Category Archives: Articles

How to Make a Rabbitstick (non-returning boomerang)

See my earlier posts How to Make a Returning Boomerang and Boomerangs are awesome! for more info about boomerangs.

The non-returning boomerang, aka rabbitstick was a ubiquitous and important weapon among hunter-gatherer cultures around the world, especially those living in open environments like desert, scrubland, and grassland.

The rabbitstick was used, obviously, to hunt rabbits, but also many other animals such as ground fowl, squirrels, and even large ungulates such as deer. The rabbitstick could instantly kill smaller animals when struck, but could also take down deer and antelope since it could break their legs, rendering them unable to flee.

The rabbitstick took many forms, but was always flattened and a foot to several feet long, and was usually bent along its length. Being thrown bend-first (with the V facing forward), the angle gave more force to the blow if it hit properly since the momentum would be directed along the length, striking with a smaller area of the weapon.

The rabbitstick was superior to a regular stick since the modification to be flat, bent, and with airfoils allowed it to travel much longer distances. A proper rabbitstick could be thrown with enough force to kill up to 200 yards, whereas a stick could only be thrown at most third of that distance. The flat shape, beyond enhancing flight distance, gave a more powerful blow since it concentrated the force to a small area.

The rabbitstick is fairly simple to make, and would be a great weapon to fashion in a survival situation. It is also pretty effective as a hunting weapon in general since it makes a two or three foot by 600 ft long killing zone. Compared to a bow and arrow or even a rifle, the rabbitstick may be better to hunt for medium-sized ground game in open areas, in such situations being only inferior to a shotgun.

Here are some basic instructions how to make one. More in-depth treatments of how to make rabbitsticks with different methods can be found in these blog posts: and an awesome blog in general), and in the Bulletin of Primitive Technology #4 (1992) article by Errett Callahan “The non-returning boomerang.” Callahan (1999) has a similar article in a book (see reference).

1) find a piece of wood. It should have the bend of the angle you are looking for. If you try to artificially make a bend in an otherwise straight piece, you will have to cut across the grain, weakening the rabbitstick at the bend. It should be wide and thick enough to end up after trimming bark and shaping to be several inches wide by about an inch thick. The heavier the wood, the better. If you don’t have a saw or don’t want to use one, take into account the splitting ability of the wood. Many pines and cedars split cleanly. I chose incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) since it was easy to find a flattened, well-bent piece, and I knew it would split easily. This wood is not particularly heavy though, so I made the boomerang pretty wide to give it some heft. Another benefit to using this tree species is that it makes an excellent hearth-board for friction fire starting (the board you put a hole in that you spin a stick on), being used by many Californian Indians for this purpose.

2) cut it to size then split it down the middle. You will need at least two wedges and a mallet, which can be fairly easily obtained in primitive situations. A very hard wood, bone, or best, antler, ground to shape makes a good wedge. A hard wood or rock makes a good mallet. I used a hatchet and splitting axe in place of wedges and a hammer for a mallet. I started the split on one end, got stuck in the middle so started again there, and to keep it splitting in the center, started a split once more at the other end. Pics below show this:





3) choose the better half and split that. Put your wedge in the center at one end (pictured below) and work it as far as you can. It may veer off and you’ll have to start at the other end and middle. If it won’t split at all just trim with your hatchet, knife, or saw. It should be only an inch or so thick uniformly along the length. I used the piece to the left in the below photo.


4) trim the split piece to size, giving one end a good hand grip, and making the edges pointed. It should be somewhat elliptical in cross section like this shape: (), with the edges near the center of its thickness. The cross section of mine was more rhomboid or diamond-like, like this shape: <==>. Callahan (1999) discusses the effects different airfoils and edge shapes have on the flight of the non-returning boomerang. Most importantly, if the edges are too blunt or too near the top or bottom, it may not fly well. The finished rabbitstick should weigh about 12 ounces for optimum performance (Callahan 1999)

Here is my finished (I left it pretty rough) rabbitstick. It’s about 1/2 to 3/4 inch thick throughout the length, and 1.5 to 2.5 in wide on the ends, with the max width of 5 in in the middle. The end I’m holding is more elliptical in cross section to make a good grip, while the other end is more flat on the top and bottom, with edges angled like an axe blade.



Many different shapes and sizes will work.

The most important factors are keeping it flat, straight, and with edges along the centerline. A good bend helps, but it may also be more of a gradual curve like this shape: (.

You can work the wood green (which is better for splitting or using stone tools), but keep in mind it may warp when dry. You can take steps to secure it in shape as it dries, or bend it back to shape after it warps by applying oil or grease and heating it steaming hot over a fire, bending it to shape, and allowing it to cool while holding it in shape.

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any injury or death resulting from any information in this blog.


Callahan, Errett. 1999. How to make a throwing stick: the non-returning boomerang. In D. Wescott (ed.) Primitive Technology: a book of earth skills. Gibbs Smith, Publisher, Layton UT.

How to Make a Returning Boomerang

A returning boomerang is not just a cool toy: this is a weapon useful for killing birds in flocks, and as a hawk decoy to flush waterbirds into nets.

What do you call a non-returning boomerang? A stick!… Not! Actually, although what most think of as a “boomerang” is the returning kind, most boomerangs used traditionally by Australian Aborigines were non-returning, but still specially designed to be thrown long distances in a straight line to deliver a lethal blow, as well as used for many other purposes.

See my post Boomerangs are Awesome! for background info and more about technical principles about boomerangs.

Steps to make a returning boomerang:

1) obtain a section of wood with a bend measuring 90-120 degrees. It must be from a fork, or bent root so the grain follows the bend. If you cut the proper angle into a straight piece, the boomerang will be weak and liable to break at the bend. It should be fairly straight and flat besides the bend. I chose blue gum eucalyptus wood, which is not particularly good for carving, but is very abundant around here and had that Australian authenticity to it.

2) cut it to equal lengths from the bend and cut that in half. I used a saw but for straight-grained, easily split wood, you can split it with a hatchet or axe and wedge.


3) thin it down and carve airfoils on both ends, facing opposite directions and blending at the center bend.

boomerang constructionDSCN0748DSCN0750DSCN0752

4) once you’ve finished the airfoils, round the ends. The below photo shows all the tools I used so far with the unfinished boomerang in the middle and the unworked half on the right.


5) carve flutings along the length of the top of the airfoils using a small gauge.


6) slightly round the bottom of the front of the airfoils, cutting off this bottom front corner with a single knife sweep.


7) to bend the boomerang at the middle, to give it a positive dihedral shape (meaning if you put the flat bottom of one end of the boomerang on a flat surface the other end will stick up), cover it in oil or grease (I used olive oil) and slowly heat it up til it’s too hot for bare hands over a fire or stove (try not to scorch it), then bend it to the desired shape while it’s hot and hold it like that til it’s cooled. This took quite a bit of strength and using a bench to leverage against. Be careful not to crack the wood. The photo below shows the positive dihedral I put on it.


8) throw it to test it out. Obviously you need a big field with no danger of hitting others. You should throw it with the V facing forward and the ends straight up and down. There should be a constant breeze to your front that you throw at an angle of 45-90 degrees from. Depending on the flight pattern, you may need to reduce weight, change the dihedral, or make other adjustments to get a full return. See these websites’ tips on throwing and tuning:

9) WARNING/DISCLAIMER: a wooden boomerang is a dangerous weapon. Make sure to always throw it in a manner to avoid hurting yourself and others. I take no responsibility for your safety in making or using a boomerang.



Harvester Ants (Pogonomyrmex sp.) Used as Ritual Hallucinogen by California Indians

Pogonomyrmex sp., probably P. californicus – harvester ants; were used as a hallucinogen and medicine by southern California Indians (Blackburn 1976, Groark 1996).

This genus of ants has the greatest mammalian toxicity known of any arthropod (Schmidt and Blum 1978, Groark 1996), with an intravenous LD50 of 0.3-1.1 mg/kg (Schmidt and Blum 1978, Groark 1996).

For use as a ritualistic hallucinogen, in the context of a “vision quest” of Indian youth, harvester ants were eaten after three days of fasting from food, water, and sex and not contacting blood (Groark 1996). In the daytime at an isolated location fully exposed to the elements, an experienced elder administrator, the ant doctor, would lay the youth on their back and feed him, somewhat forcibly, balls of moistened eagle down with about 5 ants inside each (Blackburn 1976, Groark 1996). The dose was regulated, from dozens to ninety or so balls, and the ant feeding stopped when the eyes of the youth turned red and he became lethargic and refused more (Groark 1996). The ant doctor then acts as if they are leaving momentarily, then sneaks up behind and pokes the ribs hard to startle the youth, provoking the ants to all sting his insides at once, causing the youth to pass out (Groark 1996). In most cases, the ants were eaten just once, but in some cases, when the youth awoke several hours later, he would be asked if they can take more ants, repeating the process if able for 2-4 days (Groark 1996).

In the near-death state, the youth would have visions, wherein he would obtain spirits of animals, dream-helpers, to help him in certain abilities in life (Groark 1996). For 4 days afterward, the youth must stay alone and he and the ant doctor must not speak to anyone (Groark 1996). To obtain shamanistic powers, the ants would be eaten in a similar mannar every summer until the powers were obtained (Groark 1996). The ants were also eaten similarly for a variety of ailments, from paralysis to severe colds (Groark 1996).



Blackburn, T. 1976. A query regarding the possible hallucinogenic effects of ant ingestion in south-central California. The Journal of California Anthropology 3(2): 78-81.

Groark, K. P. 1996. Ritual and therapeutic use of “hallucinogenic” harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex) in native south-central California. Journal of Ethnobiology 16(1): 1-29.

Schmidt, J. O. and M. S. Blum. 1978. A harvester ant venom: chemistry and pharmacology. Science, New Series 200(4345): 1064-1066).

Yucca Blossom Fritters

The genus Yucca has 40-50 species, mainly in the US Southwest and Mexico. Most have edible flowers, fruits/seeds, and flower stalks, and some have edible roots (when processed). Common names for this plant usually include “yucca” but some are known as “spanish bayonet” and one is the “joshua tree.” Besides food, the uses of this plant are many, and include the roots being used as soap, the leaves used for fibers, the leaf tips as needles, and the leaves for plaited sandals. Since the dried leaves or woody parts have a very low combustion temperature, they make excellent tinder.

Here I wanted to share a recipe for eating the flowers. Raw, the flowers can be quite bitter. But cooked, they have a nice flavor. I battered and fried some flowers from a spanish dagger blooming on campus. I used whole rye flour, eggs, and water to make the batter. Then I dipped each flower in the batter to coat it and deep-fried it in olive oil. So tasty!


flour, batter, and yucca blossoms


Yucca fritters! I fried a lot more but they were so good they got eaten before I remembered to take a photo!


Zen Affluence of Hunter-gatherers

The traditional view of hunter-gatherer or “subsistence” cultures is that their life was generally “a precarious and arduous struggle for existence” (Lee 1968).

In Leviathan, Hobbes sums up this view of “primitive” man without government in a quote, of which the last part especially has become a famous reference to such cultures:

“No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”(Hobbes 1651)

However, empirical data on living hunter-gatherers (even though they tend to inhabit marginal, unproductive lands that agro-industrial cultures see as worthless) show a radically different picture (Lee 1968).

It should be obvious that our modern culture, though more connected than ever with the internet, is ironically the most lonely ever. The more “primitive” the culture, the less its “development,” the more socially connected it is.

As far as poor, a poor man is defined by not meeting his wants, and our insatiable wants are making us poor, rather than inherent lack of resources. Hunter-gatherers easily met all their wants and needs because they had so little to desire beyond food, family, community, and health.

Studies have clearly shown how little hunter-gatherers worked; such cultures spent more time dancing or socializing than working. And their “work” was hunting and gathering, activities which modern humans pursue (or vestiges of them such as hiking, camping, etc.) for entertainment.

“From July 6 to August 2, 1964, [anthropologist Richard B. Lee] recorded all the daily activities of the Bushmen living at the Dobe waterhole [in the Kalahari desert]… the camp population fluctuated… with a mean of 31.8 persons. Each day some of the adult members of the camp went out to hunt and/or gather while others stayed home or went visiting. … In all, the adults of the Dobe camp worked about two and a half days a week. Since the average working day was about six hours long, the fact emerges that the !Kung Bushmen of Dobe, despite their harsh environment, devote twelve to nineteen hours a week to getting food. Even the hardest working individual in that camp, a man named ≠oma who went out hunting on sixteen of the 28 days, spent a maximum of 32 hours a week in the food quest. … [This study was during] the mid-winter dry season, a period when food is neither at its most plentiful nor at its scarcest levels…” (Lee 1968)

“A woman gathers on one day enough food to feed her family for three days, and spends the rest of her time resting in camp, doing embroidery, visiting other camps, or entertaining visitors from other camps. For each day at home, kitchen routines, such as cooking, nut cracking, collecting firewood, and fetching water, occupy one to three hours of her time. This steady work and steady leisure is maintained throughout the year.” (Lee 1968)

“The hunters tend to work more frequently than the women, but their schedule is uneven. It is not unusual for a man to hunt avidly for a week and then do no hunting at all for two or three weeks. … During these periods, visiting, entertaining, and especially dancing are the primary activities of men.” (Lee 1968)

“…During the study period 410 pounds of meat were brought in by the hunters of the Dobe camp, for a daily share of nine ounces of meat per person. About 700 pounds of vegetable foods were gathered and consumed during the same period. … This output of 2,140 calories and 93.1 grams of protein per person per day may be compared with the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for persons of small size and stature but vigorous activity regime of the !Kung Bushmen. …estimated ad 1,975 calories and 60 grams of protein per person per day. Thus it is apparent that food output exceeds energy requirements by 165 calories and 33 grams of protein… even a modest subsistence effort of two or three days’ work per week is enough to provide and adequate diet for the !Kung Bushmen.” (Lee 1968)

The Yanomamö from the Orinoco river watershed on the borders of Venezuela and Brazil were found to have similar productive efforts; making a living on only a few hours per day (Chagnon 1983). The Yanomamö spent more time blowing hallucinogens up their noses than obtaining food (Chagnon 1983).

A major key to this way of life is egalitarianism, sharing resources, lack of resource stockpiling, and lack of stealing (Gowdy 1998).

When hunter-gatherers come into contact with a market economy, they become as acquisitive as anyone else (Gowdy 1998). Why they do this may hold the key to a sustainable future (Gowdy 1998). The thesis of Flannery (1995) in his book The Future Eaters: an ecological history of the Australian lands and people is that “future eating,” or consuming resources needed for the future, is characteristic of humans, environmental factors such a periodic drought caused by El Niño limited Aborginal population size, and ecological coevolution created social customs that act to conserve scarce natural resources.

Affluence can be created in two ways; by producing much or desiring little. Hunter-gatherers were in the latter category, the “Zen road to affluence” (Sahlins 1972). The idea that their subsistence economy is a dismal, undesirable, and difficult lifeway is an ethnocentric prejudice, a bias of agro-industrial culture and economists not based on any anthropological research or empirical investigations (Stahlins 1972).

Yet this idea continues even to this day. We all learn in economics to compare economies against the “baseline” or rudimentary subsistence economy, a mere scraping for survival to compare against a more civilized economy based on stockpiling resources, getting more, spending and trading, with the ultimate ideal to possess and consume as much as possible per capita. The fundamental problem with economic theory is utterly ignoring natural resources and environmental degradation caused by “development.”

But where has this gotten us? Look around. In the US, the “standard” work-week is 40 hours. That’s two to three times the amount of work Bushmen perform. But 86% of males and 67% of females in the US work more than 40 hours per week. And while hunter-gatherers had healthy life satisfaction, community, and exercise inherent in their work, most of us are basically automatons in our jobs and must pursue our life satisfaction, community, and exercise in our spare time. Americans work more and take less vacation than any other country in the world. But the rest of the world, at least in agro-industrial cultures, work comparable hours, from around 20-50 hours per week, still all more than hunter-gatherers work.

Still satisfied with the “progress” of civilization? If not, ditch all your consumer needs you have been brainwashed into having by corporations and the governments they control. Live a simple life. Stop supporting the agro-industrial system that is killing you, your family, other humans, all living beings, and even the rocks, water, and atmosphere of our only planet. Reclaim your right to a healthy, happy, and satisfying life.




Chagnon, N. A. 1983. Yanomamö: the fierce people. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, NY.

Gowdy, J.M. (ed.) 1998. Limited wants, unlimited means: a reader on hunter-gatherer economics and the environment. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan.

Lee, R. B. 1968. What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources. In Gowdy, J.M. (ed.) 1998. Limited wants, unlimited means: a reader on hunter-gatherer economics and the environment. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Sahlins, M. 1972. The original affluent society. In Gowdy, J.M. (ed.) 1998. Limited wants, unlimited means: a reader on hunter-gatherer economics and the environment. Island Press, Covelo, CA.


Cricket Hunting Method of Nevada Indians

Eastern Nevada Indians hunted Mormon crickets at certain times, getting huge returns of meat for their time. American Indians all ate grasshoppers, crickets, and katydids in large numbers, and had many different methods of hunting them. The Mormon cricket is a large member of the katydid family found in the US Southwest.


Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex)

Here was an interesting method used for capturing them:

On flat lands below foothills, quite a number of trenches were dug measuring a foot wide, a foot deep, and about 30-40 feet long, shaped like a new crescent moon with the horns facing uphill. The trenches were in a row, with ends joined or very close. The trenches were covered with a thin layer of stiff wheat grass straw.

At the hottest part of the day, the Indians divided into two parties, each going to one end of the trenches, and lined up single file uphill towards the foothills. Each individual was armed with a bunch of grass, which they swung back and forth as the line advanced toward the trenches (the description of the exact positioning is vague, but I’m assuming the Indians advanced from uphill, going diagonally, with one end of each line near the end of the trenches, and the other near the foothills but still far from the other party, and as they advanced, they covered all the space between them), driving the crickets [Anabrus simplex (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)] towards the trenches, leaving few behind, and creating a thick black tumbling mass of crickets before the drivers.

The crickets, when disturbed, can jump about one foot down hill, but only half a foot uphill, so will always go downhill to escape if possible. The Indians were exploiting this behavior.

As they reached the trenches, the Indians went slower to give the crickets time to crawl through the grass covering the trenches, into the trenches where they stopped, thinking themselves hidden and protected. Once all the crickets were driven into the trenches, the Indians set fire to the grass bunches in their hands and scattered it atop the grass over the trenches, causing a big blaze of smoke, which killed or stunned all the crickets inside within a few minutes.

The trenches were over half full of crickets, and only about one out of a thousand passed by the trenches without entering. The crickets are dried and ground whole on the same mill used for pine nuts and grass seeds, making a fine flour that will keep a long time if kept dry. A bread or cake is made with them, or the cricket flour is added to pine nut or grass meal to make a bread, making it sweeter.


Egan, Howard. 1917. Pioneering the West, 1846-1878: Major Howard Egan’s diary: also thrilling experiences of pre-frontier life among Indians, their traits, civil and savage, and part of autobiography, inter-related to his father’s. Howard R. Egan Estate, Richmond, UT.

Boomerangs are awesome!

I was at the library checking out a book on sling and slingstone archeology, and next to it was a book on boomerangs! So of course I got it. My dad had a nice wood boomerang when I was a kid, and I played with that and some plastic ones at one point too. They are much harder to get to return than you might think. I never got the wood one to work, and I was always scared it would hit me on returning.

We tend to think of the boomerang as a toy, or novelty, but it was a nearly-ubiquitous and very important weapon, tool, and religious object for aboriginal Australians (Jones 1996). Every hunter had at least a few, often many of various designs for many functions (Jones 1996). They called them “karli,” “belo,” “iringili,” munartajartu,” “pirrkala,” “wallanu,” “warlanu,” “warraka,” “wana,” “murrawirrie,” “ngamiringa,” “yarrakoodakoodari,” “karra,” and many more names, but most commonly, “kiley,” with different types having different names, and for different language groups (Jones 1996). Aborigines in Tasmania did not have boomerangs, nor did most in the tropical north or those in the western central desert regions (Jones 1996).

There are two main categories of boomerangs: returning and non-returning (Jones 1996). The latter are kind of like the rabbitstick that was a common weapon of American Indians to throw at rabbits and small game. This type of weapon is a major improvement over just a plain stick since they are carved thin and have a bend in one end or near the middle. This shape makes them go much further, straighter, and have more force upon impact. These sticks were found in many aboriginal societies, as well as ancient Egypt (Jones 1996).


rabbitsticks or throwing sticks, including some returning boomerangs, from Tutankhamen’s tomb (Jones 1996)

The non-returning boomerang was perhaps more common than the returning form, the latter which may have been mainly used for small game hunting, hitting flocks of birds or to mimic a hawk in order to make waterfowl fly low into a net (Jones 1996, see more on this down below).

The non-returning and returning boomerangs were used for many purposes other than throwing for hunting: they were used for hand to hand combat (esp. the longer, straighter ones), a knife, a hammer or club, a digging tool, making fire by friction (fire plow technique), for clapping together as a percussion instrument, and for many ceremonial or religious purposes (Jones 1996). The diversity of shapes reflects their diversity of uses, and for hunting, there was many different shapes depending upon the prey and the desired flight path.


hand to hand combat with boomerangs (Jones 1996)

The returning boomerang was sometimes thrown over a flock of waterfowl, the boomerang having a hole drilled in one end to make a whistling sound like a hawk, while hunters also made a hawk cry, in order to flush the birds towards a low net that had been previously strung across the body of water, since the boomerang-hawk made them fly low, and rapidly in fright. Upon hitting the net, hunters at each end would let it drop, trapping the birds.


flushing waterfowl into net with hawk-mimicking returning boomerangs (Jones 1996)

The returning boomerang was also thrown into flocks of birds, being superbly effective with its high velocity and eccentric flight path making it very difficult to dodge by the birds, though the boomerangs flight path would be well-known to the hunter (Jones 1996). Of course, whenever the returning boomerang hit its mark, it fell and did not return.

The returning boomerang was used also for games and sport by the Australian aborigines, some similar to today’s contests with boomerangs, where one person throws and tries to get it to perform particular flight patterns like figure eights, or return accurately to a circle drawn around the thrower, or hit a peg (Jones 1996). A game was played mimicking war, where a line of warriors threw one by one at eachother, holding shields, and trying to dodge or block incoming boomerangs, which was difficult given their erratic flight path (Jones 1996).

Depending upon how it was thrown, a boomerang can have drastically different flight paths:


flight path of an illuminated boomerang at night (Jones 1996)


variability of flight path based on throwing technique (Jones 1996)

One special type of (non-returning) boomerang was biconvex, short, and wide, with a pointed handle and sharp edges (Jones 1996). This type was thrown into water to kill fish near the surface. This type was also made with metal when it became available (Jones 1996).


fishing boomerang (Jones 1996)


diversity of boomerangs of Aboriginal Australians (Jones 1996)

Some boomerangs were cross-shaped, others had hooks on one end, but mainly they varied by length, angle, sharpness of ends, and thickness, wood, and weight.

Often boomerangs were incised and / or painted with maker’s marks or ancestral designs. One common incising was fine flutings down the length of boomerangs (Jones 1996). I suspect this may have had an affect on performance, since overly-smooth boomerangs don’t fly as well. The dimples on golf balls really enhance their flight, and this may be analogous with these flutings (Jones 1996).

Once boomerangs became a popular tourist item, aboriginal manufacturers starting focusing more on carving and painting designs than quality of functional design (Jones 1996).

Modern boomerangs are often manufactured, and are made of plywood, plastic, or cardboard to be a safe toy (Jones 1996). Some are in made in novelty shapes (Jones 1996). Competition boomerangs include tri-bladed designs for “fast catch” events, while unequal-limbed designs (also often found in aboriginal boomerangs) are used for “maximum time aloft” competitions (Jones 1996).

The returning boomerang uses two opposite-facing airfoils blended at the center, a slight positive dihedral, and a bend in the middle around 107 degrees (lefties need to reverse the side of the airfoils). The fly using the principles of gyroscopic stability, gyroscopic precession, Bernoulli’s principle of differential air pressure and the Coanda effect along with Newton’s laws of motion.


technical boomerang design

Normally, a boomerang is thrown overhead, “V” pointing forward, held nearly vertically, gripped in the hand or between the thumb and forefinger. The flat side faces away. Throw at about a 45 degree angle from the incoming wind. A boomerang can be tuned by test flights, then altering the wing shapes to correct the flight errors. See the link below for more info on tuning.

I collected some nice bent branches of madrone the other day, and I’m going to carve some traditional returning boomerangs! I’ll post a photo-methods record when I do.

Here is a great photo documentation blog post about making a non-returning boomerang (it’s an awesome blog in general too):


Jones, Philip. 1996. Boomerang: behind an Australian icon. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA.