Proper arrow balance = Ethical downrange accuracy

        As archers, especially traditional archery equipment users, we face a certain level of hunting ethics for taking game in the woods.  For quite some time, there have been socially accepted standards for accuracy for a hunter to be considered "competently accurate" in the field; the idea to reduce the risk of inhumane and / or prolonged suffering of animals that were intended to be table fare.

       I'm all for being as accurate an arrow shooter as possible when shooting at animals.  Quick, humane death is what we desire for the game animals we are shooting.  We practice shooting to hone our aiming process, the shooting form, and such...and we use good equipment that will accurately shoot an arrow with sufficient force and efficiency.  We then put a limit on the distance with which we feel we are accurately competent.  Beyond that distance, we are indoctrinated to never venture a shot.  We are looked down upon, or possibly shamed, for taking shots not considered "ethical".  This blog post is to make us think about arrow choices and accuracy for ethical hunting.

      When we practice at known distances, our attempts are to place arrows consistently in the area we're aiming for, so that we can confidently put an arrow where we are aiming on an animal.  The standards by which this happens, depends on whom you talk to, but it's generally recognized as the distance one can group arrows in a fairly small area on the target.  For the sake of conversation, let's use the accepted distance of twenty yards.  At twenty yards, we feel we should be able to place the majority of our shots in a fairly small group with regularity.  Say, four out of five, or six out of 8, or seven out of ten shots in a nine inch diameter circle for the sake of discussion.  The archer spends most of his time, shooting at ranges from ten to twenty yards, trying to group arrows to feel proficient enough to hunt his chosen game animal.  Over and over he shoots, ingraining good shooting form and he feel confident he can shoot with this accuracy level when called upon. He can group arrows.  That's what he's learned.

      His archery tackle is suited for shooting groups at the range, whether in the back yard or otherwise. Over and over he shoots groups and learns the arc of the arrows' trajectory.  He shoots a heavily-forward-weighted arrow and it lobs into the target.  The arrow bareshafts and tunes as well as he's been told it should by the internet experts.  These heavily front-loaded arrows drop like a rock past twenty yards, but he repeats to himself what he's heard others say..."I don't shoot at game past twenty yards, so this arrow weight, speed, and trajectory are just fine".

     Is his longbow and arrow setup and approach to shooting "ethical" ?

     What about the arrows that don't group in the same small group with the others...that one out of five, or two out of eight, or three out of ten that don't group, and that can show up at any time for any number of reasons due to form or tackle issues?  What if that one arrow, the rogue that rears its head while the archer is attempting to shoot groups, is perchance the same arrow that is the first and only arrow shot at the approaching whitetail?  What if, after all the careful shooting practice in the backyard, and all the attempts to set up a perfect shooting situation in the field, under as ideal circumstances as possible,  the first shot is a hurried, nervous shot due to the intense psychological pressure of shooting to kill a living animal?  What if, after intense preparation to choose a perfect hiding perch to shoot an arrow at an unsuspecting game animal, a stray unseen branch deflects an otherwise perfectly shot arrow?  Or if lighting, or weather conditions, or hyper-alert and spooky animals cause the arrow to miss the intended aiming spot?   What if there is a combination of these scenarios that create a wounded animal situation?  What about ethics then?

       If you find yourself in this situation or have in the past...what was your recourse?  Typically, the advice is to wait, approach the situation with care, to assess the hit location and determine if time is your best ally, and you may possibly back out and try to recover the animal after a period of waiting.  But what if the hit wasn't immediately lethal...and you see the animal again, in a shootable position, but that shot distance is now outside your maximum comfort shooting range of twenty yards?  Will you ethically believe that you can allow that animal to get away without any attempt to reduce it to possession?  If the animal is acting sick and wounded and is thirty yards away...do you just let it walk away to die somewhere you can't find it?  Is that ethical?  Something to think about.

      With the Hill style of shooting, and based on conversations I had with John Schulz, we need to have a certain level of shooting confidence that we can place an arrow where we are aiming, right now...here...with this shot.  We base this confidence on the fact that we have shot arrows where we were aiming, previously, at the distance we are now facing, enough times that we absolutely believe we can do it again.   We don't need confidence that we can shoot a nice group of arrows, but we need to know, absolutely believe in our heart, that we will shoot one arrow exactly where we are aiming, right now.  Just like a basketball player who gets the ball with three seconds to shoot the winning basket.  He doesn't rely on all the stats of how many baskets he's made versus how many he's missed. He doesn't rely on percentages to decide if he needs to be shooting a basket from the baseline, free-throw line, or top of the key.  No, he just wants that ball, knows he needs to shoot, and when the shot opens up, he shoots with complete instinctive confidence he can make the shot....and then lets the shot go from his hands.  And he lives with the consequences, make or miss.  The more practice he puts in, the more hours he hones his shooting, the more confident he is in making the shot under that kind of pressure, and the more he will make the shot.  He will make the shot because he believes he can.

       If an archer is wanting to shoot in the Hill style, he needs to adopt the attitude of shooting lots of hours, honing his abilities, honing the shooting form to be as relaxed and fluid and instinctive under pressure as possible and then allow that to happen once a shot is presented.  Using arrows that have a good balanced flight are key to allowing this to happen.

      If the archer is using arrows that lob into the target, and drop like a rock past twenty yards, then he will never have the confidence to shoot any further because accuracy is difficult to achieve at longer distances.  If he never shoots further than twenty yards, and he must make a difficult shot to atone for an errant, wounding shot, how can he be expected to make it?  How can he ethically finish the job he started by shooting the first arrow, however errant it was by whatever factors were involved?

      A good friend of mine is a terrific shot with a longbow, or recurve for that matter.  His record of game animals large and small, is enviable.  He has obviously learned over many years to control his nerves when faced with the opportunity to kill an animal for food.  This friend is a great long range shot, using arrows of moderate balance and piercing flight.  He can definitely shoot past twenty yards and has done so on game animals for most of his long career.  He is not afraid to shoot at longer ranges if the situation calls for it.  He has the confidence to shoot an arrow, right there, right now.  This friend has other friends that cannot do this. They are of the mentality that they can't group arrows at any distance more than twenty yards.  As is the usual course of hunting if you spend enough time doing it, these other fellows have made shots on game that resulted in wounding rather than killing and my friend has been called into action to help.  Multiple times, he has shot arrows at much further ranges than those other fellows could, to finish off the animals, to finish an effort that they started.  Who was more ethical...the fellows that waited for the close "guaranteed" shot that for some reason went awry and were not good enough archers to finish what they started...or my friend that had absolute confidence he could shoot an arrow at much longer ranges to kill an animal if needed and didn't hesitate shooting.  Some of his finishing arrows were shot at distances twice as far as the other guys would shoot.  He ended any suffering of a wounded animal, they didn't because they couldn't.  Who's more ethical now?

        Shooting arrows that fly well, and fly well with a nice trajectory at distances up to fifty yards, sixty yards, or even much further, is really only possible with a properly balanced arrow of the style we've been discussing.  If your arrow can fly without dropping like a rock, then you can practice shooting arrows at further distances, and the more you can practice this, the more confidence you will gain and the better you will shoot.  Being able to shoot decent arrow groups at forty yards instead of twenty, makes the archer much more confident in the field when the animal shows up at twenty.  It feels like a "can't miss" shot and conversely he will shoot better.  And...if the arrow for an unaccounted-for reason goes off mark and wounds the animal, he will have much more confidence he can finish the job he started.  Practicing and getting proficient at forty or fifty yards makes the twenty yard shots much easier.  To my way of thinking, this is a more ethical approach to hunting animals with longbows and arrows.  Shoot a style that allows accuracy in as many conditions and situations as possible because you just never know when you will need to be just that accurate.

     Citing personal experiences,  I've had two particular hunts where I shot arrows at animals and the arrows didn't hit exactly where I was aiming.  One, a shot at a moose a number of years ago, was off line because the moose took a step forward just as I released the arrow.  Moose take big steps.  My arrow went through both hams and as it trotted away across the mountain top I gave chase.  The animal stopped and looked back at me after a bit...quartering away on an extreme angle.  The shot was far.  How far, to this day I do not know.  I do know that it was closer to seventy yards than sixty because my arrow point was above my point-on distance.  However,  I shoot a lot of arrows at these distances and I have for a lot of years.  I had the confidence to shoot this arrow, right here, right now.  Three seconds left on the clock, basketball in hand.  I shot the arrow perfectly, into the chest on an extreme oblique angle and the moose went down quickly.  Game winning basket.  It was a far shot, indeed, but ethical and required.  The other situation was on a buck deer. I shot a little low, resulting in a less than desirable hit.  After following the animal, I found it bedded at about forty-five to fifty yards. I don't know how long it would've taken for the animal to expire there, but the ethical thing is to finish the job as quickly as possible.  My arrow went through its heart at that distance and all ended quickly.  Once again, if I only knew how to shoot lobbing arrows at twenty yards, I don't believe I would've been able to get that animal's life ended ethically-quick.   In both situations, although years apart, it was due to lots of long range practice using properly balanced arrows that allowed me to be ethically responsible, ie to take the long shots needed at the moment they were needed and take those shots with confidence.

      The properly balanced arrow we've been discussing, is to me, an ethical choice for hunting.  It allows for the downrange accuracy necessary for the seldom used, but hugely important ability to make a follow up shot hunting in the field.  Things for all of us to think about as we endeavor to...

     Shoot Straight.