Does Easier = More Ethical?
General Topic
Been kicking around a topic that I’d like some input on. Does upgrading your equipment to make you more lethal make you more ethical? I know this is a bit of a loaded question, so let me expand a little. Say a guy starts with a recurve and shoots instinctively. We all know what kind of commitment it takes to become proficient enough to ethically take to the field under that kind of equipment limitation. Even if the guy limits his shots to close animals, unless he is a real natural, or he spends a great deal of time practicing, he’s probably gonna miss, or worse, wound some deer. Now take the same guy and hand him a compound with release, sight, laser rangefinder, etc. Obviously, the learning curve is a lot less steep and the chance of missing or wounding game is reduced. And just as obvious, the challenge has been reduced and the sport has been made easier. Take it one step further, and put a crossbow in the guy’s hand. Easier still, even less chance of missing/wounding game. Now, if you have reduced the chance of wounding an animal, have you become a more ethical hunter by making things easier? That is the question I find myself struggling with.
Popping the popcorn! I think too many hunters try to rely on technology, not just in archery. They try to substitute technology for practice. I do use most of the technology that you mentioned, but I practice almost everyday spring, summer, and fall. I have messed up really easy shots, that I am not proud of. Technology is not enough. Do I think using technology make it more ethical, no I don't. I think using the technology increase my personal ability to ethically take the shot.
The longer I bow hunt the more I want a quickly drained kill. Getting a deer with a so-so shot is not rewarding. I like “draino” shots.
IMO, weapon choice doesn’t determine what’s ethical and what isn’t....the choices of the shooter does, regardless of weapon.
That said, I will never call an able-bodied person that chooses to hunt with a crossbow a bowhunter, but that has nothing to do with ethics, just my personal opinion.
I think when looking at lethality and forgiveness you can argue that certain weapons have the potential of being more ethical to me. However, as we all know, just because a weapon is more forgiving or more lethal at further distances doesn't mean it will never be used in a way deemed by some to be unethical.
Ethics isn't dictated by equipment. You can take an unethical hunting shot with a custom rifle capable of 1/2 moa groups just as easily as you can with a self bow.
If ethics were about the weapon, would be tough to justify archery, period.
It seems one of the biggest problems with upgrading the equipment is that the distances shot increases as well. And yes the learning curve for a stickbow can be quite steep. But shooting 50 yards and over isn't anymore ethical than the stickbow shooter out shooting his comfort zone. And I realize that a select FEW can make 100 yards and more, they shouldn't be advertising and profiting from it. Not much of a answer for your question. At the least the woodman ship is being taking out of it. Technology is a whole other can of worms.
Not at all ime, reasons already mentioned.
Dude.... There’s not a 100% Clean Kill rate at a freakin’ SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
What makes a shot Unethical is a matter of whether the guy taking the shot is certain he is capable of making a good hit. Or not.
Unethical is when you take a shot and you know that you shouldn’t. What equipment you happen to be using when you make a stupid decision has nothing to do with the fact that YOU made a STUPID DECISION.
Ethics in bow hunting is knowing your limitations and abiding by them. I hate to hear guys talk about “Hail Mary” shots.
IMO the answer is no. If you don't put the time in to be proficient with any weapon it doesn't make you more ethical even if it's easier. A lot of folks will take shots beyond there comfort zone just to be successful which will probably lead to wounding more game. IMO Ethics is when you know your limitation and pass up questionable shots.
As mentioned already equipment has nothing to do with this at all. But if you were to look at the numbers you would see more animals are wounded with compounds than recurve (simply more people use them which is the reason why). Not looking to start a debate on this just pointing out facts. It all comes down to the person using the equipment.
Ethics are moral principles governing a person's behavior or activity. So, need to know those principles. Sorta straightforward.
Rock, there are no numbers of wounding to look at. Only assumptions or guesses.
A hunter should know their limits. Does not matter the weapon. If you have any doubt before a shot you should not take the shot. Recurves most of the time shorter than compound, compound shorter than crossgun, crossgun shorter than rifle. More ethical as you put it is not pushing limits beyond what you are proficient with a particular weapon.
When we consider ‘most accurate’ and ‘fastest humane kill’ to be the ethical standard, we basically force ourselves to adopt new technologies and easier ways to achieve that ethical standard. Oh....well....yes.....we could practice a lot more and limit our shot selection, but then technology comes calling and says “we can make this easier for you, and for the animal....without making you sacrifice”.
Not to be aimed at you Busta but I think a lot of guys spend so much time thinking about ethics they forget about hunting. Don’t take me the wrong way, but there’s definitely a lot of overthinking going on in the “ethical way to kill an animal” department going on in general.
Like Charlie says we want the “drainos” but whether it’s a deer with a bow or a fish with a stick, do your best and make it quick. Hey, that even rhymes for ya.
By the logic presented by the OP, we should just hang up the bows, and rifle hunt (or crossbow).
Just use what you want, but get proficient with it, and know your limits.
I’ll decide whether my equipment makes me more or less ethical. I wont be concerned about your ethics, assuming you’re hunting legally.
So at one time, I really, really wanted to hunt instinctive with a recurve. I practiced and practiced and became a decent shot, albeit at close ranges. But my hunting experiences were not good. In the end, I felt I was just not good enough to continue hunting with those limitations. It was simply unethical for me to continue hunting and missing/wounding animals, so I went back to hunting with a compound. So for me, easier did equal more ethical. And so did advanced equipment/technology.
I would not say easier made you more ethical. I would say knowing your limits made you more ethical.
I think “ethics” is being interchanged with “morals” by some here... Morals are your own personal principles while ethics are societal or club driven as provided by an outside source.
To answer the OP’s question: No.
“It was simply unethical for me to continue hunting and missing/wounding animals, so I went back to hunting with a compound.”
No. Just.... No.
You weren’t willing to accept your own limitations with the equipment, so rather than improve your shooting, your hunting skills and your shot selection, you went back to the equipment that made it possible for you to fill tags.
That was a sensible decision and it WAS the Ethical choice, so you did the right thing in your case.
But making an ethical decision to use equipment that you can use effectively is NOT the same as the equipment somehow being a “more ethical” alternative. It just adjusted the level of difficulty to match your preference.
Doesn't matter what equipment you use; practice to proficiency.
Hunting decisions should always favor high odds of success.
These two thing are different for different people and for different equipment. If you won't do either of them then an easier weapon maybe should be considered.
+1 Bowboy
"IMO Ethics is when you know your limitation and pass up questionable shots."
I will give you a brief life experience that may answer your question ill keep it as short as possible. I hunted with friends in va for 20 years we drove deer every weekend & killed lots of deer with all weapons bow muzzleloader rifle. then I moved to a 800 acre farm & that changed everything any morning of the year I could shoot a deer from my front porch. I quit gun hunting & only hunted with compound then I moved to the eastern shore of va & for whatever reason went trad only for 5 years & managed to keep my freezer full of venison then started driving a truck over the road & did not have the time to practice with trad enough so went back to compounds then a heart attack in 2010 couldn't pull bow so back to gun then built a 1000yd benchrest gun & started long range shooting I love it all. do what makes ya happy & don't worry about what others think my next bow is gonna be an Oneida Phoenix I plan to shoot it with fingers with & without pins depending on how I feel. to me it's kinda of a compromise between trad & compound & instinctive & pins. good luck in your decision hope this helps & don't concern yourself with what others think
No amount of technology will make anyone more "ethical".
Give hunters a spear that most are capable of killing efficiently with at five yards, and some will push it to ten. Same with stick bows, compounds, crossbows, muzzle loaders and thousand yard rifles. There will always be some pushing further than they should, whether out of ignorance or arrogance.
And, according to statistics, more big game animals are wounded and lost by gun hunters than bow hunters.
However you cloak it, this is the same old question, and the answers ain’t gonna change. No epiphanies will be had by the already enlightened self appointed gurus of all things ethical. And I ain’t changing my mind either......
I will add that ultimately a freezer full of venison is my goal I take great pride in staying out of the grocery store. if bows & guns becomes ilegal I'll chase deer off of cliffs like the Indians did
I hunt with bow, muzz, rifle. Do your best to make an ethical kill, don’t take shots you feel are a Hail Mary out of your comfort zone. I don’t feel like there is a shortage of game because of technology. Plenty of people have un-filled tags no matter what technology they are using.
There are some guys that are more proficient at killing animals with a Recurve than they are with a compound and there are also guys more proficient at killing animals with a Compound than a Crossbow. It’s an individual decision and proficiency is the key.
A rocket launcher would be really ethical. That would leave little doubt about lethality
If your ethics is telling you to advance "up" and it puts you in a comfortable zone you should do it .
+1 Missouri-
"If ethics were about the weapon, would be tough to justify archery, period."
Greenie, I agree with others who have stated that it is NOT about the weapon. Your personal experience with the struggle stick is a perfect illustration. You couldn't deliver the best performance to yourSELF and went back to what worked within your personal goals and self imposed "line in the sand". Wounding/missing alot were on the other side of the line. Good on you. I also know that you like to kill what you shoot at, so there's that, as well...LOL
I hunt on the ground with an ASL and wood arrows. I still hunt often and I succeed often.
Now, here's the catch...my objectives for hunting are different than most of the hunters I speak to. I don't hunt the animals, I hunt the land. I was always enthralled at being such a good woodsman that I can stillhunt into a completely new property and get stickbow close to deer on a predictable basis.
THAT'S the real game in my heart. I love it! When I put an animal in check on the ground I feel complete. I don't necessarily need to put that animal in checkmate. Hence my choice to use traditional gear.
If you're going to hunt like this YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH LETTING GREAT ANIMALS WALK. I am super fussy on the shots I take. When I tell my friends and family the quantity and quality of the animals I let walk because the opportunity wasn't exactly what I prefer with my longbow they're often disgusted. But I put that limitation on myself. I don't know I would call that ethics, it's just my preference.
The previous responses where guys said do what makes you happy as long as it's legal reflect the way I feel. I hunt in an unconventional manner because it makes me happy.
If you're going to choose a more difficult weapon and approach you have to be okay with letting animals walk unless you're absolutely sure. Not everyone has that level of commitment and discipline. Big antlers, slightly out of range, can tempt even the best of men. Trust me, I feel like crying at the number of great deer I've seen at 30 yards and over...
Now here's my answer to the OP's question; YES!... it's way more ethical to choose a slam dunk weapon. Better and safer for the animal.
Hunting ethics are the decisions made at the moment of truth. Respect the sanctity of that animal's life and especially the sanctity of that animal's HEALTH!
I think a better weapon is actually a way to respect that animal's health.
Many hunters think that wounding animals is wrong and unethical. I find this perspective hard to go along with. When I shoot at an animal I am attempting to kill it. Animals appear to have a strong will to live. It's possible that they would rather be wounded than dead. My perspective on this may change some day. I doubt humans that hunt/hunted for food have/had the same reflections on this matter as we do now. We all have our own perspectives and limitations which can be good to share. Lethality has nothing to do with ethics to me.
When I hear, "I knew he was too far but I had to take the shot, couldn't let him get away", the ethical question transcends the weapon choice.
+100 on redquebec statement above. Hello Orion brother.
An ethical hunter masters his weapon, whichever he chooses. If you can't master a recurve, shoot something easier. If you can't master an iron-sighted rifle, get a scope. If you can't master a scoped rifle, take up golf. Remember, an important part of mastering ANY weapon is knowing when NOT to shoot.
I'm with Charlie on this one...
I don't know what an Ethics Trophy is and don't care. I want a challenge, so I choose my weapon accordingly.
I take shots at game that I am reasonably sure I can make an 'ethical' kill on with challenging equipment that I prefer to use and have prepared myself to make ethical shots with. Sometimes I make those shots count, sometimes I don't.
Morals, ethics, call it what you will. You know your capabilities and you know when your beyond them.
If the size of the rack, the weight of the beast or the length of the beard is coming into play in your decision making as to whether you can make the shot then your over the line and out of bounds regardless of your choice of weapon. When I pull a trigger, loose an arrow , launch a spear, throw a rock or swing a club I fully expect whatever critter I am after to die. If I don't believe that is going to happen then I enjoy the experience and see what I can learn from it. Good Day
Ethics are what you do when nobody is watching!! I like what Charlie said. I strive for those Draino shots, gut shooting something and waiting hours for it to die is no fun!! Shawn
When you know you shouldn't but do anyway is what non-ethical is. Especially when you think it makes you look good to others.
The rest is just whatever it is.
Someone above noted they felt ethics was about the decision of the weapon holder vs the weapon itself. That resonates for me.
For example, if a guy can stack arrows at 15yds with a recurve, but at 20 is spraying arrows all over, they could have a clean 200" typical at 18yds, but they should choose NOT to shoot given the skills they posses. So that hunter could be totally ethical at 15, but beyond that, it's dicey at best.
The same applies for all other weapons. Maybe with a rifle someone using a rest in calm conditions while relaxed could shoot 400 with great groups... But off hand can only shoot well to 100. Opting to shoot a doe at 250 off hand in that case does NOT feel like an ethical decision to me.
It's not that the concept of ethics changes, it's that each persons ability to execute dictates a lot of the debate.
Being proficient with a weapon, knowing your limits, and only taking very high percentage shots that you are comfortable with is what makes a hunter ethical. If you use traditional gear and are good to 20 yards then that is your maximum range. If a deer is at 25/30 yards and you decide to go ahead and "try it" and make a bad shot that is unethical to me, we owe these animals better than that. same with a compound if you are good to 40 yards but "try it' at 50, crossbow at 60 but 'try it" at 70, rifle at 200 but "try it" at 250/300. It doesn't matter the weapon, it's all about how you use said weapon. I personally use a longbow and have set my personal limit at 20 yards in the field. 2 days ago I had the biggest deer I have ever seen at 10 yards but he only offered a frontal shot so I held off, he presented a quartering away shot at 25 yards and I again held off. I did what I felt was right for me. Could I have killed that deer at either distance? maybe so, but he was outside of my personal limitations so he walked. Hopefully he comes back and things work out differently. I have no regrets with my decision and for me personally, that is ethical.
Which is a worse shot, a wound or a clean miss?
Been struggling with the change from traditional to compound, and for me the struggle is how the compound makes me think I can take a shot I would never take with traditional. This year I hit a nice buck and to answer the last question I would gladly take a miss than a wound any day! although the compounds are of course deadly at longer distances, I think I fool myself into those shots. I switched only because of a shoulder injury and found I wasn't pulling my recurve to full draw. I like them both but in my world - I think I take more ethical shots with my traditional bows...need to rehab my shoulder...
I believe, (no I know) a lot of good shots become bad shots during the flight time of the arrow bullet whatever. my max distance anymore with all weapons has shortened I personally believe more animals are wounded by gun hunters shooting entirely to far. I regularly practice to 600 yes at my house with my field gun & oon a good day have put shots inside a quarter at that distance but have never shot a deer past 500 & prefer inside of 400 the long range tv shows shooting extreme distances is unethical imo just to much flight time & the same holds true for other weapons. but only you can dertimine what that distance is
I'm with Wybullshooter. I think it is the hunter's choices that determine ethics. Interestingly, I know three guys that hunt with crossbows. Two of the three hit and lost deer this year. IMO, knowing your effective range and having the discipline to stay within that range is the ethics standard. Doesn't matter if it's a longbow or high powered rifle.
How would one know what their maximum distance/effective range on an animal be without exceeding it first? I have passed on exponentially more shots than I have taken and the shots that I have passed on taught me nothing. Clean misses are more socially acceptable than wounding shots. This perspective is probably less than a hundred years old.
"Now, if you have reduced the chance of wounding an animal, have you become a more ethical hunter by making things easier?"
This is an oversimplification of ethics doesn't really establish an ethical paradigm. First you would have to think that ethics was a singular thought based solely on reducing the wounding rate. If this was true then anything other than the most efficient weapons would be considered unethical.
“fI have passed on exponentially more shots than I have taken and the shots that I have passed on taught me nothing.”
What would you have learned had you taken those shots??
And JMO....
I have always learned more from unsuccessful encounters than from kills. You pass one up, you get to keep trying.
And if you fail to learn anything from those close-but-no-cigar encounters.... isn’t that a failure on your part?
"What would you have learned had you taken those shots??"
1) The reaction of the animal to movement and sound prior to the shot. 2) The reaction of the animal at the point of impact and it's exit from the area. 3) Your own reaction and assessment of the moment of truth. 4) Finding your arrow and reading all other forms of sign as to what happened or confirming what you think that you saw. 5) Potentially blood trailing the animal assuming that you hit it and that there is blood.
The list could really go on and on. My point is that if you pass on shots you are really only midway through the hunt. You were not that close. There is a lot left in the process.
Some great input here, I’m really glad I posed the question. Really appreciate all the great opinions on this subject. The consensus seems to be that ethics and equipment are very separate topics. I think, at face value, this is true. But I also believe some may not be able to hunt ethically, myself included, with certain equipment limitations, regardless of the time spent trying to master the weapon of choice. As I mentioned, I do currently hunt with a compound and modern accessories. And I passed up a shot this season on what would have been my biggest Whitetail ever, by far, because he was quartering on a little too much. I’m very confidant I could have killed him, with a one lung, diaphragm, liver, gut hit. But at what cost? Is a deliberate marginal hit something to later celebrate? To me, no. And to me, that was an ethical decision, to pass that shot. But as I said in my opening post, I still struggle with the fact that by making the sport easier, to become more deadly with advanced technology, that I might be losing something along the way. So maybe it’s not truly a question of ethics, but a question just the same. Of course, I do still miss now and then, so I guess all is not lost...
Busta ribs, I passed on a hard quartering to shot on a nice buck this year. The opportunity came at a super close range. I posted my experience with an ethics question on the Leatherwall. The thread got a lot of answers. Check it out, the discussion was good and the opinions revolved around ethical shot selection. I think you would appreciate the read with the story you just shared.
I named the thread Frontal Shots on Whitetails
Sometimes (often) I believe we use the ethical argument to justify our move toward ever more efficient and easier to master equipment. What troubles me about that? Where will we be when we all must theoretically shoot technology gear in order to maintain the highest ethical standards?
Ethics should always be about what we strive to do, and not necessarily about whether we actually accomplish it.
Ethics is not about the "legal" equipment being used to hunt with. Ethics it is about the "choices" the hunter using that equipment makes when using it. DANNY
There are also people in denial about their shooting ability that refuse to use a compound. I have seen only a few people that have any business using trad gear.
busta'ribbs I to am not an inherent trad bow shot but with lots of practice I'm a fair shot & by lots of practice I mean at least 4 hours hours practice a week minimum. I simply can't not shoot for a week & go hunt & these days arthritis has complicated things to the point that 40#s is all I can handle as much as I hate to think about it shortly I'm selling most of my trad bows to fund an Oneida Phoenix. if your struggling with a trad bow you have two choices commit to getting better perhaps a coach or similar or as in my case due to lack of practice & psyicle limitations go to the compound perhaps with fingers with or without sights. I also gun hunt muzzleloader & centerfire & I'm far more concerned with filling my freezer with venison than with which weapon I used to kill it with.
Busta, I wish more folks would do what you did.
To me, THAT is ethics. You have the skill to have hit him. Maybe it's perfect and he's down in 200. But given its quartering too, he moves or you twitch a smidge and you get all paunch and may never see him again knowing he's done out there some where. It's not worth it, which is a decision based on YOUR ethics.
“Many hunters think that wounding animals is wrong and unethical. I find this perspective hard to go along with.”
The difference is in whether the wound is a reasonably predictable outcome of the shot. An animal that’s on high alert is a really bad decision and we all know it, so forcing the issue is Unethical.
“But I also believe some may not be able to hunt ethically, myself included, with certain equipment limitations, regardless of the time spent trying to master the weapon of choice.”
So what you’re really saying is either that you don’t have the self-control to pass up a shot that you could have taken with a compound.... or you just don’t like your odds well enough to bet your season on a weapon with a highly restricted effective range. Honestly, I think you mean the latter, and your integrity in that is to be commended. Too many people hunt with a stickbow just to prove that they can Gitterdone with one... which is just Beyond Stupid.
I do consider Bowhunting to be a short range proposition and for that reason I wish rangefinders were banned from archery seasons. The thing is.... WITHOUT a rangefinder... I’m more effective with a stickbow than a compound. And that’s why I hunt with sticks. The fact that I enjoy shooting one more is just a bonus!
All too often when I have not listened to that little voice inside me, that's when my ethics did not win.
That voice has been sharpened by family, mentors, trials and experience that has helped recognize the difference between right and wrong. And hammered home by a Jesuit education.
The worst failures are when I know what's right, and chose the opposite.
Thank you GF. I get it now. Geez, I'm thick sometimes. Despite all the great responses above, it took until I read yours for me to finally understand the simple concept that ethics and equipment truly are not connected. Of course I could still hunt "ethically" with a recurve, even if I had no business carrying it in the woods. All I had to do was hang it up and go back to a compound. That's really the definition of ethics, isn't it. Doing what you know is right, even when you don't want to do it.
busta'ribs you somewhat confuse me. I (think) your delimma is that your not a great shot with trad equipment or a good shot but have problems putting it together on game. but REALLY like trad gear... but with a compound can consistently kill game ....well sir my question to you is WHY DO YOU HUNT. & my answer to that question is FOR FOOD the comrodery memories & good times are all part of it but ultimately when I leave my home going hunting & fishing my goal is to bring home food. if your struggling to accomplish that goal with trad gear by all means switch to gear that your more efficient with which would probably be a more ethical choice
Todd, I think it's safe to say that the majority of hunters nowadays consider venison to be a 'bonus' rather than a 'staple' in their diets.
If I was a 'meat' hunter of necessity I'd hunt strictly with a gun and focus on areas with high population densities of deer. I don't. I hunt for 'sport' or 'fun' or 'adventure' or whatever.
And here is the big divide: Guys who think they 'need' a deer and guys who don't. I've observed that the two camps have different ethical points of view.
Also, there are guys who need a deer for food, and guys who need one for 'ego'. Not the same thing at all!
DanaC all I have to say is thank God for the grocery store!!!! I personally take great pride in staying out of it as much as possible. I hunt & fish FOR FOOD I have laying hens & plant a big garden every summer. do lots of canning. I try to live as self sufficient as possible. I dearly love hunting & fishing ALL of it & the good times & memories. but a perfect example would be when we load my boat with ice & bait leave the dock @ 4:00am & ride 50+ miles out to the edge were gonna have a good time always do. but a few hundred pounds of tuna loins is the main objective. if a billfish gets cought great. but it's not what I'm after. when I go deer hunting a big fat doe for the freezer is my main objective. if a BIG buck comes along great I'll kill it & be proud of it. but I hunt & fish for food absolutely not ego & if for whatever reason a certain weapon or gear isn't getting the job done I'm switching to something that will & again to me that would be a more ethical choice
Sorry I confuse you Todd. Should be pretty clear from my posts that I confuse myself as well, so I suppose we’re square. Why do I hunt? Hmmm... if that’s the question you need answered to ease confusion, good luck. Apparently, for you that answer is easy; you say that first and foremost, you hunt (and fish) for food. Well, for me, although I do cherish the protein I put on my family’s table, the reason goes far deeper. And it’s not something I can just quickly throw up on a public forum, it’s way too personal for that. I think you’d have to stop by some evening and spend a few hours to get the real answer to your question.
When you can only hunt the second half of the season with the rifle season going on, on snow, on the ground, see only one legal buck out of 41 deer sightings, it seems stupid to me not to bow hunt. I can at least shoot either/or and eat venison. I still get a ton of exercise walking, enjoy the solitude, have snow to track on or follow a deer I hit, and carry a bamboo longbow that weighs ounces, not pounds. My ethics involves patience in getting close or letting the deer just about step on me. The sex of the deer means nothing and the size of the horns less than nothing other than a few bucks when I sell them in yard sales.
Ethical shots happen when an archer chooses to take a shot that he has high confidence will be quickly lethal. Everyone has their own limits based on their abilities and equipment.
when I was younger I was a good shot with iron sights but as I got older & my eyes not as good I switched to scopes I'd say that was an ethical choice. when my profenshy with a trad bow started declining due to a combination of lack of practice & arthritis I switched back to a compound I'd say that was an ethical choice. as far as ethical shot placement especially quartering to shots iv killed a lot of deer with a compound that I wouldn't even consider taking the same shot with a trad bow ethical ? I'd say that's more about knowing or not knowing what your equipment is capable of doing
"ethical ? I'd say that's more about knowing or not knowing what your equipment is capable of doing "
This in a nutshell. There are guys who expect miracles from a gun with lousy sights and guys who hone their skills with a self bow. The weapon doesn't make or break you, ethically speaking. (During shotgun deer season here I'm still appalled at the goobers using 'bird' barrels on their guns, trying to hit moving deer at 60 yards. Wish these idiots would just go bowling.)
excellent topic! I did not read any replies yet, I prefer to reply directly to an OP without being influenced by other replies of which this post has plenty. Being from NJ - land of many deer and probably the highest ratio of crossbow hunts vs vertical bows of any state, and also being a moderator on a popular NJ hunting site as well as several NJ rooted FaceBook, as well as monitoring the adventures of several good dog tracking handlers - it really seems that the vast majority of the deer wounded / bad hits are coming from the crossbow guys. #1 reason i think is many are just converted gun hunters and never came up through the vertical bow ranks and experience. They just don't understand importance of shot select/shot angles and that the only thing that matters is putting a razor sharp BH completely through vitals and nothing but vitals while avoiding bone, and the gastro-intestinal areas at all costs. They also tend to shoot too far (again - the gun mentality) and do not realize how loud their weapon is and the further they shoot the more likely the animal is to duck or move before the arrow get there. (I here of way to many shots 40, 50, and even over 60 yards). The best and most proficient crossbow hunters I know are only using them because for whatever reason they cannot comfortably draw a vertical bow (with or without wheels/cams). The best one's all started with vertical bows so they "get it". So I am probably preaching to this choir when I say it's not the weapon or the equipment that makes one more ethical - it's the hunter and what is between the ears that counts. Know your equipment. Know your effective range. Know the different between a good shot, a marginal shot, and a bad shot. Fully understand the anatomy of your quarry and shot angles and how to best get full pass-through - through nothing but vitals. I would say a trad-shooting hunter that knows his range even if 15 yards or less and stays in that range is far more ethical than a compound shooter or crossbow shooter that pushes the envelope and takes chances. Confidence kills. Proficiency of weapon kills. Intelligence and experience kills. Knowledge kills. Self-discipline kills. That is what is ethical - and anything less is NOT ethical.
I hunt first and foremost because I enjoy nature. It makes me feel alive. I have changed over the years with the number of deer I have killed and now with the number of deer I have an opportunity at makes killing less challenging than it used to be 20 years ago. I would rather spend more time in the woods with my compound than I would spend practicing with my recurve. When my kids leave the house I suspect I will go back to the recurve. As my buddies say "you going to take your bow for a walk in the woods today". Because they know that's essentially what makes me happy.
One thing I love and hate about bowhunting is that it is a hassle to get setup. I do not want to bowhunt in the rain and I do not want to bowhunt if I will only have an hour or so between leaving my truck and dark. It takes more effort and time than rifle hunting. So choosing to bowhunt costs me opportunity in the woods. I don't see me ever giving up bowhunting. I have been bowhunting exclusively for 30+ years. But I have considered picking up the rifle here and there to be able to get in the woods for quick hunts.
I am sure there is a point in there somewhere, but i have forgotten what it was.
