Is traditional archery hunting unethical?

[Macintosh]

No, I look at it differently and disagree. Hunters have been effectively using equipment FAR more primitive than modern traditional archery gear for thousands of years. We arent talking about butter knives, we’re talking about many thousands of years of continual improvement to something that has been effectively used since the literal dawn of time, now including razor sharp steel broadheads, etc. The ability to effectively use the weapon is limiting for sure—the only argument is about people’s skill and judgement in applying those limitations in the field. Which is less ethical, a 15 yard shot with trad archery gear, a 40 yard shot with a compound bow, a 50 yard shot through a tiny hole in brush with a crossbow, a 50 yard shot at a running deer with a rifle, or a 600 yard shot at a deer with a rifle? People commonly do all of the above, and I’m quite certain there are cases to be made for all of the above being examples of poor judgement and probably unethical for specific individuals to do. The common theme is that in all cases the equipment is perfectly capable of cleanly killing the animal, and the human is the deciding factor in whether or not that shot is “ethical”.
There is no question that traditional archery is effective within its limitations, and therefore I say the APPLICATION OF THOSE LIMITATIONS (ie the hunter, not the equipment) is the question mark, as it is with any technology—that the original question necessarily leads to judging the equipment itself and not the hunter driving it, yes, I think the premise of the question is inherently flawed. The point is that some people are equating “requires more skill and judgement than what many people are personally capable of”, with “general use of the equipment itself is unethical regardless of skill or judgement”, based on reasoning that can realistically be applied to any weapon commonly used for hunting.

Nope, I think if you are a hunter who believes trad archery gear is inherently unethical for hunting you are tossing rocks in a glass house, ie the question itself is bull hocky unless you think all hunting is inherently unethical.

 

[Nicaburns]

I just wish I could still shoot my longbow… used to shoot and ton and anything under 40 yards was easy but due to my neck injuries I am forced to shoot compound. I would argue that the real ethical issue is proficiency rather than the weapon that is chosen.

 

[Beendare]

. I would argue that the real ethical issue is proficiency rather than the weapon that is chosen.

You summed it up well in one sentence.

 

[North Idaho Stickbow]

I agree with the above. If you feel unethical with your weapon; that’s your fault, not the weapon’s.

 

[TWHrunner]

I agree with the above. If you feel unethical with your weapon; that’s your fault, not the weapon’s.

This. The first time I shot a modern compound with all the tools, I put three arrows in a 2 inch group at 20 yards. I still can’t do that consistently with my recurve and I’ve been trying for 5 years. Sometimes my groups are like 12 inches. The trads in this group will roll their eyes. But if I took that recurve out and went hunting with it today, I feel it would be unethical. I’ll keep trying though.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Bingo. This is the point of this thread. Why go hunting with a tool you’re not as effective with? The answer is because it makes the hunter feel good, not that it’s the most lethal or humane choice.

All this nonsense about proficiency is irrelevant, because no matter if you’re using a blowgun, bow, or bazooka, proficiency is a given. You must be good with a tool to use it on animals. If you’re not, that would be unethical.

So again, rephrasing the OP’s question, is trad archery unethical? I say no, because it’s legal, but I can see others arguing it is precisely because there are better tools available.

 

[cck311]

I don't think there's unethical weapons, just unethical hunters.

 

[wcasey755]

It’s all about the hunter in my opinion. I’ll take Tim wells with a spear or blowgun who is obsessive and practices nonstop. over some Joe shmo who puts ten arrows down range a week before season with their compound and calls it good. Long story short, do what gets your motor going. Just make sure your proficient and not going out there and shooting animals in the ass.

 

[Coopsdaddy]

Trad gear is not unethical at all,the shooter is.
I have screwed up every form of hunting before and it all is disheartening.
We choose the gear we use to either fill our ego or soul.I do the later and have the desire to pick up my satori again.But I have had to put it off the last few years because of kids and just not having the time to dedicate.I have shot off and on for years.
My wife actually bought me clums online course a few years ago but I told myself when I decide to go all in im driving to him for the weekend.I know how difficult it is and i won’t do it until I’m fully committed.
My point is a lot of guys watch videos and just decide to do it,with the same shitty commitment they have about working out.
You need to decide and attack it or dont hunt,we will all loss game but don’t guarantee it.
The animal is game,but it’s not a game.It deserves a honest quick kill.
Find your line in the sand and hunt how you like as long as it’s legal.The ethical/unethical is personal.
To me personally I find a garmin zero more unethical than a stick and string and have a good buddy that uses one.Thats his business not mine.

 

[kdsulliv]

I agree with @Macintosh about the premise of the question being off. If you have any leanings against trad gear for the effectiveness argument at all - you can't stop there, you'd have to throw out ALL archery, and pretty much any hand-held weapon. If your measure of success is swift, sure, painless death, then all you can really advocate for is pentanol-laced bait. You cannot miss, it certainly feels no pain... you don't really have a counter argument that wouldn't start to slide the scale back to allowing trad into the picture again because part of the point of hunting is that it's hunting not slaughtering farm animals. If we allow any amount of pursuit and individual effort or fair "chase" then you must allow for the possibility of failure.

How much failure is acceptable? Well... does anyone have the real numbers on misses and wounding from other hunting styles? (Not individual studies, but ALL studies?) Do people really report how many times they miss or wound with their rifles? I won't say it isn't generally easier with a rifle, but what does that mean in terms of actual results? Sure I can miss at 15 yards with a bow, but a rifle shooter sure can miss at 100 yards too - but he's also more likely to take that shot thinking he can shoot that far.

So how much more or less likely is any hunter to take a shot at the edge of their effective range regardless of the weapon? If you could prove that people take more risky shots with a bow than a gun, or that they miss more (not that they CAN miss more, but that they actually do) then you might have something. But I've only heard small studies and there are contributing and mitigating factors to everything.

I think the jury is out on the wounding rates as we don't (and may never get) truly honest data from anyone. I think it comes down to the idea of allowing fair chase and understanding that that includes a percentage of hunter failure, not just evasion by the game animal.

 

[Macintosh]

Bingo. This is the point of this thread. Why go hunting with a tool you’re not as effective with? The answer is because it makes the hunter feel good, not that it’s the most lethal or humane choice.

All this nonsense about proficiency is irrelevant, because no matter if you’re using a blowgun, bow, or bazooka, proficiency is a given. You must be good with a tool to use it on animals. If you’re not, that would be unethical.

So again, rephrasing the OP’s question, is trad archery unethical? I say no, because it’s legal, but I can see others arguing it is precisely because there are better tools available.

You are thinking about this very differently, I would say incorrectly, but thats my opinion—and I think thats where the disconnect is. Proficiency is very much not a given, nor is sound judgment. That’s easy to show definitively, have two people shoot the same rifle at the same target at pretty long range, one of them intimately knows that rifle and cartridge and how it drifts in the wind, and the other having never shot a rifle before outside the very basics. You’ll very quickly see that one person is capable of making first round hits from a field position at much further range than the other…yet they can both buy the same hunting license. By your ethical argument we should limit the proficient shooter based on the lack of proficiency of the unpracticed one. I dont think that makes sense— i’d rather hold the unpracticed shooter accountable for their judgment, and see them practice to become more proficient.
To me, a trad bow versus a compound is no different than a 30-30 out of a lever gun with iron sights, versus a 300 win mag out of a scoped precision rifle. Both are certain killers within their effective range, so I dont think it’s correct to say that one is “more effective” or “more lethal”—only that one may stretch the range at which it is effective or reduce the skill required to attain similar effectiveness. Same with muzzleloaders versus rifles, etc. The reason we have various seasons is to maximize opportunity for hunters, all around management goals based on efficacy— efficacy is different than effectiveness, and thats a critical difference in this case. Efficacy is the odds of a hunter getting a critter inside the effective range of the weapon/hunter. But inside the effective range, dead=dead, there is no ethical question there. Ethics only comes in to play after a person makes the poor judgement call to try to use a weapon outside of its effective range, or (more likely) outside the hunters capability. This is why Im saying that the weapon itself—which is plenty lethal, plenty effective within its inherent limitations—isnt the ethical question.

Also, when I choose to use a weapon that reduces my efficacy, I do that to make it harder. It’s harder because it forces me to get closer in order to stay within its and my capability. Yes, “making it harder” is ultimately about making the hunter feel good, but seems different than how you said that. It does not mean its any less effective or less humane, that part is 100% in the hunters control to pass shots beyond their or the equipments capability.

To echo the post above, the reason I’m harping on this is that it has significant implications for hunting policy. You cannot make the argument that a reduced-range weapon itself is unethical, without opening the door for the exact same argument to be used against all other weapons using the exact same argument. It really is important for hunters to own their own ethics, and not allow other people to transfer ethics off the hunter and onto the tools that we know are affective and humane killers in the right hands.

 

[rclouse79]

It would require way more self control than I have. With my hunting skills getting within compound range is enough of a challenge.

 

[StupidLightweight]

To me, a trad bow versus a compound is no different than a 30-30 out of a lever gun with iron sights, versus a 300 win mag out of a scoped precision rifle. Both are certain killers within their effective range, so I dont think it’s correct to say that one is “more effective” or “more lethal”—only that one may stretch the range at which it is effective or reduce the skill required to attain similar effectiveness.

I've said twice that traditional archery is ethical. It's a legal hunting tool, so I have no issues with it. What I did say is that it's an ineffective tool compared to...well, anything. If that's your thing, have at it. I won't judge.

But the argument aligning trad archery and a .30-30 is flawed because some weirdo around 1450 had the crazy idea of adding sights to a firearm. Nearly every lethal tool designed in the last 19 human generations (500+ years) uses sights, so a better comparison to trad bows would be a 16th century arquebus. Both lack sights and are "pointed" or shot "instinctively."

Again, just to say this as clearly as possible: if someone desires to hunt deer with a longbow or elk with an arquebus, have at it. As long as it's legal, I won't call it unethical. In fact, I encourage everyone to use primitive equipment. Less competition for me!

 

[Macintosh]

We’ll agree to disagree on the rationale, as its not less effective until you add the hunter to the equation—sights, trajectory, etc are all irrelevant until you factor in proficiency, and thats all Im trying to point out is that it is very much about the hunter’s proficiency and judgement, and not at all about the implement.

 

[tops911]

I have done about 50 blood tracking of wounded game over the last 3 years for bow hunters and none were traditional bow hunters.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Interesting stat about your blood tracking, but what does that mean? Are there very few trad hunters in your area, are they damn good hunters/and or disciplined, or are the trad hunters so bad they miss deer entirely?

 

[littlerhorner]

I would guess that if someone asks if trad hunting is unethical, then the probably are not competent at trad or have never put any time into it at all.

I think this may just be a case of not knowing any better or not knowing anyone first hand that is a trad archer. I think a first hand, face to face conversation might change your mind.

 

[tops911]

I knew my comment about blood tracking would get a response. It's just an observation of my experiences. I also ask what kind of broad head was used, mechanicals have a bigger loss % in my limited experance, but it's solely my observation. I have 3 friends that are traditional hunters and are very good. Two of them have take moose and mountain goats each in the last couple years in addition to the typical bear, deer and elk, oh and water buffalo in Australia

 

[StupidLightweight]

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.

Tops911, your buddies sound lethal as hell! A mountain goat with trad gear is impressive.

 

[littlerhorner]

I think the OP did ask directly about profiency and acknowledged that the hardware itself was capable.

I choose to hunt the way I do because I enjoy hunting more than I enjoy killing. My success is not measured in inches. Every OIL tag I have filled it was with a rifle, but elk and deer hunt with my bow because I enjoy it more. I don't feel pressure to get another set of horns in the attic. The last elk I shot with a recurve died in sight. It is personal preference, it is legal, it's effective.