On hunting with less efficient weapons

[Annapolis]

Still a relative newbie to hunting here, with two deer to my name—one via rifle, the other via crossbow. I’m very interested in picking up a compound bow and getting proficient with it, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have some hesitation about hunting with it when there’s a more powerful weapon permitted during the same season (meaning the crossbow: I use a Ravin R10 with a quality scope and it’s a tack-driver out to 50 yards).

I imagine this is one of those quasi-religious questions in the hunting world, and one that’s probably been written about a million times, so if anyone knows of a good article or thread that covers this, I’d be grateful for the pointer.
My question is: what’s the justification for using a less proficient/accurate weapon to hunt? Why would we want to use a primitive weapon, or a muzzleloader or a compound bow, when such weapons increase the likelihood that the hunter may injure an animal? (Actually, is that even true or am I making a false assumption? I’m just assuming we’re more likely to injure with an arrow than a bullet.) If our goal is to follow fair chase and to harvest, say, a deer as efficiently and ethically and quickly as possible, shouldn’t the law demand that we always use the weapon that will get that job done best? This is an aspect of hunting seasons/guidelines that I still haven’t grasped.

Is the answer the sort of obvious, sentimental one?---that some hunters just prefer bows to rifles and so natural resource departments allow for archery seasons to accommodate that, even though (again I’m making an assumption) rifles kill more efficiently? If that’s the case, isn’t that idea in conflict with the priority of killing cleanly? Don’t muzzleloaders, for example, increase the chance that someone will make a bad shot? (I do realize that new muzzleloaders are pretty dang accurate.)

I should add, I really am asking with genuine curiosity, not an agenda of any kind. I’m not skeptical about having these seasons---I’m just not sure I understand the rationales behind them, and am very open to being persuaded. If the answer is that we want to give the deer a better chance by making hunting a bit harder---and so this is a way to prolong the hunting season and avoid over-harvesting---are we accomplishing that goal without injuring lots of animals in the process?

 

[roadrunner]

It would surprise you the alarming high number of animals wounded with "modern" firearms, especially when they pretend they can shoot them long range...

 

[307]

Your question is excellent, and I believe it to be sincere. The answers you will get, are mostly based on personal opinion, heavily influenced by individual bias.

I, personally, agree with your position that we owe a great deal of responsibility to the animal to kill as quickly, cleanly, and ethically as possible, and to choose a weapon that gives us the highest odds to that end.

Justification for choosing less than most efficient weapon usually comes down to individual preference, preferred aesthetics of the experience, hunter crowding, and sometimes legal/season restrictions.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The only good reasons for legal restrictions requiring less lethal means of killing are safety or limiting collateral damage/excessive killing. Less lethal means usually make it harder for the hunter to comply with their ethical requirements as the hunter and to train to a higher standard.

When the leaves are still on the trees, we want hunters using shorter ranged weapons. This was also the original justification for the widespread restrictions requiring shotguns, muzzleloaders, straight wall cartridges, etc. in areas that are covered in trees and/or flatter. We don’t want people getting killed by accident when hunters go out.

Using less lethal means usually results in fewer animals recovered. It doesn’t necessarily mean fewer animals are killed. Less lethal means are therefore a bad way to limit taking.

There are obviously limits. As modern ethical hunters, we don’t use HE VT rounds to kill an entire herd of elk or punt guns to kill an entire flock of geese. We don’t run a thousand buffalo off a cliff.

Any hunter has to know his or her maximum ethical range with their chosen weapon under field conditions. To me, that is the range at which you can go 10/10 into a vital-sized target with that weapon under current field conditions. Once you approach it from that perspective, the “less lethal means” doesn’t matter much as a limitation on recovery.

For instance, last weekend, I hit 10/10 on an 8” steel target at 300 yards from the seated supported position and prone over backpack without rear support with no wind. I feel comfortable taking a shot from those positions with that rifle at a deer at 300 yards with no wind. But add wind to that equation, change the rifle, change the position, extend to 400 yards, or any other relevant factor and I am going to have to reconsider how much of an impact it will have on my bullet at that range and account for it.

In contrast, I haven’t used a bow in over 30 years. My maximum effective range with a bow is probably three meters? Or zero meters? I’d have to rigorously practice to become proficient enough to have any business bow hunting.

That’s how I see it anyway.

 

[HornPorn]

Ego

If I asked someone on the street, "hey, what would you prefer for manner of death? You are 100% going to die, but you get to choose: A razor sharp arrow, or a high powered rifle?", I guarantee you every person would say rifle.

I hunt with a bow at times and have killed a few different species of game, but using it in place of a rifle places emphasis on the difficulty of my accomplishment, my experience. In my opinion, it's a selfish and self-glorifying thing to do. If someone bow hunts and doesn't use a rifle at all, they will let you know 100% of the time. Ego.

Guys who have never gone west and hunted, but who are experienced whitetail bowhunters will talk to someone who came back from a western hunt and say, "that's cool, but if I did it, I would take my bow instead." Sure you would, bud. Ego, and ignorance.

All that said, there are guys who shoot their bows all year long who are more lethal in their effective range, than you are with your crossbow, or than many casual hunters are with rifles due to their lack of proficiency. Bow hunting is not "bad", and rifle hunting is not "better". There is a wide spectrum of sportsmen, skill levels, and dedication to their skill.

Lots of angles to this conversation, and nuance.

 

[Annapolis]

I am already learning from these first replies—thank you.

 

[BigDewberry]

We owe it to the animals to kill them as quickly as we can. I would prefer a few weeks of youth only then a general season. Fish and game can issue tags based on that.

That being said, I participate in archery season because its the only way I can reasonably kill does. The rules don't make sense and I just have to abide by them.

 

[bigbassin]

I’d be curious on the numbers comparing methods and I’m sure it would vary state to state based on conditions. I.e. I read on here about long range hunting out west in open areas, but in the southeast I’ve never seen a deer if I could see more than 200 yards. And typically it’s more like 100 in a tree stand, but maybe only 30-40 yards if you’re on the ground.

By default I’d wager most injured deer down here are from a bow because cover prevents you from taking questionable shots with a rifle, where as out west folks could take shots longer than any available range around here to practice on.

I’d also be curious to see the breakdown individually, are guys that take questionable bow shots the same guys taking questionable rifle shots? I’d think so.

 

[dtrkyman]

I started hunting big game with a bow, getting close is the thrill for me, shooting something from 300 plus yards has zero appeal to me, even guiding for years I only guided bow hunts, a few years ago I guided my first rifle hunts for elk.

It was eye opening, I would be moving in on animals and clients would be freaking out, I was like oh shit we can shoot from here...lol. It just does not interest me to hunt with firearms.

To each his own, but for me a hunt hasn't even really started at 300 yards!

 

[180ls1]

It would surprise you the alarming high number of animals wounded with "modern" firearms, especially when they pretend they can shoot them long range...

Do you know what those are, by chance?

I know a guide who has helped hundreds if not thousands of hunters and he was telling me the number of wounded animals with archery blows rifle out of the water. I hesitate to post the wounding % he threw out there for archery guys.

 

[Beendare]

I am already learning from these first replies—thank you.

Longtime Bowhunter here for decades, I enjoy hunting with a Recurve Bow and sometimes a compound for the better success.

The problem with woundings is across the board with all weapon choices and my bet is its cause is from 2 main reasons; 1) guys extending their effective range with that particular weapon, and 2) not being intimately familiar with that weapon and its quirks. An example of that would be Broadhead tuning with any bow- its critical.

You as a beginning hunter should get some kills with a rifle under your belt. The learning curve on primitive weapons as you are learning to hunt can dampen your enthusiasm.

 

[307]

What we need is a way to promote killing close, with highly effective weapons as the "cool" thing. Instead of glorifying long shots, glorify close kills.

"Make Stalking Great Again!"

 

[coyotekilla]

One point that hasn't been brought up yet is difficulty for the hunter. For instance the modern scopes rifle only requires you to be able to get the deer inside 500 yards. A crossbow, 70? Personally its 40 but I'm not a Archery pro. A instinctive recurve, 25? The thrill of reducing the distance may be greater than the thrill of a long distance kill. Watch tim wells and his spear hunting / blow gun videos. Having called a coyote into 20 yards and shot it was 2x the rush of making a 360 yd shot, both in the dark. Sometimes its about increasing the hunters difficulty.

 

[wind gypsy]

Bow hunting is a different hunting experience than rifle hunting for one. Killing isn't the driver for everyone.

I'm typically pretty weapon agnostic and use the weapon that gives me the best odds, allows me to get a tag, or hunt at the time I want to hunt whether it be bow, firearm, or muzzleloader. I just dont like that crossguns are allowed in archery season so feel it'd be a bit hypocritical to use one. That and I'd hate to give my money to the crossgun manufacturers who lobby our politicians into game laws that benefit them.

 

[MNGrouser]

I think it is about the experience and the opportunity. I am based in the midwest. If I want to archery hunt whitetails I can begin in September and go until January. Plus I have access to the best part of the rut. As a rifle hunter I have a 16 day season. In Wisconsin I believe the firearm season is only 9 days. Out west I know even tag availability changes considerably based upon weapon choice in many areas. Others have already commented on the quality of the experience.

I was an archery hunter. Stepped away for a few years and when I picked up my bow again I was a terrible shot. Could not shoot an consistent group. I'm sure if I put in the time and practiced consistently I could probably get proficient again. Instead I hung up my bow. I'd rather not hunt than put a bad shot on an animal, that is too disrespectful. I appreciate that you (OP) said you were interested in "picking up a compound bow and getting proficient with it." Go a head and get a bow. Shoot till your heart is content. But don't even bother buying an archery hunting license until you are consistently reliable. My 2 cents.

 

[ODB]

Because there’s value in the process, and also increasing the difficulty of doing something.

Compare a fully homemade meal and one from McDonalds. Compare buying a house and building one. Compare buying your clothes and making them.

It’s when you start focusing on something other than just the endpoint that things like this become interesting/attractive.

And the problem of wounding is almost never the weapon itself, but whether it was used effectively. It’s the human factor that increases wounding overall.

 

[Taudisio]

One other thing to consider is felons can’t have firearms. So I often see archery only guys and question if they are felons, and what they may have been involved with in the past. Probably not a huge number of them, but I know for a fact it isn’t 0 and have met one of them.

 

[Maverick1]

Oh, boy. This has turned into a rifle vs bow and which wounds more animals shouting match.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

That and I'd hate to give my money to the crossgun manufacturers who lobby our politicians into game laws that benefit them.

The entire industry lobbies. Singling out crossbow manufacturers seems silly. Who do you think supported straight wall seasons? The addition of most specialized seasons and the way those seasonal regulations are written is almost entirely due to industry lobbying.

 

[Slickhill]

Most of your weapon’s effectiveness relies on you, the user. The broadhead from my longbow is just as deadly as one fired from your crossbow. The scoped crossbow is the easier weapon for the user to learn to shoot.

I choose to hunt with single string bows and sidelock muzzleloaders because I enjoy the challenge of getting into my effective range with them and the nostalgia of using them when I was growing up.

Archery seasons were largely implemented due to the rise in popularity of archery in the 1950’s and 60’s. Same for muzzleloaders in the reenactment and rendezvous era after Jeremiah Johnson came out in the 70’s. Game departments saw a way to generate revenue from licensing sales, add opportunities for those who wished to participate, with less toll on the resource (game animals) than if they’d just lengthened the regular season where rifles were allowed.

It isn’t always about killing animals, at least not only about killing them. Part of the experience for many is in the tools or methods used. If I had to rely on killing deer to keep my household fed and just looked on it as a job I’d shoot them at night when it’s easiest. As it stands even though we eat game year around it’s still an enjoyable hobby.