Is traditional archery hunting unethical?

[Kenn]

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.

To some extent that’s all true but if “the individual using it” is wounding animals then it’s everyone’s problem. I already confessed that archery was unethical for me so I don’t do it. Yes, we label methods we don’t use as unethical because we don’t use them because they are unethical.

 

[Wrench]

Trad is luck. Sometimes you get lucky and a whole limit of really small targets die wearing your arrow.

I'd rather be lucky than equipped with a different type of bow.

 

[Wrench]

Ps, I didn't vote because it felt like trolling.

But I did share another limit of luck.

 

[AntelopeEater]

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’m curious why you write the blackpowder has lethality issues? Due to the more limited range/arched trajectory or another reason?

I was thinking in Nevada, where muzzleloader tags are limited to open sights, I can‘t be accurate as far as far as I can with a telescopic sight, but the raw power of my CVA .50 cal ”super magnum” loaded with a max of 150 grains FFG and a 385 grain lead conical should be able to take down any animal on earth with decent shot placement.

 

[JjamesIII]

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.

Interesting. The thing is I see people turning to trad for more of a challenge. As I do, on occasion. The challenge should be entering the effective range (whatever that is), which is undoubtedly closer than any other means of take. The challenge should not be lowering the odds of making an accurate shot.
I also see a lot of trad guys using the trad crutch as an acceptable excuse for misses and a much higher wounding rate. Like that’s more part of the trad game.
Kifarucast had a guy on that most of us know/who owns a company in the outdoor industry a few months ago that seemed to have that attitude. I was suprised at how fourth coming he was in telling stories about really long shots and misses/wounding animals that “will be alright” (probably survive). That’s just “part of the game”. I was just thinking this guy isn’t helping advocate hunting to anyone listening that might be on the fence. It sounded like he was shooting a Tac event, lol
If that happens more than once or twice to you in a long series of successful hunts, ok. But if you’ve adopted the attitude of it being common and telling everyone “I was sick to my stomach”, then continue wounding/missing stuff - you aren’t sincerely evaluating your abilities. Take a compound or crossbow out until you learn more self control.

 

[Hawkeye29]

I wont force my ethics on you. Don’t force your ethics on me. 30-06’s are for Fudd’s. Done.

 

[roosiebull]

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 understand where you are coming from, and I think the answer is “it depends”

The beauty of trad archery is the pure simplicity, but that comes with a caveat… in the same breath, trad archery is far more complicated than compound archery

I got the trad bug bad, and shot a lot every single day for almost a full year before hunting with it (that is a whole other story with the roller coaster of shooting, and then actually learning how to shoot)

Through all of that I developed pretty bad target panic for the first time where it actually effected me, but I could keep it under wraps pretty good in the back yard

Going into the season I was shooting well (no fliers) and anything inside 30yds was in trouble, but I was not going to shoot past 20, and knew I wouldn’t have to

Long story short, under pressure, I couldn’t keep my poop in a group and cleanly missed 4 bulls, longest shot was 18yds, it was an incredible yet incredibly frustrating season

After that season I decided that I had to figure things out, because my ability didn’t matter, my performance under pressure did, so I went back to a compound the next year

After that first trad season, I started shooting my compound and realized that I had crippling target panic with my compound, I could not hold my pin on target, twitchy shooting my firearms… it was a mess

Finally got through that and killed a bull with my compound the next year at spitting distance

The following year I decided to use the stick bow again with a stipulation that if I missed, I was going back to my compound, so I was shooting both a lot, and shooting well

First bull I called in was this awesome big black horned 6 point roosie, and literally skipped an arrow off his back at sub 10yds… he didn’t know what happened and kept bugling at me, and I ended up calling in a rag trying to get that big bull back in, and he was maybe 10-12 yds and I ended up not shooting at him because I felt like it wasn’t the elk’s fault that I wanted to kill one with my recurve, so I haven’t hunted with it since

My practice effort and shooting ability said it was plenty ethical for me to hunt with, but you have to be on point shooting a recurve, it’s different, you can’t just put the pin in the peep, rip the trigger and still make a good shot… there are no fail safes with trad gear, it’s all you and you have to be completely present in the shot

With that being said, I think people can be ethically proficient shooting and be unethical hunting with trad gear… probably more people fit that mold than don’t.

I think ethics includes knowing yourself and your tendencies, and being honest with yourself, and know when to put the stickbow down rather than you driving on because your ego overrides reality… it’s hard for me to say if trad is largely ethical or not, but I certainly wouldn’t want those who are proficient with trad equipment punished because people are incapable of policing themselves

I would be all for a proficiency test for trad hunting, at least prove you have one aspect of it down, the rest is up to the person, and how delusional they are, and how far they put their ego ahead of the game they pursue

I’m in a good shooting headspace right now and think I will probably plan on hunting with my recurve, but will also stay aware of the signs that I won’t shoot to my ability under pressure

As of now, I’m killing a bull with my recurve in 24’, but I will be shooting my compound as much, and will evaluate in august.

It’s a lot more likely to go out with a trad bow with an ethical ability yet have no business hunting with it, without the fail safes of a compound (peep, pins, mechanical release, etc)

 

[Shawn Hultquist]

It’s the Indian not the bow !!!! Same analogy can be used for any weapon of choice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gun]

I did Mechanical Advantage for 2 years when they first came out in the early 70's. Blew three of them up in that time. Back to Trad and never looked back. I shot five critters this past season. All one arrow kills except the Moose. It was a low lung hit that would have done him in, but I got on him again bedded and put another in the lungs to speed things up.

Learn to actually hunt. I used to scout twice as much as I hunted and I hunt 60-70 days a season.

Know your gear. Tune your arrows. Learn to sharpen to RAZOR sharp. I consistently see animals die in sight.

When I draw on an animal I don't even think I'm going to miss. No doubt and all CONFIDENCE. I read once that archery was 95% mental and I believe that's true. I practice almost every day year round.

 

[Mojave]

There was a study from the 1980's on the lethality of archery. It has little merit thanks to the technology being put into the entire archery industry in the past 44 years.

Some state wildlife agencies factor archery wound loss/rates into their planning for the hunting quota plans. There was a big fight a few years ago in Montana, on archers wanting more time to hunt elk during the rut. The state concluded that they needed to give them the time, but it wasn't necessarily during the rut.

I just moved away from New Mexico to Germany. In the 5 years I lived in Las Cruces, I ended up knowing 15 people that had bull elk tags during archery season. Only one killed a bull with a bow. 8 of them wounded and lost bulls.

What does that mean? It means nothing, as it isn't statistical data, it was not collected in a scientific way and I don't know all the details.

I am not going to bow hunt anymore, I am just not that interested in it. I don't care what anyone else does.

 

[Gun]

Good luck with your move. I left there at about 8 months in th womb.
Auf Wiedersehen

 

[Steve300xcw]

Most hunting seasons have been closed for 8 days or so and these threads are already popping up? Seems like its usually June or so before the ethic fights begin

 

[Beendare]

In my evolution of Shooting trad….I missed the first buck I shot at- Twice! A nice 140 class whitetail- ouch.

I moved from instinctive aiming to a gap and pick a point double check system….and since then out of about 30 critters, I’ve only lost one animal- a wild hog and I don’t count that. I drilled the hog dead center pass thru at 13y. It went about 30y and laid down in a grassy spot. I snuck in right away, it looked dead…poked it and it got up….and hobbled another 30y into a 3 acre poison oak patch to die.

I get PO bad, not worth going in there.

I had one very long shot that I set up my arrow for and practiced like crazy at that distance as I knew I might have to shoot across a pond-45y- made it my point on. I practiced it every day for a month prior and got 20y accurate- drilled that coues buck At 46-47y.

Maybe I’ve been lucky but I‘ve developed a practice routine and stick to shots I know I can make.

 

[Reddish]

Howard Hill…look at those videos. Most guys putting out trad videos today do it to look cool and haven’t practiced enough to be lethal.

Trad archery does take more time and practice than a compound. But once the instincts and muscle memory kick in, it’s impressive how well you can shoot.

 

[Lycanthorns]

I shoot my recurve every single week out of the year and it's still arguably not enough practice. But I do love shooting it at stumps, leaves, you name it. It's just fun to me. Now when I hunt I realize that I really, really suck outside of 15 yards, so I just don't shoot animals if they're further than that. That's made me feel like I'm making an ethical choice. Sacrificing successful hunts, sure, but remaining ethical.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I'm just a compound shooter who is about to have a second shoulder surgery in three-ish months so I will likely be putting in for muzzleloader tags this go around. Yes, I know the crossbow is an option too (with waiver), but I don't want to give myself hope that I can go hunting with my bow when I should be healing and doing PT. There is also the chance that my shoulder will never be the same so I could be stuck with a new method of take.

As a result of the above, take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

I think ultimately weapon proficiency is on the hunter, regardless of method of take. There are bad rifle shooters (see also Kryptek sheep hunt) as well as bad archers. That said, with archery the margin of error is greatly reduced. Even with iron sights, I can be shaking like a leaf and holding in a Mountain House breakfast fart (if you know, you know) and still group well out to 100 yards. I can't say the same with my bow. I've also witnessed and heard of archers much more experienced than I am losing animals due to the unforgiving nature of the weapon. Everything from misjudged yardage to broadhead selection all play a role and I give kudos to those willing to post their failures so we as a community can learn from these lessons.

I am also amazed by the "archers" I see practicing right before season opens that can't hit a 4 ring on an NFAA target (complete misses on a 5 spot target) at 20 yards and are now getting ready to shoot at an animal. I am also a member of a game recovery group on Facebook and for some reason, when rifle season opens up there is a much, much reduced number of calls for help. I don't think this is exclusively due to snow on the ground making animals easier to track.

It seems like men lie to themselves about two things: being able to satisfy a woman and their marksmanship ability. When the later occurs with a more unforgiving weapons system you end up with wounded and lost animals. I've also seen both lies occur at the same time at the range when you have the "bow bro" (usually shooting a Hoyt Carbon RX-something) show up with his scantily clad arm candy and both are sky drawing and can't hit a stop sign. In these instances (because I am a jackass) I like to take up the shooting lane right next to them (even on an empty range) and complain to myself when I drop an arrow in the 9 ring on a Vegas target. My goal here being to shatter the fragile male ego before an animal gets unnecessarily wounded.

Aside: Guided hunts can add to the pressure of taking bad shots. I've heard of guides that count an archery "shot opportunity" (for their self reported statistics to lure in the next sucker) as a quartering-to elk at 80 yards. I've also been personally accosted by a guide (that I will not name) for not taking a frontal shot on an antelope at 53 yards.

Aside #2: I sure hear a lot of really interesting quotes at the archery shop and online. Things like:
1. "If you haven't lost an animal, you haven't bow hunted long enough"
2. "Had to put another arrow in it" (explaining that they found the bull bedded hours later, despite a "perfect" shot)
3. "Jumped the string" (on a 40 yard shot on an alert animal)
Losing animal sucks, so I think said quotes are the result of ego not admitting that there was something that they could have done differently to suck less.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. In short, it's 100% about you being proficient with whatever weapon you choose and sticking within the limitations of that weapon system.

 

[CodeMonkey]

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 tend to agree with this post, with a slight reputable that I think it's up to the hunter to ensure they are proficient with whatever weapon they choose (see my above post).

Even Bowhunter's Ed will agree with the fact that arrows don't create hydrostatic shock. Shot placement is so much more important with an arrow as you have to either collapse both lungs or hit a major blood vessel to kill quickly/ethically.

Regardless of ethics, the physics doesn't lie and the rifle is a far more lethal tool. How many armies currently equip their soldiers with bows?

 

[Macintosh]

The question itself is bull hockey.
Saying that “trad archery” is unethical is not the same as making a personal decision for yourself not to use that technique, that is making a personal decision based on YOUR skill and YOUR judgement. If you say the activity itself is unethical you are saying that about everyone else who does it as well.
No hunting implement and no hunter is without an effective range that requires the human on the other end to make decisions with consequences. The difference between implements is large, but the principle is the same and the issues are identical. Any difference beyond that is the human. So if you say that trad archery is unethical, then you can use PRECISELY the same logic to say that ANY other form of hunting is also unethical.
“Rifle hunting with a magnum catridge, an accurate rifle, and a high quality scope is unethical because people take shots beyond where they are capable of making reliable first-round hits, and they wound animals.” Note, that^^ is word for word the exact same argument that gets made by people saying trad archery is unethical. It can just as easily be applied to compound bows, crossbows, gun hunting at any range short or long, etc.

 

[Btaylor]

I've said this before on here but it is relevant to this thread, the weapon of choice is never the limitation. I look at it this way, hunting is everything that happens right up to the point the animal is within your effective range with the chosen weapon. There is where the hunt ends and the killing begins. 2 different skill sets regardless of the weapon in hand. As a general statement, trad bows require a higher level of hunting skill than other weapons. The killing skills dont really change, imo, regardless of weapon.

 

[StupidLightweight]

The question isn't "bull hockey." Is it ethical to use ______ for hunting? While it may range from butterknife to .50-cal Barrett, everyone has an answer. It's not complex.

And the weapon of choice is always the limitation. That's the entire point of hunting regulations and why we fill our freezers using a bow/muzzleloader/rifle instead of a napalm strike.