Is traditional archery hunting unethical?

[LoH]

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.

Old post, I know. but for what it's worth, a trad bow is just as effective as a compound, given that the shooter is skillful, knows their own and the equipment's limitations and stays within them.

It's good to reflect and soul-search. And then, maybe you should go on and try it, and see what you think after getting some first-hand experience. Then, whatever opinion you form will be worth even more.

 

[Maverick1]

As long as the hunter is familiar with his or her weapon, knows their effective range, and takes ethical shots, it is ethical.

Flip it around: Is a 200 yard shot with a traditional bow less ethical than a 500 yard shot with a compound bow, or a 10,000 yard shot with a centerfire rifle? I think most would agree that all three are outside the ethical ranges for 'most' people.

 

[Macintosh]

The OP asked about hardware — a particular hunting implement — and too many people keep bringing it back to software, which is proficiency. I have no doubt that most of you who use trad gear are hardcore hunters who practice often and are lethal in the shots you choose to take. But the original question is about the ethics of using a lower-odds hunting implement when better tools are available.

The minimalist in me would enjoy hunting with a recurve/longbow, but I just can't bring myself to do it. If a dream buck/bull were to offer a shot at 35 yards, the odds are too high that I would miss or wound the animal. I also wouldn't pack a .30-30 on a once-in-a-lifetime bighorn sheep hunt. If a 350-yard shot came up, I wouldn't want to lob 170-grain flat points when I could be firing streamlined spitzer projectiles.

Which is precisely why I said the premise of the question was flawed—because it is all about the hunter, and it is NOT about the implement.
You said it yourself. You said “I” would
miss or wound the animal…not “it” would miss or wound the animal. You have exercised good ethical judgement imo around using an implement that is dependent on what skills and judgement the hunter brings. Other folks might choose to ethically use the equipment and limit themselves to 15 yard shots, or practice for years so they could make the longer shot reliably. Being ethical is making those decisions eyes wide-open, and living within them.

 

[Magma]

As long as you can handle your weapon and the animal doesn’t suffer before it goes off. Don’t see anything wrong with your weapon of choice you can use a spear for all I care.

 

[Aaron W]

I tend not to think of killing/missing/wounding as ethics. To me ethics revolves more around fair chase and providing the animal a reasonable chance to use it's senses to escape. I enjoy/respect all types of hunting. I don't mind if someone wants to shoot an animal at 600 yards but based on my perspective, I do consider it less fair than a 20 yard shot regardless of the outcome or weapon used.

I also find it interesting that many consider a "quick kill" as ethical whereas "wounding" is not. Given the two options for myself, I will take being wounded and a slow death given the chance for survival...even if it's for another day or a few more hours of existence. You wouldn't be doing me any favors or imparting ethics on me by killing me.

This year I ran into a guy who had killed a bull elk that had an old rusty broadhead in his back, a giant hole in the roof of his mouth and blind in one eye. Despite all of that the bull was alive so I can only assume that he preferred to live rather than be dead.

 

[Macintosh]

I think most people, both hunters and non-hunters, would view taking a shot with a very high probability of wounding and not recovering the animal, regardless of implement, as being the definition of ethical vs unethical being discussed. Fair chase is also viewed as being part of being ethical or non-ethical by many people, but its a different topic. I understand the perspective^^, but I dont think that is the way the question was framed or how most people understand the issues around traditional archery. The points being discussed are specifically related to the skill and judgement required to make an ethical kill using that equipment, ie high odds of a fairly quick kill with a high likelihood of recovering the animal.

 

[Aaron W]

I think that many do subscribe to the OP's statement "I believe we owe it to the animals to kill as quickly and cleanly as possible."

My perspective is that this statement is said by many but it doesn't mean much to me.

Hunting and shot outcomes regardless of weapon are somewhat unpredictable. I've found this to be the case with traditional archery. I shot at a whitetail (with my longbow) from about 10-15 yards broadside while I was on the ground and the deer wasn't looking directly at me. The arrow hit it on the opposite side from what I was aiming at. The deer died. My guess is that a lot of folks would say that it was an ethical shot to take based on proficiency and probability. If so much can happen, why do we focus on the "quick and clean"? Perhaps some consider a 10 yard, from the ground, shot at a whitetail to be unethical. My point to all this is that I don't think the outcome of what I just described is unique. This is why I don't worry about "clean and quick".

I think that traditional archery hunting is ethical. For me, however, it has nothing to do with proficiency or probability of the animal dying quickly.

 

[StupidLightweight]

I also find it interesting that many consider a "quick kill" as ethical whereas "wounding" is not. Given the two options for myself, I will take being wounded and a slow death given the chance for survival...even if it's for another day or a few more hours of existence. You wouldn't be doing me any favors or imparting ethics on me by killing me.

Interesting. This is a viewpoint I'd never considered. I've always viewed hunting from the perspective of the predator that isn't dependent on fresh meat for survival. Therefore, when my goal is to kill something, I strive to use tools that enable me to do so as efficiently as possible. This involves implements that are as lethal as legally allowed.

If it's archery season, I use a compound bow. However, in states like Wyoming and Illinois, I'll use a crossbow to up my odds. On a muzzleloader hunt, which I've never done, I'd use the best gun I could afford. And if it's a modern firearm season, well, I use a modern firearm with modern optics and projectiles. The only time I'd use a trad setup is in an area like the Trout Creek unit in Oregon, where that's the only tool allowed. Chasing mules with stick-n-string would be a blast, precisely because it's the best tool allowed.

However, if I were a deer or elk, I'd have a different viewpoint on all this. If I were being pursued by a cougar, I'd love for him to be saggy skinned, weak, blind in one eye, clawless, and suffering from a horrendous tooth infection that limited his ability to clamp down on my jugular. The more pathetic he is, the better off my odds are.

If it was a human chasing me, I'd like him to spend most of his time online arguing about how ethical it is to use a Paleolithic tool when more lethal implements are available. When he did venture from his modern cave during those dangerous fall months, I'd greatly appreciate it if he left the rangefinder at home and used a 70,000-year-old tool with wooden arrows and obsidian points. What luck!

This whole debate reminds me of The Far Side. Gary Larson would enjoy this thread.

 

[Beendare]

Revisiting this question;

I suppose someone from the outside looking in might say its unethical.

A person that has no experience with accurately shooting a trad bow…and all they know is from seeing newbies bouncing arrows through the woods- yeah, they might think its unethical.

Go watch the 3D Trad nationals…it will give you newfound respect for guys that can shoot trad bows.

In my experience, the guys that take up trad hunting, tend to be very conscientious about their shot selection- more so than the many compound guys I know…or the long range rifle guys I’ve guided.

 

[Coveyleader]

In my experience, the guys that take up trad hunting, tend to be very conscientious about their shot selection- more so than the many compound guys I know…or the long range rifle guys I’ve guided.

And even then, there tends to be a higher than normal wounding rate. I've hunted with some pretty well known trad guys and the constant was always, longer track jobs, shots off the mark etc. There are lot more ups and downs without a doubt. Been there done that, seen it.

 

[Macintosh]

And even then, there tends to be a higher than normal wounding rate. I've hunted with some pretty well known trad guys and the constant was always, longer track jobs, shots off the mark etc. There are lot more ups and downs without a doubt. Been there done that, seen it.

Question is, does that reflect on the gear, or on the hunter? Even if that’s true beyond your personal experience (mine doesnt match yours), I’d argue that from an ethical standpoint it is still a reflection of the hunters ability and judgement, not the gear.

 

[Coveyleader]

Question is, does that reflect on the gear, or on the hunter? Even if that’s true beyond your personal experience (mine doesnt match yours), I’d argue that from an ethical standpoint it is still a reflection of the hunters ability and judgement, not the gear.

It's not the gear, it's the Indian, and unfortunately everyone thinks they're the chief.

 

[Hawkeye29]

And even then, there tends to be a higher than normal wounding rate. I've hunted with some pretty well known trad guys and the constant was always, longer track jobs, shots off the mark etc. There are lot more ups and downs without a doubt. Been there done that, seen it.

Mind defining well known? A lot of people write/podcast about shooting trad bows but couldn’t hit the side of a barn from the inside. But I agree with your follow up, it’s about the indian not the bow, gun or any weapon.

 

[StupidLightweight]

History shows how quickly indigenous people around the globe abandoned bows for guns, so I’d say it’s actually the arrow and not the Indian!

 

[Beendare]

It's not the gear, it's the Indian, and unfortunately everyone thinks they're the chief.

Thats funny…and true.

I’ve been guilty of overestimating my shooting.

These days I’m OK with passing on critters vs a long miserable tracking job from a bad shot.

 

[StupidLightweight]

And even then, there tends to be a higher than normal wounding rate. I've hunted with some pretty well known trad guys and the constant was always, longer track jobs, shots off the mark etc. There are lot more ups and downs without a doubt. Been there done that, seen it.

It boggles my mind that anyone would argue against this. Of course trad gear has a higher wounding rate. There are no sights to aim. In the entire history of killing implements, from sharpened sticks to laser-guided missiles, the means to aim is near the top in terms of evolutionary significance.

It would be like saying a sightless .30-30 is just as effective as one with a peep rear and front post because one practices shooting instinctively and keeps their shots within a certain range. Don't laugh; this logic exits. "Because it is all about the hunter, and it is NOT about the implement," say the trad experts.

Give me a break. I'm not against anyone using trad gear. In truth, I'm partially jealous they have the balls to do so. But don't tell me it's all about the hunter and not the gear. Some "gear" is better than other gear, just as some hunters are better than other hunters.

I've talked with multiple cameramen who film hunts for "trad" experts. The common theme is a huge loss rate, which is good for the animals who survive, I suppose, but it's an embarrassing stat for anyone promoting this as a hunting tool.

 

[Macintosh]

No, thats not the equivalent. No one is arguing they are as easy or have the same range or are what raises a hunters efficacy. If I was subsistence hunting of course Id choose the weapon with the best efficacy. If hunters overestimate their skill or dont stick within the range where they can all but guarantee a good hit, then absolutely you’ll see wounding. Thats true of all hunting, bow or gun. But that wasnt the question. The question was whether a low-efficacy weapon was ethical. My answer was that the ethics are in the hunter not the weapon—within their effective range they are quite effective. Stick within your ability and its ethical. Stray beyond your ability, and its unethical. Simple as that.

 

[Nick Muche]

I wonder which weapon has the highest wound rate? Actually, I don't.

 

[Rich M]

Half of them jokers making movies cant shoot a bow or xbow. I stuck him, we’re gonna wait until morning to track him….

 

[MattB]

Hunting with trad gear is not unethical. Shooting beyond one's effective range is. It has been my experience that some people use trad gear as an excuse for exceeding their effective range. That is on the shooter, not the equipment.