Is traditional archery hunting unethical?

[Felix1776]

I know this might seem inflammatory or trolly, but that's not my intention at all. Hear me out.

I've had the trad bug for years, but have never made the leap. The bug has bitten again so I've been consuming a lot of trad content. Thinking once again, maybe I'll jump into it. Trad is so appealing to me. I love the purity and the history of it. It's so much more interesting to me compared to compound hunting.

My hang up is this: In a lot of these trad hunting videos I've been watching, the lack of accuracy is really concerning to me. Some of these guys are dedicated trad shooters and have been for years and years, if not, most of their lives. They know what they're doing. I'd rather not name names out of respect. But in watching some of these hunts, even on close shots, 20 yards and under, there seems to be a real sense of, "Can I make this shot?" And if they do hit the animal, will it be a lethal hit? I know the equipment is capable of killing, but is the shooter consistently accurate enough, often enough to reliably kill? With a compound, even an average shooter, short of some catastrophic breakdown in shooting ability at the moment of truth, can pretty easily shoot accurately out to 30 yards, I'd say. I know people screw it up all the time, but compared to trad, it's so much harder to screw up.

I'm just wondering from those that have done both, if you've thought about this or had this same hang up as I'm having. I know the issue of ethics is highly individual, but I think you can probably sense where I'm coming from on this. I believe we owe it to the animals to kill as quickly and cleanly as possible. From my POV, a compound is so much accurate and effective, it makes me question trad hunting. Again, I don't mean to bat the beehive. Just trying to reconcile the internal conflict. Thanks.

 

[Snuffer]

The short answer is that it’s an individual sport like golf. Know what your capable of and hunt accordingly. The variables in taking shots at game animals are endless regardless of the weapon. Good luck.

 

[TxxAgg]

It's ethical. This is a ridiculous poll.

 

[mt terry d]

The type of equipment has no bearing on the ethics.
Well, maybe a table knife or a bazooka.

 

[tyco]

I’ve done both. A compound has a lower barrier to proficiency, for sure, but that doesn’t discount the proficiency of those that practice and are comfortable shooting a longbow or recurve. The range on a compound is certainly longer, but again, that doesn’t discount the efficacy of traditional means of hunting.

 

[Pgohil]

I don't think traditional archery is any more ethical or unethical than any other type of hunting. There are plenty of people with high powered rifles making bad shots and leaving game wounded. Compound archery is no different either.

One difference I see is that most traditional archers are very passionate. And therefore they put an extra degree of effort into practice and the craft in general.


I just dove into the trad world last year. First year was rough. Lost two animals. Refocused and did extremely well this year with no losses and great shots. I will continue to work hard to make those shots count, and understand there will be heartaches and misses along the way. That's part of the journey.


PGohil
WV

 

[5MilesBack]

Since ethics are all personal and assessed on an individual basis, it depends on the individual. Know your limitations. Then if you're operating outside those limitations, then yes, it might be unethical for you. But you have to assess that.

 

[willfrye027]

Ask yourself this:

Do I have self restraint to pass on a shot that is outside of my comfort level?

The same question can and should be asked for compound hunters, rifle hunters, muzzy hunters…

IIRC I took 7 whitetails with my recurve. Farthest shot was about 18 yards. I also missed a giant buck at about 8 yards (short draw due to shot angle, I think) and after that I hung it up for awhile..plus I moved back out West and wanted to go back to compound. I did wound one mule deer doe..misjudged the range thought it was 30 and it was more like 25 and hit her high. My wound:recovery rate is about the same on recurve and compound. If I’m honest, I have been LESS selective with shots using my compound and really should be just as selective.

I will say the recurve requires much more practice to achieve and maintain proficiency, but it is a blast to shoot and something I will probably go back to.

The poll is dumb, sorry.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I’m a compound hunter. It is absolutely ethical. Just goes back to personal ethics. I know folks who do what I would consider borderline unethical things with compound bows or rifles. Trad is a very valid and lethal way to hunt.

 

[Jagger0502]

The only ETHNICAL way to kill a deer is a heart or lung shot at 80 mph with your truck.

 

[Farmingdale's Finest]

I know this might seem inflammatory or trolly, but that's not my intention at all. Hear me out.

I've had the trad bug for years, but have never made the leap. The bug has bitten again so I've been consuming a lot of trad content. Thinking once again, maybe I'll jump into it. Trad is so appealing to me. I love the purity and the history of it. It's so much more interesting to me compared to compound hunting.

My hang up is this: In a lot of these trad hunting videos I've been watching, the lack of accuracy is really concerning to me. Some of these guys are dedicated trad shooters and have been for years and years, if not, most of their lives. They know what they're doing. I'd rather not name names out of respect. But in watching some of these hunts, even on close shots, 20 yards and under, there seems to be a real sense of, "Can I make this shot?" And if they do hit the animal, will it be a lethal hit? I know the equipment is capable of killing, but is the shooter consistently accurate enough, often enough to reliably kill? With a compound, even an average shooter, short of some catastrophic breakdown in shooting ability at the moment of truth, can pretty easily shoot accurately out to 30 yards, I'd say. I know people screw it up all the time, but compared to trad, it's so much harder to screw up.

I'm just wondering from those that have done both, if you've thought about this or had this same hang up as I'm having. I know the issue of ethics is highly individual, but I think you can probably sense where I'm coming from on this. I believe we owe it to the animals to kill as quickly and cleanly as possible. From my POV, a compound is so much accurate and effective, it makes me question trad hunting. Again, I don't mean to bat the beehive. Just trying to reconcile the internal conflict. Thanks.

I took up the trad bow two years ago at Thanksgiving because the compound had become too easy and I wanted to add more of a challenge to my hunting. After 3 weeks of at least 50 arrows a morning I was confident I could kill a deer inside 20 yards. I was gap shooting and two month later in Feb of 22 I got the opportunity for a buck and forgot to hold below the chest. I went on auto pilot and after 40 years of bow hunting I held on the chest instead of low. I promptly shot over the back.

The following week I had a good size doe give me a broadside shot at 20 yards. I shot through the near side shoulder blade and hit the far side shoulder and it bounced back to look like I had only gotten about 2" of penetration. Fortunately it gave me another quartering away shot and I hit it perfectly. It ran out of sight and it was only 1-2minutes at this point to dark so I backed out and came in the next morning to find an amazing blood trail and the deer dead about 90 yards away.

The next fall I had the opportunity during the rut where I had 5 separate bucks inside 16 yards ranging from a spike to about a 140" ten. I was able to shoot a buck that was about a 120" 8 that was chasing a doe. I grunted with my mouth and was already at full draw. He stopped broadside at 16 yards and I hit him in what appeared to be a perfect shot in the pocket. He runs over a small hill and comes running back being gored in the rear by the 140" 10 that was apparently tending a doe just out of sight. It looked like something out of Drury Outdoors! He was all bristled up, grunting and walking sideways to look even bigger to the buck i just shot. Eventually he walked off and when I looked where my buck was I expected to see him in a pile 20 yards away only to watch him slowly walk off about 100 yards before losing sight of him. I waited 3 hours for a friend to help me look and lost blood about 100 yards from where i saw it last. I called a dog tracker and he came out the next morning and we discovered the buck made two scrapes with him bleeding down his leg into them after being shot.

He survived and was seen live 3x over the next two weeks and several times on game cameras. It turns out when I shot he was trying to spin away and i went through the skin in the pocket but didn't penetrate the chest.

This year I was shooting better than ever after having attended the Barebow boot camp to support the USA Archery Barebow team. Was coached by some of the top coaches and shooters in the country for 2 days. It was the best $150 I have ever paid for archery. I picked up over 2" in dl with one coach making a tweak with my alignment. As I got better over the summer and fixed my alignment more I probably added another 1/2' DL. Now that became a problem because I anchor on my cheekbone and wear glasses. My nock was now clicking at full draw on my glasses! It was too loud for hunting. I moved my anchor down but this was 3 weeks before the season and I had it so engrained in my shot process I constantly forgot to hold lower or I put the point where I would normally but i was at the lower anchor and miss badly. My confidence went from an all time high to a low! I switched to my compound for the season and am going to try and engrain the lower anchor for this year.

The bottom line one has to make decisions that they will have to live with and hopefully they make good ones. As far as your comment about the accuracy of the compound vs. trad bow. Being on the council of the United Bowhunters of NJ we work closely with the dog trackers in the state and they tell us the vast majority of tracks they go on are guys with crossbows who took 40 plus yard shots. I have met several guys hunting public land that have told me they can shoot it out to 70 yards. When I asked how often they practiced at that yardage only one of the 3 that mention long range said he did but admitted it was only a few times a year.

 

[nevadabugle]

Is a traditional bow at 25 yards any less ethical than a compound at 80 or 90 yards? How about an muzzleloader at 300? Or a rifle at 800?

I can look up videos of guys doing all of the above on any given day.

 

[Stickmark]

Been witness to compounds wounds, no recovery.
A trad hunter must be willing to walk out of the wilds having passed on a shot.

 

[StupidLightweight]

I love this one. Trad archery is not unethical because it's a legal method of taking game. But we all have opinions, so here are mine.

I subscribe to the belief that we owe it to the animal to kill them as quickly and painlessly as possible, so that rules out spears, atlatl, longbows and recurves. Where legal, I'll stick to crossbows and compounds for archery hunting due to the increased lethality. That bothers a lot of hunters.

Before the hardcore stick and stringers try to skewer me from 20 yards (and likely miss or gutshoot me), know that I have the same beliefs for those who use bows during rifle season; hunters who use iron sights when they could use a magnified optic; and those who launch projectiles (arrows or bullets) at distances so great that time of flight allows the animal to move, turn around, eat a snack, or die of old age before said projectile arrives.

Hunt the way you want to. Use the tools you want. Stay legal and respect the animal. Know that whatever you do, someone will be judging you, so don't take this stuff too seriously.

 

[Str8shooter]

The trad archer that flings an arrow at 40 when they're only competent at 25 yards is no different than the compound shooter who has practiced at 50 but flings it at 90....or the rifle hunter practiced at 200 and has no idea what the projectile is doing at 400 other than the back of the box estimate and decides to send it. It is also true that there is a significant increase in required skillset/practice to shoot accurately on a repeatable basis with traditional archery and that the effective range during hunting conditions is estimated to be 20% less than effective practice range conditions (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3783948). It is a higher threshold to become a competent traditional archer and even then, the ability to kill quickly is much reduced. To be an ethical trad archer I think you must practice near daily throughout the year AND be willing to pass up most animal encounters, in what would be otherwise doable shots with a compound or slam dunk shots with a muzzleloader. I grew up shooting lots of traditional archery, but never really attained a repeatable capability at what I considered to be a necessary big game hunting range in the habitats I hunt. So I hunted with a compound some, and more and more pickup the muzzleloader or rifle to ensure the killing is quick, wounding low and the freezer full. I do know that the perspectives of wildlife commissions are shifting and increasingly uncomfortable with the wounding rates from archery at the collective level (compounds included) so as a community if we want multiple methods of take to continue, the self imposed limitation on letting arrows fly needs to be improved. A culture change that celebrates restraint and stories of close calls more than long range shots would serve us well.

 

[Tradchef]

It’s ethical. Always has been and always will be. Is there a learning curve…. You bet…. Makes me wonder if Paul Schaffer and Bart Schleyer were still alive what people would say about heavy bows and long shots at game. Two of the greatest there ever was with traditional equipment and hunting skill set

 

[LostArra]

Pressure to succeed and post videos on the internet can result in poor decisions and poor outcomes.
Tag soup is an acquired taste and not everyone can stomach it.

 

[Mojave]

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.

 

[dlee56]

The issue is in the question. I’d bet that there’s no unethical method of take but there’s plenty of unethical “just send it” mentality hunters.

 

[squid-freshprints]

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.

Might not be, but I respect you for saying it, I put down my wheelie bow decades ago and haven't looked back. I find real food for thought here as a trad hunter, rifle hunter, etc... We all need to be honest with ourselves about our consistent lethal max range. ( if you cant get that close, congratulations, the hunt just got started.)