Is traditional archery hunting unethical?

[UpNorth89]

This will not be popular.

Anything that creates a would/loss rate outside of the scope of a traditional bolt action hunting rifle cartridge with a reasonable scope 180 grain Core Lokt, 30-06, Savage 110, Leupold 3-9 VX-II is in my mind unethical.

All weapons have been killing everything on the planet since we hunted with spears. Traditional recurves and longbows, crossbows, compound bows, air rifles, flint locks, cap and ball, blunderbuss, canons, elephant guns, the 30-30, and the mighty 50 BMG.

Archery hunting is popular enough, and a big enough industry that we as hunters accept the wound/loss rates of outside of the scope of that 30-06 listed above.

In most of Europe all wildlife has a very specific bullet weight and kinetic energy requirement to be legal. Here in Germany it is 2000 Joules (1400ish foot pounds) and 6.5mm for pigs, fallow, red, sika, chamois, mouflon and ibex. In the UK it is .236 inches and 1400 foot pounds. In some US states the 223 is legal. In others it is not.

I have been a bowhunter on and off in my life. I know I can kill, and have killed deer with a bow. I do not think it is the most ethical or most importantly lethal choice. The room for error is higher on all archery equipment, this is not something that is contested. It is a legitimate fact. Blackpowder rifles also have lethality issues greater than the old 180 Grain 30-06 above.

Archery and Blackpowder in all forms brings more hunters to the fold, and it allows for options.

I do not believe that either one of them should be taken away.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. There are tons of whitetails wounded every year with basically that combo in the Midwest and beyond.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[InFamousElGuapo]

It is definitely not unethical. May not be a good analogy, but I always like to ask a person who states it is unethical this question, "If you were to be hunted would you rather someone hunt you with a high powered rifle with a scope or someone with a stickbow?" If they say rifle, I call bullshit.

 

[Justin.Medcalf]

Trad is the original bowhunting method, I have hunted with trad gear only for the last 6 years. I have screwed up shots for sure. In six years I lost one bear and one deer. In my opinion using a simple bow and arrow setup is more ethical than using a compound that I can shoot out to 100 yds. Especially since the new technology with sights and bows that will make an average shooter a great shooter and over confident. To me ethics is more about giving the critter a fair shot and shooting them with a crossbow or a compound at 80 yds isnt fair in my eyes. I think everyones ethics are different or maybe what they view as ethical or not. I dont hunt big game anymore with a gun because I felt like it was too easy and I enjoy the struggle of getting close.

 

[Beendare]

I’ve hunted and guided for 4 decades;
I’ve seen animals lost to all weapons; firearms, crossbows, Compounds and trad bows

It comes down to each hunter staying within his effective distance. Sometimes, chit happens….but In the many cases of woundings it was usually a hunter over estimating their ability for the conditions.

Archery specifically; any situation where the animal makes the hunter has the potential for a bad shot location. Its up to us to factor all of those variables into a hunting shot.

Edit-
Many times it boils down to the difference of; “ I think I can make that shot” vs “ I know I can make that shot”

 

[Pdzoller]

Pretty sure I could quickly and “ethically” kill a deer with a knife, rock, sling shot or pellet gun in the right situation. All about waiting, taking advantage and being prepared for the right opportunity. When everything comes together and aligns with my skill, I make clean kills. All means are the same.

 

[nevadabugle]

I'm 44. Over the years here are the following animals I've hit and not recovered.

Rifle - 1 lost - probably 10 hunts total
Compound- 1 lost - probably 25 hunts total
Traditional Bow - 2 lost - probably 45 hunts total.

So given me as a single data point, a rifle is more unethical with a 10% loss rate.

I say that tounge in cheek, but instead use it as an example that this is a silly discussion in the first place. Hunt with what makes you happy, practice with that weapon, know your effective range and do not shoot past it.

 

[keystone112]

I believe it is ethical. Just like a flint lock with iron sights and a patched round ball.

You could also give yourself some accuracy advantage. My first bow was a recurve with a front sight. No rear sight. If I went back, that’s what I would do again.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Stick bows are deadly... most stick bow shooters are not.

 

[menhaden_man]

Welcome to Rokslide Mr. President! Could you please do something about fuel prices after you buy your bow?

 

[Felix1776]

I appreciate the feedback.

In hindsight, I really didn't articulate my thoughts particularly well and agree the poll was a dumb idea. Pro tip: don't post threads until you have fully thought out what you are trying to ask.

I guess what I was really looking for was assurances from experienced trad guys that basically a trad bow is just as effective as a compound, given that the shooter is skillful (practices a lot), knows their limitations, and stays within them. But, again in hindsight, that applies to every method of take. I too have seen people with compounds and even rifles who take questionable shots and/or shoot outside their abilities. I do think that every hunter has to figure out their own ethics and hunt accordingly.

 

[jimh406]

As someone mentioned, ethics have little to do with the weapon used. It's how you use it and circumstances that matters.

 

[willfrye027]

I appreciate the feedback.

In hindsight, I really didn't articulate my thoughts particularly well and agree the poll was a dumb idea. Pro tip: don't post threads until you have fully thought out what you are trying to ask.

I guess what I was really looking for was assurances from experienced trad guys that basically a trad bow is just as effective as a compound, given that the shooter is skillful (practices a lot), knows their limitations, and stays within them. But, again in hindsight, that applies to every method of take. I too have seen people with compounds and even rifles who take questionable shots and/or shoot outside their abilities. I do think that every hunter has to figure out their own ethics and hunt accordingly.

My trad setup was a pretty heavy arrow with 2 blade COC head that was wicked sharp. Punched through shoulder blades without an issue. It was quiet at the shot. As long as I was diligent with practice and stuck to taking GOOD shot opportunities; I felt better about that combo killing than my compound with mechanicals (had a mech and light arrow not penetrate a scapula and lost that deer..shot was good but deer ducked the string).

So yeah, it can be ethical and effective maybe even a good tool for close range work.

 

[nevadabugle]

I appreciate the feedback.

In hindsight, I really didn't articulate my thoughts particularly well and agree the poll was a dumb idea. Pro tip: don't post threads until you have fully thought out what you are trying to ask.

I guess what I was really looking for was assurances from experienced trad guys that basically a trad bow is just as effective as a compound, given that the shooter is skillful (practices a lot), knows their limitations, and stays within them. But, again in hindsight, that applies to every method of take. I too have seen people with compounds and even rifles who take questionable shots and/or shoot outside their abilities. I do think that every hunter has to figure out their own ethics and hunt accordingly.

I have killed more mule deer with my recurve than I ever did with a compound.

With that said, you will have many more hunts that end with tag soup switching to a trad bow. Getting under 20 yards is simply much harder than getting to 40 or 50 yards.

 

[Hackleback]

Long range rifles are deadly, most long range shooters are not.

There, I took the bait.

 

[FLS]

Stick bows are deadly... most stick bow shooters are not.

Spot on. I was a member of a trad only club for several years and hunted with a few of the trad who’s who. They hit about 50% of what they shot at and recovered about 50% of what they hit. The successful ones were very disciplined about shot distance usually under 15 yards, and could consistently put an arrow in the vitals. A large portion of the internet trad gurus are full of shit. You see the successes and never hear about their failures.

 

[Kenn]

I hunted with a recurve bow for several years and for me it was unethical. Two wounded and lost, and one killed. No excessively long shots, I just screwed up. I know all that can be put on me, not the bow, but I would love to know the wound rate for bows and rifles, and especially long range shots. People love to post their 842 yard kill, but not many talk about the ones they wounded, missed, or at least thought they missed. I don't know that there's any way to get accurate info on the number of wounded animals, since we often wound when we think we missed, and most of all we lie.

 

[FLS]

I hunted with a recurve bow for several years and for me it was unethical. Two wounded and lost, and one killed. No excessively long shots, I just screwed up. I know all that can be put on me, not the bow, but I would love to know the wound rate for bows and rifles, and especially long range shots. People love to post their 842 yard kill, but not many talk about the ones they wounded, missed, or at least thought they missed. I don't know that there's any way to get accurate info on the number of wounded animals, since we often wound when we think we missed, and most of all we lie.

Long range rifle shooters are about the same. You simply don’t hear about the failures. The good ones know their limitations. I have an aquaintace that brags about a 900 yd antelope kill. I was there and it took 5 shots. That part gets left out. Egos are a dangerous thing.

 

[2531usmc]

Following this discussion…..all I will add is the archery TV celebrities that arrow a deer with only 4 inches of penetration so they can film the deer running off with the arrow sticking out of the deer is not doing the sport of hunting any favors. That is the definition of unethical and is the primary reason I no longer watch the tv hunting shows. You tube has great hunting stories and none of the commercial tv crap

 

[Ron.C]

It's not the equipment choice, it's the individual using it.

If a person is simply not profficient enough or cannot exercise self control when hunting with their chosen equipment and attempts shots beyond their skill/practice, it's the hunter that is being unetical.

The same rationale can be appied to a hunter who hunts with primative equipment or the hunters who uses ultra modern centerfire rifles and all the accompanying kit to shoot long range ........and every hunting method in between.

I have my personal views on some hunting methods that I choose to keep to myself as it's a very slippery slope when we (hunters) start label a particular method (usually the method we ourselves don't do) as unethical.

 

[Matt5266]

Not only is it the original form of archery hunting. I guarentee you anyone who still uses a stick and string pick their shots very carefully. Distance, angle to the animal and shot placement are thoroughly thought out. You'll never see a guy make the comment. "Ill just fling one and see what happens"