Should bowhunting be a close-range sport?

[larry]

There are so many variables when it comes to hunting, for example, I would rather shoot at a calm unalerted deer at 20-25yrds than one that is wired to the max at 8yrds or less.

[tradtusker]

Chris

"Bowhunting is a close range form of hunting, in comparison to other forms but, what is close range depends on opinion. Getting within 30 yards of a mature whitetail is a feat in itself, especially out West in some of the more open terrain. Getting closer is even more so. I always hear folks talk about the variables when shooting longer, but anytime you drop the string it's never a sure thing, even at close range. I really get amused at folks that talk about how bow hunting has always been about getting close and target shooting is about how far. You guys need to read up on the hunting excursions of many of trad archerys heralded legends and you'll see getting close wasn't always the case."

Agree, could not have said it better my self!      

[SteveB]

I would not shoot at the grapefruit at any distance - I will not loose an arrow at anything other then a 110% safe target or something I am trying to kill. So what you present is an invalid comparison to me.

Hunting is a close range sport. But everyone's defination of close is different - and obviously affected greatly by their skill level and thier motives for hunting.

This stuff gets overthought way too much. No shot will ever be 100% - threads every year are posted of mutiple misses at distances well under 20 yds or what should be close range. Replies usually encourage to keep shooting and it will happen. What is never mentioned is that no one will go from multiple misses to 100% kills - anyone honest would admit to having as or nearly as many wounds as misses.

If someone's true kill/miss/wound ratio who shoots to 40(pick a number) is the same or lower then one who shoots to 12, they are the same in my eyes - hunters who stay within thier limitations without me or anyone else having the right to suggest they are doing anything wrong.

Steve

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Originally posted by Deadsmple:
For me target archery is seeing how far away from the target I can shoot from and still hit the bull, bowhunting is seeing how close I can get without missing.

I kind of like this one myself....

This sport is a very personal sport for many folks out there...there are a wide range of options on what it means to you too....

i had a ball this year spending my entire elk hunting season trying to put the sneak on them, with out ever taking a shot....( When i wasn't practicing climbing trees....) To shoot, or not to shoot, lies within each persons own conscience and abilities....you can get all bogged down and argue till dooms day about ethics....i don't even like to use the word anymore myself....i do believe its important to watch how you present yourself in the public eye. I'm not sure the word "Bow Hunter" does much more than describe a weapon of choice anymore....i certainly enjoy the traditional archery crowd a lot more than the high tech archers though.....

but i'm sure their are plenty of guys using traditional equipment that are the excitable type too, that see game and start launching arrows all over gods creation.... I've seen some darn good target shooters that just fall to pieces when live game is in their presence....its almost comical....their are many who claim to be bow hunters and archers that should really be taken with a grain of salt....

look inside yourself, talk to the lord, or the great spirit that inhabits all living things...the answers are within my friend....

Or as a modern day version puts it, "Use the force Luke"......

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Boy there is some good stuff flying on this tread! a bunch of you guys got it going on IMO...

         

[TSP]

"I would not shoot at the grapefruit at any distance - I will not loose an arrow at anything other then a 110% safe target or something I am trying to kill. So what you present is an invalid comparison to me."  SteveB

You either don't understand the basic point being made, Steve, or you are purposely choosing to avoid it.  But no matter, this is an open discussion and all of it is good food for thought.

Personally my very first concern would be for the 'safety' of the dog/animal.  If it were a deer I'd want it safely dead.  Thats far more likely as arrow travel distance/ trajectory/ speed/ reaction time are favorable for the hit, yes?  Not a guarantee of success, mind you.  But still far more likely.  I mean, If I'm good at 30 then I'm probably REALLY good at 10 or 15, right?  Why gamble?  Why not increase the odds.  

Remember those top-of-the-circle jumpshots that were so much fun back in high school?  No 3-point line then...just 'long jumpers'...ya, I'm old.  Way out beyond the circle line, elevate, square up, follow-through, 'swish'.  Excellent practice for general shooting form.  But during the game coach wanted close shots.  Higher-percentage shots.  Higher likelihood of a favorable outcome.  Layups and dunks were (and still are) the bread and butter for a sure thing.  Any idea why that might be?  

I still like to watch those long-range bombs.  But logic says the money shot is the off-the-board finger roll.   Getting close.

[SteveB]

I would say avoiding it - reason being I would hold the value of my dog way higher then an animal I am hunting. Some/many may not agree with me on that, but that is the way I feel and why I said invalid to me.

Of course the goal is always a clean kill - as it is with my example of 2 hunters with similar miss/wound/kill ratios with vast differences in range limitations. Is one hunter more right in their personal limitations then the other? Results are the same. If so, then why?

Steve

[Jeff Strubberg]

If it's the write I am thinking of...he values his skill way too much.  

At best, the shooter is one third of the shot equation.  When you can explain to me how you control the other two-thirds of the equation (the target adn the environment), I will support your ability to take whatever shot you are comfortable with.

Until then, longer shots present more chance for a bad outcome.  We should all stack the deck as heavily in favor of the right outcome as we can, considering we are talking about the taking of a life.

[SteveB]

Jeff - so what is the distance limit that stacks the deck acceptably? Will it not be different as in my example?
Thanks
Steve

[Jeff Strubberg]

Absolutely.  It will vary.
Your skill is only one variable, and basing your shot distance on that variable alone is going to land you in the soup.

Me, I'm not comfortable with anything beyond 25 yards.  Too much 'green' as we used to say over the pool table.

[Bob Macioch]

For me..anything more than 25 yards is a hail mary...but it amazes me that some of the people I think of as bowhunting GODS would shoot out to 70 yards at game.


Best
Bob

[Earl E. Nov...mber]

As a bowhunter I pride myself in "How close I can get" As a hunter I know inside of 20 yards a lot of things happen I really can't control..  They are much more likely to get spooked at my draw, they are more likely to jump the string due to the bow noise. As well as my adrenalin "Really" starts pumping when I am that close.
Coming to draw at the 20-30 yard range I am less likely to alert the animal, and unless my "Death Harp" is really loud, the sound is less likely to cause a "Jump" Now if the critter is behaving himself by either standing still, or moving steadily at an even pace, I really like the 20-30 yard ops, and will try and set up accordingly.. I have hunted with some guys  who through both their shooting and woodsman abilities are totally confident in shots well past that, and I will not belittle them for it.
Likewise I will not limit myself to shots under 20.

[Ia Hawkeye]

Good posts TSP !!!!!
There will always be those who just can't get it, or, don't want to.

[Chris Lantz]

Bowhunting should be about what you want it to be as others have said. I don't think there's anything wrong if a person can shoot well inside 20 yards and wants to limit themselves to close high percentage shots. For me bowhunting will always be about the challenge and excitement of getting close to my quarry.

That said, being able to shoot well at longer distances does show that your form is consistent and consistent form will help when making close shots at game under pressure. I think Paul Schafer said he practiced shooting at long distances because it made the short shots fell like pot shots.

[UKarcher]

I believe it is purely down to conscience and heart. If you truly believe you can make a near to perfect shot at the distance you choose, then good for you. But if you miss or cripple the animal and it can't be recovered, would you be happy? I'm not specifying any distance here, because everyone has a different view as to what that distance is. It is surely up to everyone of us to be the best we can be at the distance we choose. We have an ethical obligation to make a clean kill, and be beyond reproach from those who would stop us doing what we love.

[TSP]

So far there's been some good exchanges here, from both sides of the fence.  Interesting views, calmly presented (yay for us!) and certainly none quite as radical as the original 'celebrity' statement (see initial post).  

My impression is that some (Group 1) see the animal primarily as they do an inanimate target...a challenge or perhaps as a means to wave a flag signifying their shooting skill...nothing more or less than that.  Others (Group 2)  place more pre-shot thought on the probable disposition of the animal (dead, wounded, missed) as if the animal is in a sense an active and valued 'competitor' deserving its due (gamesmanship, deference to its right to fair treatment).  Still others (Group 3) might regard the outcome (post-shot) as entirely secondary in their thought process, or maybe even inconsequential, prefering to focus on the hunt rather than a kill.  

I have to say I can identify at some level with the latter two groups but not with the first group (the celebrity theory).  There is no logical reason to choose the bow as a HUNTING  weapon if the primary objective is long-range  accuracy or a steak on the table.  There are far more effective ways to do that and far 'safer' methods to reduce risk and adverse consequence.  As for the flag-waving, that shouldbe reserved for target competition.  

I created this thread to make you take a closer (pun intended) look at what you, as well as your peers/mentors, really value within the traditional/'barebow' arena.  Self-reflection can be a healthy thing.  Looks like its working.

[Bjorn]

Good job TSP and a nice summary.

[Brian Krebs]

I hit and miss at 6 or 60 steps. Its a matter of timing; and the factors of the hunt. For instance; when I bear hunt; I set up for shots under 15 steps. When I am whitetail hunting; I set up for shots at 20 and under.
 When muledeer hunting or elk hunting; my shot ranges will be what they turn out to be.
 I do not practice at 20 yards; I like to rove; and shoot at whatever I think I can positively hit. That ussually turns out to be 33 steps.
 How many yards that is- I don't know and don't care.
 What I care about is if I am hitting what I aim at.
 Nor do I want anyone to judge me based on the distance of my shots- or to judge those in the past...like P&Y.
 I like to get close; but close is relative to the situtation. A person that lives and hunts in thick brush; is just not going to shoot at the same ranges as those that live in the desert.
 I hope 2008 is not the year we start making decisions for others about shot distances!
 Like I said... I don't shoot at known ranges- do you?
         
   

[Brian Krebs]

PS: 'Larry247' member # 10835 ......is MR Chuck  :D    

[bentpole]

Vaughn great answer brother you aced it as far as I'm concerned, aced it