Can I ask one question? Honestly and with no bs, what is an ethical number? Big game, perfect hunter, set up, conditions, etc., what is an ethical archery max?
I would have said a little under .5 seconds travel time like .4. I found this site that seems to confirm that. Deer Reaction Time, Jumping the String - Iowa Outfitters @ Full Potential Outdoors Sent from my iPad using Bowhunting.com Forums
The no bs, short answer... there isn't a number, it's different for every single person, every single bow setup, every single situation and it's different for every single big game animal. Period. The extended version... There isn't blanket answer to that question. I know people, that ethically, should not ever shoot at a deer more than 10 feet away. First of all, you can't legislate ethics/morals, it doesn't matter if we're talking about deer hunting, driving or anything else. But for the sake of the argument, assuming everything is perfect it really comes down to the physics of the situation. For instance, take long range rifle hunting with the same assumptions. Big Game, perfect shooter, set up, conditions, etc. At that point the only question is at what distance does the bullet lose too much energy to kill the animal? The standard rule of thumb for rifles is the distance at which you drop below 1000ft/lbs of energy should be the ethical stopping distance. So, depending on the caliber, bullet weight and velocity... that can be different for every gun. Snipers routinely take down targets at over a mile, 95% of the human population probably shouldn't be shooting at animals over 300 yards, ethically. Jump back to archery. Two years ago I posed a questions personal friend of mine with Mathews (who actually started Mathews bows with Matt McPhereson in his garage). I asked Joel, "How accurate are today's bows, what kind of groups can they shoot at 100 yards?" His answer, was that most high-end bows, regardless of manufacturer, can produce 1.5" or better groups at 100 yards all day long, out of a mechanical shooter. He also said that in the hands of the right people, he thinks those results can be better. So, going off the best information I've got and given your assumptions, the maximum ethical distance would be whenever your arrow doesn't have enough energy to kill the animal. What that number is I'm sure can be calculated by using arrow velocity and weight. That number is again different for every set up. To suggest there is an ethical "distance" that is the same for everyone, every situation, every animal is absurd at best. It's like saying it's unethical for anyone to driver over 60mph on any road, with any vehicle, whether it's your first time driving or you're Mario Andretti. What I do know for a fact, is that I certainly shouldn't be telling anyone what is ethical for them. I know what is ethical for me, my setup, my abilities, my situations and the animals I'm targeting.
here's where I whole heartedly disagree with you- I don't know you but based on BHOD and your posts in this thread you seem like a decent sensible guy and you've obviously put a lot of thought into this subject. You're a professional guide. This is your business. Say a client comes out and you watch him sight in. He's all over the place at anything much over 45. Day one he has a nice bull at say 55 and starts getting ready to let one fly. Are you going to let him take the shot? Or at least try to persuade him not to? I'm not being belligerent I'm just curious if you would still feel unqualified to give ethics guidance to someone who clearly needs it and that someone is paying you to put them on animals.
Hey Mr. Brackett has some interesting comments on CWD also Chris Brackett: "There Has Never Been an Animal Die of CWD" - Wide Open Spaces
Loved the entirety Dubbya , but I'm struggling with the part highlighted...I agree to a point...but somethings with archery equipment I easily label as unethical: head shots, running shots, long range moving shots....now that last one gets fuzzy because shooting a meandering deer at 10 yards is totally different ball game for me atleast than one meandering at 35....but you get my point. Brackett proved by all he said and his past that this was a terrible shot choice, made solely IMO because he is who he is, has a show and thinks he had to shoot.
I see what you're getting at, I was referring to it not being my place to give ethics guidance watching shows and on internet forums, not the scenario you gave. To answer your question, yes, my guys and I tell LOTS of people, "no hold on, we'll get closer" every year (rifle and bows) and some of them don't like it. One instance comes to mind that I was thinking about while writing last night. I went out with Levi Morgan and his camera man on a goat hunt in 2012. We were leaving the lodge before legal shooting light and they had arrived after dark, he wanted to check his bow. So we walked out back to the range, there was a 2" orange sticker on the vitals of the glendel 3D target. He said, "i'm going to hold for wind" he was 2" left of the sticker, next he said "i guess I'll hold right on", the next shot was in my sticker. The kicker, we were at 100 yards. So he shot a two inch group, before legal shooting light at 100 yards. If I see the show and watch him shoot an antelope at 70 yards in frenchbritt's scenario, what right do I have tell Levi, "that's unethical" simply after watching his show? I dont feel thats my place. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
The target cant move. So, you can argue it either way really. I guess I have always been ultra conservative when it comes to shot selection and like a slam-dunk on live game. The more alert the animal, the shorter the shot distance better be. I think some animals are far more prone to "jump the string" also. You would have more experience with that than anyone here I would guess. Do you think antelope, elk, whitetails, mulies, etc., all react the same to the sound of a bow? When alert. And, when relaxed.
Ty, I was talking about shooting distance. All the items you mentioned; head shots, running shots, long range moving shots.... they arent ethical with a rifle either. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
Most Wisconsin gun hunters take running shots on deer. Very common. In fact the rifle ranges have targets set up that move to practice taking running shots on deer. Hard to say that is unethical around these parts.
Admittedly I'm jumping ahead in this post a bit as I've lost track of it several days ago. So if I'm covering ground that's already been covered, I apologize. The original intent of my post was to bring some light to this very topic. Regardless off how good a shot you are, there comes a point at which you simply cannot account for the movement of the animal once the arrow is in the air. That unknown is what makes a shot no long ethical to take with a bow and arrow. Sure you may be able to hit a 2" circle at 100 yards in the dark, but when you don't know for certain that circle will be there when the arrow arrives, what good does that do you? I certainly don't have the answer to what the "magic number" is that makes a shot too far. On a whitetail, for me, it's 40 yards. If that means a few deer get to walk because they aren't within that range, I'm okay with that.
I guarantee you most do not practice it to the degree they are proficient and it is a good shot choice. Slinging lead due to being common place has zero bearing on ethical or not for me personally. Very few hunters hit the fields and woods with that type of skillset, I know some but not many...granted more probably exist up by you than here.
As to the first part; I'm glad that you guys "guide" in both senses of the word. I'm guessing that too many clients are both overconfident in their abilities and don't take kindly to being told to wait. As to the second point, it seems to me that you are saying that's just because it's not something you could or would do (such as shooting to POA at 100yds) it doesn't make you the "Arbiter of all that's Ethical" - and I appreciate that also. Far too many people here (and life in general) think that because something is out of their abilities that nobody could or should do it. It's like race car drivers...very many if not most people think race car drivers are crazed lunatics for doing what they do. Many of these same critics lack basic driving skills as to a degree that they shouldn't even be allowed to drive on an Interstate. However, to a NASCAR driver, track racing is second nature and they think nothing of it- and in fact know they are statistically more likely to be killed on a regulated road by one of those same naysayers than in a fiery crash on the track. Of course in our hunting scenarios the variable is a living breathing thinking creature rather than a static race track...but the concept of the critic is the same. Most people (not all but most) will look down on someone who tries to do something that exceeds their personal limits/abilities. It's hard for most people to accept that others are clearly more skilled than they are. It is also clear that some people (Mr. Wizard) cannot accept that their exceptional abilities are limited/mitigated by the other-worldly wariness of a living creature that is designed to do one thing-beat and evade predators. Is he a better shot than me? Quite possibly. Is he a better shot than a huge percentage of bowhunters? Definitely. But that doesn't make him a better hunter. And a good one he is not- a good hunter learns from his mistakes; and certainly does not seek to profit from them. There are still universal morally indefensible positions. Head shots with a bow. Walking deer at 10yds vs. 35+. And honestly, most any shots at a whitetail over 40 yds. Whitetails. Antelope, mulies, and elk are different. They are still animals and there is an unknown; but by and large they don't react nearly as violently/unpredictably to a bow shot as do whitetails.
Dubya, you wanted my honest opinion so against my better judgement here you go. I really don’t think my opinion is very relevant because I have done very little hunting outside the Midwest and you have fiduciary responsibilities hinging on long shots. My original response to Justin mainly had to do with his 99% comment/figure. Take it easy on me, those absurd and comical comments are starting to hurt my feelings more than my teenage daughters do. Lol. (1) I believe the 99% comment is fiction. No way do I believe that for every 100 hundred arrows shot out west at live animals that only 1 moves. Hell I have been to 3d shoots and seen targets move more than that. Lol. Do I believe there is a difference between hunting Mulies, Whitetails and Elk, YES I do, but I don’t believe the odds are that tilted in your favor. (2) The Math. Do whitetails jump strings at 20 or 30 yards? Yes they can and have. I understand even the close range shots have the tendency to go wrong and as a bowhunter we have to play the odds and do what we believe are best to humanly feed our family. In the NCAA the rule is .03 to .04 of a second I believe. A basket cannot be counted (unless tipped) with .03 of a second left on the clock, but can be counted with .04. Think about all of the motion in that .04. I agree with you, that every situation is different, but the math has to be factored in too. (I am not just referring to reaction time, but natural movement as well.) (3) Waddell and others advocate aiming at a different location on an animal at further distances. I will never agree with this either. I think you owe it to the animal to shoot the greatest percentage of a kill shot and you should not factor in the movement of the animal. (4) Environment factors. Enough said. As I said above, I am just a Midwesterner that hunts for fun and you live out west and hunt for a living. I really do not believe I have the experience to bring any integrity to this conversation, but you asked for my opinion and the topic is intriguing to say the least. To reiterate, I am not against long distance bowhunting. I am against unethical bowhunting. I believe you are correct that it is different for everyone and everyone should decide for themselves. I have two teenage daughters at home and I use the two phrases quite a bit: “The risk is not worth the reward” and “Why takes unnecessary risks?” I feel when we are talking about wild animals being 3d targets, 99% odds, aiming at less desirable locations and wind factors while bowhunting that maybe our truth is getting compromised instead of working a little harder.
