Is Bow Hunting Cruel?

[Mr.Blue]

I am NOT against hunting. I think it is a pretty cool way to get your food. I love the idea of the hunt and I love firearms. That said, I have never gone hunting. Two reasons- 1. I'm afraid of the game animal not dying quickly. 2. I do not have the desire to field dress a large animal.

My first reason leads me to the subject of the post. Is bow hunting cruel? It seems to me that bigger game animals do not expire quickly when shot with an arrow. Sure there may be exceptions, but guns generally kill quicker. The other thing that occurs to me is that with a bow there will be more of a chance of a bad hit, meaning a wounding hit. That is what bothers me. I would not want an animal to linger and suffer. I also realize this can happen with a gun too, but to a lesser extent.

I get the whole allure of bow hunting. It is more old school and more of a sporting hunt. It also takes more skill than shooting a high powered rifle with a high powered scope from hundreds of yards away. The whole up close stalk is appealing.

I am not looking to judge anyone, only trying to learn. Do bows allow for humane kills on deer sized game and larger?

 

[jbkebert]

I do appreciate your concerns.


I am a hard-core bowhunter. I spend 10x more time at the archery range than I do at a firearms range. I have also been a pretty successful hunter over the past 20 years. In this time I have taken dozens of deer, hogs, elk, black bear, mule deer, pronghorn, coyotes, and assorted other small game.

I teach archery in hunter education and shoot competition. In all my years of hunting I have had one animal go over 100 yards before bleeding out. Most archers not all granted are concerned with accuracy and making good shots. Yes sometimes things go wrong and you wound a animal. It is a sickining feeling but I have done it more times with a rifle than with a bow.

I would say the last 5-6 deer I have taken with a bow did not react all that violently to the impact of the arrow. Case in point the buck I took last year from roughly 8-9 yards. The arrow passed completly through the buck and stuck deeply in the ground. The buck flinched like he had been stung by a bee or wasp. He did not kick, jump anything like than just flinched. After taking 3-4 steps he stopped and became wobbley and dropped. He took three more breaths lying there and was gone. Total distance travled around 14 yards. Time from shot to death less than 6 seconds.

We don't get the bang flops that are so often showed on TV with centerfire rifle shots. Yet I can assure you that a well placed arrow kills very quickly and cleanly. I am sure others have simlar veiws and others will have had a wounded animal. Things go wrong there is nothing we can do about that. I can tell you for sure that a sharp broadhead does wonders. The elk I shot was a complete pass through at 43 yards. The elk expired within 20-25 seconds and traveled prehaps 50-52 yards.

 

[slicksleeve]

My expeirence has been that bad hit with a centerfire is just as bad as bad hit with a bow. Also, a good hit with a bow will kill just a quickly as a rifle hit. 99% of the deer I have ever shot with a rifle have ran some distance before they die. In fact, a good hit with broadhead causes a much more severe wound than most bullet wounds do. For what its worth, I've never killed anything bigger than whitetail deer. I did kill two wild pigs with a .270, but the weighed around 60 pounds each.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Is it cruel?
Certainly less cruel than being gutted live by tooth and claw from whatever predator there would be if man were not in the picture.

It's not going to die of old age in the deer/hog/bear/fish retirement home after all, is it?

 

[Mr.Blue]

Is it cruel?
Certainly less cruel than being gutted live by tooth and claw from whatever predator there would be if man were not in the picture.

It's not going to die of old age in the deer/hog/bear/fish retirement home after all, is it?

I asked a legitimate question based on my experience. It did not warrant a sophomoric response.

 

[don]

I personally believe it to be cruel and should be outlawed or archers should be required to exhibit proficiency with the weapon.

 

[jbkebert]

I am curious Don as to your reasoning.

I am in no way trying to start a fight here.

I have seen time and time again. Some moron walking into Dicks, Cabelas, or whereever. Buying a new rifle with a boresighted scope on the eve of deer season. Picking the cheapest box of shells of the shelf and heading to the woods the next morning. It drives me nuts. Yet no requirement of profeiceny needed.

I am not in complete disagreement with you. Yet if we do one we should do all. For the most part if a bowhunter does not put forth the effort to become proficeint with thier bow. They won't get with a shot distance of a deer. A rifle hunter on the other hand. Well those slugs can cover alot of ground a arrow can't. Lord knows people make bad shots with archery equipment. Just don't think for a second gun hunters are infalible.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

I have hunted big game extensively with both weapons and I can assure you that archery tackle is every bit as deadly as a firearm. However, shot placement is critical. I have seen bad hits from guns wound animals, who, presumably, died a slow, horrible death; and I have seen the same from badly placed arrows.

I have also seen spectacularly fast kills by both guns and arrows. It is all about marksmanship and taking ethical shots.

Killing is a nasty business and sometimes bad (cruel) things happen no matter what weapon is used. Again, it is about marksmanship and the discipline to take and make only ethical shots. Big game are a precious resource and they deserve to be harvested as ethically as is possible.

 

[caribou]

We all die...everything everywhere will die.

You gotta wonder, is being Eaten Alive cruel? Thats how you die in nature 99.9% of the time. Like the song sings...."Dog eat Dog, Eat Cat too, Fish eat Frog and I eat You"......Its part of the circle.

Only men die in bed.

 

[barnetmill]

If the arrows propelled by bows were not considered to kill quickly enough that could be changed. It is my understanding that an arrow can not legally be combined with an explosive charge. But if it could the shock of about 2000 ft lbs delivered from a rifle slug could certainly be easily supplied by such arrows. Poison could also be delivered by such means. It is not normally done and I assume there must be a good reason for such.
Being shot by an arrow or a bullet in the torso is probably not a pleasant experience for man or beast.
For me with age I have come to consider killing a destructive act and I have gotten to the point that I only kill for a logical reason (food, pest elimination, etc.) and not normally for "sport". I am not against hunting for a lot of reasons. One is that hunters are very much in favor of preserving game animals and habitat that allows everything a better chance of survival.

 

[scythefwd]

jbkebert -
The way an arrow kills is different from a gun. A good expanding bullet disrupts more than what you can see from the bullet path. Take a look at a ballistic gel test. You can see the temporary cavitation to the sides of the bullets path.

An arrow is more like taking a long knife and stabbing someone really fast.

The chances of a bad shot with an arrow is greater, regardless of the skill of the archer... The arrow isn't there by the time the twang, or thwak of the string is... so the deer has time to respond. Now, that is a very small amount of reaction at 10 meters. In heavily hunted areas, like the WMA's around here, the deer are spooked from day one and will jump at any sound. With a gun, the bullet is already in the deer by the time the sound reaches the deer, even at 10 yards. Bad shots happen all the time, I'll grant you that but they are the result of a poor shooter. I agree that we should all show the animal the respect of being proficient with our chosen weapons. My hunting muzzle loader keeps the rounds touching at the distances I hunt at (actually, bow hunting distances, about 25-30y). I know you can group tighter than that with your bow... but the deer won't move the target one me with my rifles... and that can happen with archery.

(I've almost gotten the load tweaked for the ML that I can play Robin Hood... have someone shoot my target and I make the whole disappear with the ML)

 

[jbkebert]

The amount of energy delivered by a centerfire rifle bullet while tremendous. It is not the ultimate factor in killing. Arrows kill in diffrent ways and can do somethings that even a bullet cannot. A demonstration that I have shown several times often raises eyebrows. Take a 5 gallon bucket of sand and shoot it with a 30/30 or even the 30/06. The bullet will not go through the bucket. The bullet will be found expanded and somewhere in the middle. Yet a sharp broadhead tipped arrow will blow through it like nothing. A bullet proof vest made to stop well a bullet. Will not stop a sharp broadhead tipped arrow.

I attended a 3 hour seminar for hunter education instructors in March of 2010. The speaker was a gent by the name of Dr. James Tantillo. He is the professor of ethics and enviromental philosophy at Cornell University. The topic was how do we teach ethics to our students. What I beleive to be ethical and moral. May certainly not be what another person beleives to be the same. During this seminar the subject of the ethics of bowhunting came up. It was amazing that a feverish debate broke out between hunter education instructors. I have found in my experience that most of the opponets to archery are non archers. I think alot of times we form opinions based on theory rather than reality. It is not wrong to object to something but we should try to understand it and make a informed judgement.

 

[wankerjake]

Only men die in bed.

That's the truth. Some people get it, most people don't.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Is it cruel?
Certainly less cruel than being gutted live by tooth and claw from whatever predator there would be if man were not in the picture.

It's not going to die of old age in the deer/hog/bear/fish retirement home after all, is it?

There is nothing sophomoric about 4thPointOfContact's response, it is a valid observation.

Cruelty is a lot like porn, hard to precisely define, but easily recognized when you see it. If you scour this and other boards for such topics as fair chase, long range shots on game, shot placement, caliber choice, etc. you will find a lot of emphasis on quick kills and a lot of scorn for those who take marginal shots, fail to pursue wounded animals, do not make full use of their kills, etc. My answer to your question is "in which instance?" Bow hunting, poorly conducted, may be cruel. Bow killing, on the other hand, is very unlikely to be cruel.

 

[Mr.Blue]

There is nothing sophomoric about 4thPointOfContact's response, it is a valid observation.

No? What type of a response is this? Perhaps I took it wrong, but it seemed sarcastic and patronizing.

It's not going to die of old age in the deer/hog/bear/fish retirement home after all, is it?

I asked a serious question and expected serious replies. Other than his response, the responses were informative.

Again, I am NOT against hunting. I just wanted to learn whether my initial opinion on bow hunting was valid. I guess a bow shot by a serious archer is more humane than some yahoo shooting a deer in the belly with a 30-06.

 

[sixgunner455]

The reverse is also true, Mr. Blue.

I have shot archery my whole life. Sometimes I am more active in it than others, but I have always considered myself an archer. But I do not hunt with archery equipment. I do not consider myself good enough to guarantee clean kills, so I hunt with rifles, which I am quite good with.

 

[coloradokevin]

Is it cruel?
Certainly less cruel than being gutted live by tooth and claw from whatever predator there would be if man were not in the picture.

It's not going to die of old age in the deer/hog/bear/fish retirement home after all, is it?

I am not looking to judge anyone, only trying to learn. Do bows allow for humane kills on deer sized game and larger?

...

I asked a legitimate question based on my experience. It did not warrant a sophomoric response.

Mr. Blue,

You asked a question that I think is worth considering, especially since it is a point I've wondered about myself in the past. When I was a kid I was often told old wives tales like: "animals don't feel pain like we do". Most of us realize today that such statements were purely fictional. Whether we want to admit it or not, the reality is that animals do feel pain, and I believe that we have a moral obligation to provide them with a quick and clean death. We are a predatory species, and I don't deny us the right to pursue our meal. But, I still believe that we should kill quickly and cleanly.

However, after debating this subject in my own mind a bit, I've also come to the conclusion that skilled shot placement is the key to success, regardless of the chosen method of take.

A bullet isn't really magical, after all, and it only really does its job when it strikes critical areas within an animal's infrastructure. Similarly, an arrow needs to inflict catastrophic damage to these very same areas to ensure a quick and clean kill. Guns obviously took weapons to a new level when they came on the scene, which is why we don't see armies charging each other with archer support these days! But, a well designed bullet or arrow to the heart and lungs of an animal will accomplish basically the same thing, and I presume it will do so in about the same amount of time.

I've never bow hunted, but I've heard anecdotal evidence that would suggest that arrows from today's compound bows often create through-and-through wounds, thereby giving contact to as much vital area as a bullet that travels a similar path (hydrostatic shock arguments and whatnot notwithstanding).

I would argue that archery hunters are tasked with a much harder job, since it takes a great deal of skill to provide a well-placed arrow at 40 yards, whereas a similarly skilled rifle shooter can regularly hit a 10" kill zone to distances that often stretch beyond 500 yards.

In my experience it seems like the average archery hunter is more experienced than the average rifle hunter. Archery work takes skill, along with an ability to get much closer to an animal. As such, it would seem logical to assume that most bow hunters are fairly proficient at their craft before they step into the field. This probably provides them with some margin of safety when it comes to placing a well-aimed shot on a large animal.

Conversely, though there are some extremely skilled rifle hunters in the field, there are also a lot of bumbling idiots who have very little skill with their firearms, and sometimes equally little regard for the welfare of the animals they are taking aim at. Even some of the more seasoned rifle hunters I know seem to fire less than a box or two of ammunition per year (I've put over 300 rounds through my bolt action hunting rifle alone this year, and we still have a quarter of the year to go).

Also, as you can see, I highlighted the point that was made near the beginning of this thread. Though that point may have been received with a bit of callousness attached to it, I still think it is a valid point to bring to this debate. Death comes to everyone, and in nature it often comes in very cruel ways: being eaten alive, starving to death, being attacked by rivals, etc. Because of that fact I suppose it is fair to argue that any death by hunter probably occurs faster than the death that nature would have ultimately laid upon that creature.

Regardless, my goal in any hunting situation is to watch my prey drop as if it was struck by a bolt of lightning. This may not always happen, but I work hard to ensure that my skill set is up to the task when the moment comes to break the trigger on the rifle. I wish all hunters felt that way, even though I know that most of my fellow High Roaders already do!

 

[Mr.Blue]

^^^Great post!!

 

[Rob96]

I personally believe it to be cruel and should be outlawed or archers should be required to exhibit proficiency with the weapon.

Talk about ill-informed, sophmoric answers. Archery is one of the oldest forms of hunting. I would be inclined to think that archers are more picky about there shots.

 

[scythefwd]

jbk - True, a bucket of sand will stop a .30-06 easily. But that bucket just absorbed a lot of energy in a very short time. Ask an animal to absorb that same amount of energy and it will die. Slowly if it's a bad shot.

My point wasn't that bow hunting was or was not moral, my point is comparing it to hunting with a rifle is not a straight forward thing. I've seen hearts that had a perfect x cut through both sides and was informed that the deer didn't move 20y after the stick. On the other hand, I've seen hearts that literally exploded and weren't identifiable from the rest of the deer very easily. It looked like someone took a blender to the heart... the deer ran more than 20y. It depended on how much pressure the deer was feeling... A relaxed deer won't run 100y without a heart, a freaked out deer that is already in fight or flight can.

I also was trying to make the point that there are more external variables that can affect shot placement with a bow hunter due to the projectile being subsonic vs. a rifle which has the supersonic projectile.

Personally, it wouldn't be ethical for me to bow hunt... I'm not a good archer. Then again, it isn't ethical for some people to hunt with a rifle either (saw a guy at the range that really did think an 8" group at 100y with a rest was acceptable for hunting at that distance).

Even some of the more seasoned rifle hunters I know seem to fire less than a box or two of ammunition per year (I've put over 300 rounds through my bolt action hunting rifle alone this year, and we still have a quarter of the year to go).

Man, it doesn't take 300 rounds a year to obtain or maintain 1 - 2 MOA proficiency, and I think we'll both agree that is more than enough for the average hunting ranges (round here I get 30y shots at the long side). Hell, I keep 1.5 moa and I only shoot 100 rounds a year or two. If it wasnt for load workup, i'd be well under 50 for the year...

 

[Armored farmer]

Archers tend to be the true hunters. The ones who enjoy the stalk more than the kill. The ones who respect the game they hunt.
Too many times I have seen on TV some t-shirt, tenny runner clad 'hunter' sitting 50ft from the SUV whack the life from an unsuspecting deer/elk feeding 500-900yds across the valley. Those type guys aren't hunting....they should be at the range.
I am a bowhunter who hunts with a recurve. I pass on more shots in a year than some gun hunters will get. That just gives me more time in the woods. That's what it's all about anyway.

 

[rcmodel]

Sure there may be exceptions, but guns generally kill quicker.

Not in my experience.

A deer shot through the lungs with a 30-06 will run 25 - 100 yards and die.

A deer shot through the lungs with a broadhead arrow will do likewise.

However, as others have said, a deer shot fatally with an arrow very seldom reacts violently to any pain. They probably hurt themselves worse getting poked with broken tree branches and thorn trees during a normal days activity.

I also agree that the bow hunters I know are far more skilled & dedicated, with far more deadly first shot accuracy then the once-a-year rifle hunters I know.

rc

 

[Mike1234567]

While I respect the skill and patience required for good bow hunting...

It seems to me that rifles (not single-shot) are faster for follow-up shots and better for longer shots to dispatch a wounded running animal especially if the critter runs out of a bow hunter's range. I've seen many videos illustrating these shortcomings of bow hunting.

 

[jbkebert]

300 shots in rifle practice for deer season. is alot compared to most folks i know. Nothing wrong at all with that. I will shoot in the neighborhood of 2-3 thousand arrows a year. Since arrows are a straight lined path of destruction without the added benefit of hydraulic shock.

The bullseye on a game animal is always changing. Learning proper shot angles to deliver that broadhead into a lethal area is critical. The archers I hunt with go nuts over anatomy of the game animal.
we pour over charts if its a new species trying to figure out exactly where the heart lies. Then its a matter of how high up we are and how far out the critter is. Picking what we feel is the perfect entrace point to drive that arrow to the sweet spot. To many people think its just aim at the crook in the shoulder and let the bullet fly. Well in bowhunting 90% of the time that shot will result in a poor hit. Its always a little high driving the arrow down or a little far back driving forward. As stated by someone else above. I will pass up more shots every year than most will be presented with in 10 years of gun hunting.

I do hunt with a rifle and muzzleloader in addition to my bow. I also hunt game with a handgun. its all about knowing your limitations and the limitations of your equipment. Then work well inside those limitations and all works out for the hunter and the hunted.

 

[scythefwd]

JKE +1 on that. Unfortunately many people never take the time to learn the limitations of their weapons.
Mike, with practice a single shot can have a second round down range in 2-3 seconds.