# Journey of the challenge



## fur-fins & feathers (Sep 21, 2013)

Check out the video imbedded here:

http://www.journeyofchallenge.com/

What do you all think? Are general bow seasons being shortened and hunting opportunities limited due to technical advances that threaten fair chase?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't think so. The potential is there, sure.

The loudest voice against bowhunting in Utah is coming from other hunters who believe that bowhunters kill/wound far more than we tag. Assuming these anti-bow guys aren't just pulling arguments out of their butts, the primary reason for their perception has to be actual reports from bowhunters.

The question then becomes, "How do these bowhunters who report so many misses and wounded animals come by so many shot opportunities?" Is it possible that due to over-confidence in technology, shots were taken when there wasn't really an opportunity?


----------



## bow_dude (Aug 20, 2009)

This question seems to surface from time to time and it is always someone who shoots recurve or long bow that is stirring the pot. Why is that? Fear of long shots? Long before compounds became the norm, the problem existed. I witnessed it on several occasions as sportsmen road hunted in the backs of pickups and would jump out or shoot from the truck at the first deer they saw. Sometimes several trucks would stop. Back in the 60's when I was a scout, my explorer leader was an avid recurve shooting archer. His theory that he taught us was you couldn't kill it if you didn't put an arrow in the air. Consequently, he kept a footlocker full of arrows that traveled to hunting camp with him. That was the norm for most or all bow hunters who shot with him. He was a member of the Brigham Bowmen club. A lot of them hunted together as a group in scipio area. I tell you this not to single out a particular group, but to validate my story. 

My point? Modern equipment is not the cause. The problem has always existed. Trad guys are and have been as guilty as anyone. You should be focusing on education rather than equipment or any particular group.


----------



## bow_dude (Aug 20, 2009)

Forgot the point of the article you sent us to read. The main theme I got from it was shot distance. Notice he did not giive any specific distance. That is left up to the individual archer. We should not be judge or jury on determining what that distance for others is. and don't try and justify your beliefs by hiding behind the "ethics" statement. Ethics is a personal matter and is determined by the individual not a general vote. Sittinng in a tree stand, 12 yards is the norm. Stalking is another matter. Notice he stated "as close as possible". 

I would agree with the statement as published. Any further defination would be wrong and I would have to agree to disagree.


----------



## fur-fins & feathers (Sep 21, 2013)

So ethics is only a personal matter?? Then what do we need laws for? Maybe because society as a whole decides what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior?

I think, Bow Dude, that you're dismissing the idea that bowhunting is supposed to impose a self-limiting restriction that gives the prey animal more of a chance to escape. 

The video only raises the question of how much technology is too much, before that advantage to the animal no longer exists. 

Modern compounds and muzzleloaders are hardly what most people would consider primitive weapons, which I think is what the video is getting at.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

I shoot both Recurves and A Mathews wheel bow, don't know why ya would put the balme 
on the stick shooters, the thing thats just killing the sport is the fact when you talk to some people out on the mountain and they brag. Hell shot a 2 point this morning at 90 yards but he took one step and the arrow hit him in the butt tracked him for an ENTIRE HOUR never found him. .Da! arrow speed 315 fps.kill zone 18" X 15" Average mule deer. and then the same person says. Lost another one this afternoon.. kinda grazed him at 93 yards. couldn't find any blood so I let him walk.But HEY! I know guys who could put an arrow up your nose at 80 yards, long as you don't take a step.Maybe we need to go to seperate hunt for recurve shooters like Oregon. Or combine Muzzy Hunters with general rifle season because knocking a buck down now days at 200 yards is a piece of cake. I think the ethics of some Bow Hunters Suck,, I think some ethics of some gun and muzzy hunters SUCK..But if we don't stick together and educate some hunters,, Well Hell we may all be screwed.. I guess this is why when the DWR does their phone survey they ask as an archer how many animals did you wound and not harvest this year? Well, have hunted 51 years with a bow,, lost 3 It's offensive ..


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I think all the surveys ask that question (wounding) not just the archery survey.
Too bad common sense isn't too common.


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. There seems to be 3 main points of the video.
1-The thrill of getting close is the point of bow hunting.

-I have to agree with this one...nothing better than having a bull screaming at 20 yards...that is what I love about bow hunting

2-Bowhunting is supposed to be a limited range weapon and modern bows can shoot too far.

-I still think they are a limited weapon/low success rate. Just because the weapon can shoot that far, doesn't mean the hunter can. It's takes real practice and knowledge to consistently get broadheads(including expandables) in tight groups at any distance over 40 yards. 

3-Todays bows make it too easy to kill and therefore the seasons will be shortened and opportunity taken away. 

I would like to see the numbers backing this up? What are the success rates compared to 10, 15 and 20 years ago? I would suspect they are fairly consistent/low over the years.....one thing I can say for sure, they are no where near the success rate of a rifle and they never will be. The video seems to imply that they are.

As for more animals being wounded by archers...that's simply not true....as dedicated hunter for the last 9 years I have seen more wounded animals(not shot by our group) on the rifle hunt than any other hunt. I am not being anti rifle but it's just the nature of the beast. You have more people rifle hunting than any other weapon.

The fact is that the DWR knows general rates for wounds/not recovered for each weapon and allocates tags accordingly. I am not saying that we shouldn't worry about wounding animals but the fact is it's going to happen. We just need to do our best to prevent it. 

That means be proficient with the weapon you are hunting with and only taking shots you KNOW you can make.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Mountain Time>> Look out you do have common sense. You fer sure know what Archery Hunting is all about..The kill is a bonus.Last year first time in 51 years no tag.. Received one this year. came home empty. not that I couldn't have taken some very very long shots..but I was taught by and old boy who always told me respect what you hunt and it's not how far away you can get, anyone can do that it's how close you can get, As for the survey ' How many did I wound and not recover? Am ignorant I did not know they ask that of gun hunters and muzzy hunters..Had a heart attack 10/30/13 so my hunting days may be coming to a halt.. It's been great to be a Bow Hunter. been my hunting life.. So pass it on to the younger generation.. use your heads or some day it may be all taken away..


----------



## bow_dude (Aug 20, 2009)

Fir... you ask "what do we need laws for?" I say, laws govern. Ethic determine how an individual wants to interprete those laws and how to act within them and be compliant. The law says "Archery Season" and we are told what is lawful to use for a weapon and what the season dates and hunting times are as well as what the species and sex of the game is to be hunted. There are more "regulations" but we do not need to get into them all, you get the point. Ethics then are one's personal "opinion" and "method" of complying with those regulations while operating within the laws. Those "methods" differ greatly from individual to individual and all are legal or correct as long as those methods used are within the boundaries defined by the law. i.e. type of archey equipment, stalking or tree stand hunting, range finder or "guesstimating", 5 yard shots or 100 yard shots. I am not an advocate for long shots, and I disagree strongly with those who advocate them, but, it is still their right to take those shots. That is why I stated that education is the key, not limiting technology. I shoot better than the average archer when it comes to accuracy, but the skill in archery hunting is not in the shooting ability, but getting close enough to take a shot. The ethics part is when the individual determines what his/her maximum range is. That should not be defined by anyone but the individual. Again, education will or should teach what that is. 

A few years ago, I did a research on the influence that technology has had on archery hunting. It was very interesting when I looked at the success percentage as listed by the DWR over the last 65 years. The greatest impact on success has been the introduction of tree stands. The highest years of success was in the early 60's. Success for archery hunters today, as I remember, hovers between 6 and 11 percent. Interesting enough, it has dropped in success percentage the last 45 years or so. I think is was around 15% for its high back in the early 60's. I believe a good year anymore would be about 9%. It has been several years since I did the research, and if anyone has better numbers, please share them, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. 

I shot a recurve for many years. I know the ins and outs and am an advocate that everyone should learn to shoot one. I switched because I found I was much more accurate with a modern compound. I started to use a range finder because I wasn't accurate enough at "Guesstimating" distances. Even though I won the competition for "guesstimating" distance at the bowhunters ed class I took, I feel that "knowing" is always superior to a guess. I feel that modern day technology advancement has been a plus to the archery hunter and those that choose to not use it are at a very distinct dis-advantage and in my mind are the un-ethical ones. Should not we be using those methods that best aid us in our accuracy and ability to make a clean kill? Don't we "owe it to the animals we hunt"? We make those statements, but then limit our portential because we want to be a "purist." Makes no sense to me, but then, that is my personal ethics. Is it right that I should impose those beliefs on you trad guys? No!, but those are the boundaries I have set for me and me only.

I am greatful we have choices. I am greatful we have technology to aid us in our pursuits. You have and will always have those who abuse the advantages technology brings. Does it make a person a better hunter? No. Does it give an archer an advantage over our quarry? in my opinion, no. But it does aid in making it possible for a clean and "ethical" kill. For that, I am in favor.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

bow_dude said:


> I feel that modern day technology advancement has been a plus to the archery hunter and those that choose to not use it are at a very distinct dis-advantage and in my mind are the un-ethical ones.


Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you here bow_dude. To me, the whole purpose of creating an archery season was to give those hunters who want to handicap themselves by using primitive weapons their own season. Primitive weapons are less efficient killing machines than modern ones, or else technological evolution wouldn't have left them behind. To say that one must take advantage of modern technology to be ethical would be an argument against archery hunting itself, because rifles are so much more technologically advanced. You are arguing a slippery slope.

Personally I'm fine with someone taking advantage of the latest technology as long as they operate within the law. However, I commend anyone that chooses to take a step backwards to the more traditional roots of primitive weapon hunting.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

As a prefessional in the archery industry here in Utah, I can tell you it isn't the equipment that is the threat... it is the stupid people behind the weapons.

You will find that kind of people in every part of the hunting industry, people who pull their gun(or any other weapon) out the week of the hunt and shoot a couple rounds to make sure it is still on at 100, then take pot shots at running animals or animals way out of their practiced range...

and on the other side you'll find guys who spend the loot for a custom long range gun (or high tech bow) and lob boxes full of shots at the range, only to get out and miss or wound animals in the field. Without "Ethics" and "Rules" being imposed on people you will always have this.

My ethics upbringing has taught me: Practice every chance I get (which for me is every day because of my job). Don't take a questionable shot. My goal is to get as close as I possibly can before attempting a clean and quick-killing shot with whatever weapon I have in my hands, and if I hit an animal I find that animal or I trim my tag and _*DON'T KEEP HUNTING*_!

Just as people say 90% of the animals are being taken by 10% of the hunters, I have found that 90% of the woundings or bad press is caused by 10% of the hunters, but if 10% of the 16,000 bowhunters (1,600) or rifle hunters (8,700) are out there shooting and wounding 2, 3 or more deer every year, that adds up to several thousand deer being reported as lost, wounded or poached every year. Even a good and otherwise ethical hunter may make a poor shot on occasion, and I'd like to think that if they wounded the animal they did everything in their power to find that deer or elk, and if not they tore up their tag.

With a tag, we are entitled to shoot one animal, not shoot one and not find it and keep hunting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> As a prefessional in the archery industry here in Utah, I can tell you it isn't the equipment that is the threat... it is the stupid people behind the weapons.
> 
> You will find that kind of people in every part of the hunting industry, people who pull their gun(or any other weapon) out the week of the hunt and shoot a couple rounds to make sure it is still on at 100, then take pot shots at running animals or animals way out of their practiced range...
> 
> ...


With a tag we are licensed to *harvest* one animal. How people go about that is a different story and what one person finds ethical another may not.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2013)

“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal.”__Aldo Leopold

It is our practiced ethics as sportsmen, individually and collectively, that serve as a basis for how to regulate our rights as hunters. Should we not regulate ourselves, then who are we offering that responsibility up to? And what about the power that said responsibility carries, who gets that?


----------



## fur-fins & feathers (Sep 21, 2013)

I am interested in how archery seasons have changed in Utah over the past 45 years. Has the season been shortened? Also, has the success ratio dropped or increased? 

Bow Dude claims that his research shows that the success percentage has actually decreased. I would have expected it would have increased in the compound bow era (beginning, say, around 1978-80 (33-35 years ago), and especially with the proliferation of technical gadgetry such as range-finders, etc. 

If the diminishing deer population is the reason for decreasing success, what about the elk numbers? They have increased significantly, so shouldn't success rates reflect that?

Bottom line? Are we just not as good of hunters as in the past? Is that why so many are trying to compensate with ever more technological advances in equipment?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

MrMule, care to share your definition of "harvest"?

Fur-fins, my answer to your question is no, we (as a whole - generally speaking) are not nearly as good of hunters as those past.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> MrMule, care to share your definition of "harvest"?
> 
> Fur-fins, my answer to your question is no, we (as a whole - generally speaking) are not nearly as good of hunters as those past.


My definition of harvesting or taking of game is written by the State. It is the only definition that matters with regard to tagging an animal. When people get into the habit of writing their own definition legal lines are crossed. I go out of my way not to do that by reading and following the written laws.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

If you are fishing for a person that takes several shots not knowing whether or not the animal has even been hit you are talking to the wrong guy. I have never lost an animal and have never taken a shot that in my mind was questionable.


----------



## fur-fins & feathers (Sep 21, 2013)

I agree that, as a whole, we are not as good of hunters as in the past, and not nearly as good as we should be. 

I would say there are several reasons for that. One, previous generations had to be good hunters or they might have starved. They got good by experience, spending time afield and knowing how to shoot. Two, modern equipment and technology has made it so that you don't have to be as good a hunter to have success. You can laser range distances and kill at 800 yards with your 7 mag (yeah, top o' utah, I saw your post) or 100 yards with the latest compounds. Three, not as much opportunity to spend time afield, whether because of jobs, other priorities, or location in proximity to hunting areas, or maybe hunting seasons have been shortened due to low numbers of game, more hunters relative to game numbers, etc. 

For whatever reason, loss of opportunity to spend time in the field with the expectation of seeing or harvesting game will continue to result in future generations turning to other activities and current hunters to become complacent or disappointed, ultimately leading them to give up the sport and tradition they once cherished.


----------



## fur-fins & feathers (Sep 21, 2013)

I did some research, too, based on the DWR document here:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/11_bg_report.pdf

The data aren't available for all years (archery alone missing after 1976 until 2011), so it's hard to compare success rates pre- and post- compound era. Plus, there is a lot of variation year to year and unit by unit.

BUT, here are just some highlights that stand out: 1973 had the highest number of bowhunters with 25,156 and 14% success ratio. 1971 had the most deer taken (3826) by 18,276 hunters, a success ratio of 21%. (This would be pre-compounds.)

Last year in the general archery deer season, there were 13,692 hunters and a success ratio of 16%. Archery success in limited entry areas averaged 72.5%!

For archery elk, the success rate was about 6% last year.

Lot's of ways to look at all this, but it would be hard to argue that compounds have significantly increased harvest success rates based on DWR data...so I won't.

It may be a different story based on data from other states.


----------

