalities have no place in this problem. Because of the limitations of the bow as a humane weapon I would have given it up years ago in favor of the camera except for my business. I am endorsing the tranquilizer in the interest of the future of bowhunting. Give it another look. By all means read the article in the February 15th issue of the "Post" by Vance Bourjaily. I quote a statement from it. "Disapprove of me as you will, but to try to give your disapproval the force of law is a crime against freedom."
As you probably know, East Africa has been again opened up for bowhunting but not for dangerous game. Bert Kleinburger is trying to get two hunters to go there this month as a sort of test safari. This hunt will be watched carefully by those who control hunting in Africa. I made a trip to New York to help make this possible. I got it cleared for use of tranquilizer. My hands are tied. I predict dire results. We had planned to go to East Africa for our hunt in June but changed to a more expensive one in Mozambiquee when they prohibited the shooting of dangerous game.
I am asked many times, "What bow weight do you recommend for hunting?" I start thinking of the average which is 50 to 55 pounds and begin to state these figures. Then I remember the ladies who would be eliminated if 50 were the minimum and modify my recommendations by the statement that women's bows are usually 35 to 45 pounds and men's bows 45 to 55. We all know that there are many women hunting with 25 pound bows and I think that it is agreed that they are too light. Archery lanes are producing a crop of light bow shooters in both men and women. The trend is lighter and lighter.
We have within our grasp, the great equalizer. As stated by pint-sized O'Henry, "The 45 makes all men equal." I know of many people who took to the bow for hunting but gave it up after crippling losses without any take. I fully believe that if we had had the tranquilizer ten years ago we would now have twice the number of bowhunters that we have.
True, lessons in tracking will help but in most cases the job is impossible. I think that Art Laha is probably the best tracker we have among bowhunters but look at the trouble we had with a brown bear in Alaska. Perhaps I should tell that I killed a beautiful polar bear on my first trip to the Arctic. A gut shot at an angle that must surely have cut a slit eight inches long because of the angle of entry and because I was using an oversize experimental Razorhead. He ran about a mile. We tracked him in the snow to the edge of a lead only a hundred yards wide. Apparently he took on water through the slit and sank.
I can also tell of a big brownie, a ten footer, with an arrow through his guts and one in a ham from the rear shot late in the evening. We left him for next morning. He was bleeding well. A cloudburst that night and no bear next day. Three of us hunted all day in the rain. We got separated. My conscience gave me trouble. I crawled through many tunnels and thickets with only my .44 Magnum looking for a gut shot bear.
With more potent weapons I would have had my polar the first trip and it would have been unnecessary to kill two more and still no bear. The brownie taken in the spring of '62 would still be walking about if I had found the one I killed. Also, there is a brownie on Afognac Island limping because of cut tendons in the left front leg.
Present bowhunting equipment is not as effective as a .357 Magnum revolver. It could become more potent than Winchester's .458 elephant gun. Actually, I would feel better qualified to kill a Michigan whitetail deer dressed in a Santa Claus outfit with sleigh bells tied around my waist and a tranquilizer on my arrow than I would completely camouflaged without the tranquilizer.
I have spent a day writing this and have quoted facts as I see them. I feel very strongly about the problem of cleaning up our sport. I hope that a broader look can be given the whole problem. The range and precision limitations of the bow are handicap enough.
END OF LETTER
