Color me ambivalent.

This article from the Wall Street Journal was forwarded to me by a half-dozen friends and acquaintances over the weekend.  The piece features Mike “Hawk” Huston, a pretty well-known traditional archer and bowhunter, who uses flint broadheads and trad gear to hunt big game.  According to the article, Huston is part of a growing cadre of bowhunters who are eschewing modern technology in order to up the challenge of the hunt.  From the article:

Prehistoric hunts are back partly because technology has made hunting a bit of a yawner, say some of the sport’s aficionados. The proliferation of gear like high-powered sniper rifles and “compound bows”—which use carbon fiber, metal wire and a set of pulleys to fling an arrow almost as fast as a bullet—took much of the sport out of hunting, they say.

As a result, more people now want to hunt with “a piece of handcrafted artwork that’s functional,” says Ted Fry, the owner of Raptor Archery in Hood River, Ore.

I can absolutely appreciate the idea of increasing the challenge, especially as it motivates hunters in game-rich areas to switch from firearms to archery tackle.  I do it myself, and I’m happy to admit that the challenge is one of the reasons I do (the other key reason is the extended hunting opportunities that archery opens up).  I’m hardly bored with firearms, but there’s an inarguable thrill to using archery tackle.

At the same time, I’m a little concerned about any trend to raise the challenge in hunting, because any time you make hunting more difficult by decreasing the effectiveness of your weapon, you’re increasing the odds of wounding the game.

In fishing, a similar trend had fishermen going with lighter and lighter tackle, until they were practically fighting big game fish on little more than threads.  It was a test of skill and finesse to fight and land a fish without breaking the line or stripping the reel.  But when the fishermen failed, the fish got away, and if proper tackle was used, the hook would work out of its mouth or corrode away quickly.  Not a lot of impact, at least until the big game (marlin, sailfish, etc.) fishermen realized that the stress of these extended battles often killed the fish.  The popularity of ultra-light fishing waned, although it’s still in practice.

Hunting is not quite the same as fishing.  A flubbed shot, whether from flint broadhead or extreme long-range, often results in a wounded animal.  The animal may eventually die, or it may be crippled… some will recover… but none of those are outcomes the ethical (there’s that word) hunter should be striving for.  Instead, there should be a conscious effort to improve the odds of a good kill, rather than reducing them.

I get the argument, before any of you trad guys start in… a well-placed shot with hand-knapped broadhead is just as effective as a bullet, etc. etc.  I don’t think that’s actually accurate, but I get the argument anyway.  But a poorly placed shot with truly primitive equipment is a disaster for the animal and the hunter.  The margin for error becomes so small that the whole practice is questionable.

But in the big picture, I think that hunting with primitive tackle is a lot like long-range hunting.  There are a handful of people who can do it competently and ethically.  With the right amount of skill, practice, and restraint, I do think it’s a valid method of hunting.  My biggest concern is that, as with any trend, the more it grows the more we’ll see unqualified hunters taking the field.

I’m open to ideas.

 

Related Posts