Pete, If you visit this board and read this Congrats big time.

I'm still hunting with the Laser Flite you signed and gave me back in the early nineties. The critters don't know or care that it's over 15 years old and outdated.
540 grain arrow @ 217 fps very heavy, slow and deadly.

You have done so much to portray and promote archery in a positive light.

Thank you
elkfitter

Just to be clear:
I asked the question out of ignorance. As somebody pointed out I am from the UK, there is zero bowhunting here.
I did NOT ask to "stir the pot".
I am 100% in favour of ethical hunting, and I enjoy doing it in all its guises.
I loath PETA and all they stand for.
The only reason I didn't post this since my first question was because I was away for the weekend (sadly not hunting!)

Thank's to all for a most interesting set of replies.

UKhunter, your questions, IMHO, are completely appropriate.

Here are my answers, some theoretical, but most real world, and all IMHO and IN ALL CAPS:

1. Are there ethical issues with using a bow on such animals. YES. BRAIN SHOTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE. AND EVEN WITH BODY SHOTS, IMHO, A BOWSHOT ELEPHANT WILL NOT DIE AS RAPIDLY AS ONE THAT IS RIFLE SHOT. ALSO, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR WOUNDING. SEE BELOW. ULTIMATELY, BOWHUNTING ELEPHANT IS A STUNT AND, IMHO, LIKE ALL HUNTING STUNTS, CAN, BUT SHOULD NOT, BE DONE.

2. Is there not a significantly higher risk of wounding the animal. YES, IMHO. THIS IS BASED ON MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE AND THE LAW OF AVERAGES. BUT I WILL READILY ADMIT THAT I KNOW OF NO HARD EMPIRICAL DATA THAT BACK IT UP.

3. Note I say "higher risk", clearly they can kill, so can a rifle, and either one can wound. Do bows have a significantly higher risk of wounding? SEE ABOVE.

4. Wounding has two effects: The animal suffers more than it needs to...we as hunters should be concerned about this. AGREED.

5. A wounded animal is a much more dangerous animal. I'm sure a bow hunter has to be much closer to the prey, and so does his PH and maybe trackers, photographers, whoevers. A wounded animal is not only placing the hunter at more risk (a problem of his own causing, so maybe less worthy of worry?) but also all those others associated with the aftermath. Is it ethical to risk their lives more than is "neccessary"? YES, IMHO. THEY ARE ADULTS AND CAN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS AS TO WHAT RISKS THEY CHOOSE TO RUN. BUT THE BOWHUNTER, LIKE THE RIFLE HUNTER, MUST ASK HIMSELF, HOW WILL HE FEEL IF SOMEONE DIES BECAUSE OF HIS MISTAKE? AND IF THAT HAPPENS TO SOMEONE BECAUSE OF A BOWHUNTER'S MISTAKE, IMHO, THE BOWHUNTER WILL HAVE TO FACTOR INTO THE EQUATION THE FACT THAT HE CHOSE AN INAPPROPRIATE WEAPON FOR THE TASK.

I think that the really heavy poundage (90-100lbs) bows, especially some of the latest compounds can store some impressive energy, especially when you put that energy behind a really heavy arrow, which for elephant would be at least a 1000gr I would say. I think in SA the minimum energy for elephant is a little over a 100ft/lbs and for buff around 80ft/lbs.

I dont think there is a question of lethality on elephant once a person has a set-up that works, and has loads of practise, involving a lot of arrow tuning, (especially getting the spine right if you have added mass-enhancers to the arrow) range-estimation settings, etc, (an extremely heavy arrow will drop very fast). An extremely sharp-kept, efficient broadhead, such as a 190gr grizzly, would probably be my only choice, given the thickness of the hide and the potential problem of hitting a rib.

If you hit a rib square on, I am not sure if you would always get enough penetration to reach the heart (the ribs are really big and solid, not what an arrow likes). This would be my only real concern once I had a good set-up. Fortunately there are spaces between the ribs, and if you know where the ribs are when you shoot, you should be ok I would think, (I have heard somewhere from someone who was successful, aiming for the top of the crease made by the foreleg). I would say only full-broadside shots should be attempted, otherwise you run the risk of deflecting off a rib. Those are just my thoughts though for what they are. On elephant, if your set-up is not right, and you havent practised with it much, you will most likely come short, which is not good for either the animal or the hunter.

In terms of ethics, I do not think that there is a problem with thin-skinned game and antelope species with regards bow-hunting. If the archer is proficient and has the right equipment, there is no problem, as long as he realises his limitations of distances and what shots he can take with it.

A broad-head tipped arrow through the vitals often exits most antelope, leaving a good blood-trail (probably just as good as most soft-point bullet exit wounds I would think). I can not say which would kill quicker most of the time, but I dont think that there is any concern about ethics on the killing side of arrows for these animals.

On thick-skinned game, I think that ethics become much more important, because you have to move away from the average 70lb bow (which most people can draw easily with practise) to heavier 80+lb bows, which become significantly harder to draw and comfortably shoot. A 90-100lb bow, necessary for elephant, eliminates many more people. To qualify energy and penetration-wise, you have to pick a heavy arrow, heavier than most retailers offer, which means adding mass to the arrow. I have heard of people using stuff like high-density foam, putting smaller arrow shafts in fatter ones, even rice! Making sure the arrow flies straight and impacts dead on is important and would most likely involve a lot of homework, bow-tweaking and trial and error to get the bow shooting sweetly with heavy arrows. All in all, it would involve specialised equipment and a lot of practise to get it right, so I think that it would be important, ethics wise for a hunter to prove that he qualifies to hunt an ellie by having the adequate equipment and that he can shoot it accurately enough.

With the right equipment, I know people can shoot right through a buff broadside, and shoot through the heart and both lungs of an elephant, so there shouldnt be any concerns with lethality once you have things right, but as I said, not every Joe-Soap can just pick up a bow and expect to shoot an elephant with it, nor should they be allowed to.

I haven't hunted buffalo, but repeatedly on this forum I have read descriptions that say the ribs actually overlap on these beats. Is it even possible to try for a broadside arrow shot between the ribs? Do they go for a frontal shot into the chest instead, or a rear-quartering shot to get an entry behind the last rib?

It doesn't matter where you go, some people just say that dumbest damn things. While many of the comments on this forum were intelligent and thoughtful (and I believe the original poster meant well with his thought-provoking topic and question), some of you are ridiculous and speak out of pure naivety.

40-65, with almost all game (with the exception of a few DG), a quartering away shot is better than a broadside shot, so it would be ridiculous to stick to broadside only shots. Further, the weapon has little, if anything, to do with one's ethical decision making. I'm sure many more rifle hunters than bow hunters (given the fact that they so outnumber bow hunters) shoot too late in the evening or make some other mistake which you attribute to bow hunters. How many rifle hunters do you know that only shoot once a year, if that, in order to site in their rifle just before season. Most bow hunters I know practice year round. Further, now you know an elk hunter who hasn't wounded one. You really should try to think with your brain and not your arse.

Grumulkin, your post doesn't make much sense either. If a bow hunter makes a poor shot, why should he not follow up with a rifle? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the welfare of an animal and making sure that it does not suffer unnecessarily rather than with stroking our egos so we can say we made an unassisted bow kill?

Carolina Council, I totally agree with you, quartering-away shots on antelope are very effective, most of the time, as the animal is less likely to see your movements (and string-jump), and penetration will usually be excellent, as the arrow may miss the ribs altogether or hit thinner, cartilaginous ones, which are less likely to damage the broadhead and create little resistance. If you shoot the animal from the right, you will also probably hit the liver as well as the heart/lungs as a safety.

Yes, a buffallo's ribs do overlap, I have heard recommendations on quartering-away shots to minimise this (in a bow-hunting magazine), but I think that there is probably a fair chance of deflection off the ribs (which become less overlapped lower down the chest/abdomen). You dont want to shoot too far back either, you may get away with it on antelope/elk, etc, but a buff's stomach, full of compressed grass will likely slow an arrow down pretty quickly and reduce penetration. It may always work if you have enough power, but minimum poundage bows may struggle. I have also heard that a broadside shot is best too for buff, which is contradictory to the advice above! This is all going from what I have heard and read, I dont know what the experts like Pete Shepley would have to say on the matter, but I am sure he would be able to tell you what shots work and what don't, and I know that I for one, would love to hear some of his stories.

"It doesn't matter where you go, some people just say the dumbest damn things", Carolina Council

Well said there CC. I couldn't agree with you more.....

In fact, here's a perfect example of that....

"You really should try to think with your brain and not your arse", Carolina Council



Elmo

Way to contribute something to the discussion, Elmo. How long did it take you to come up with that one? Maybe I should continue with my string of dumb comments . . . . How about, blow me. Or better yet, why don't you let your wife do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Carolina Counsel:
Way to contribute something to the discussion, Elmo. How long did it take you to come up with that one? Maybe I should continue with my string of dumb comments . . . . How about, blow me. Or better yet, why don't you let your wife do that.

.....................

quote:

Originally posted by Carolina Counsel:
It doesn't matter where you go, some people just say that dumbest damn things. While many of the comments on this forum were intelligent and thoughtful (and I believe the original poster meant well with his thought-provoking topic and question), some of you are ridiculous and speak out of pure naivety.

40-65, with almost all game (with the exception of a few DG), a quartering away shot is better than a broadside shot, so it would be ridiculous to stick to broadside only shots. Further, the weapon has little, if anything, to do with one's ethical decision making. I'm sure many more rifle hunters than bow hunters (given the fact that they so outnumber bow hunters) shoot too late in the evening or make some other mistake which you attribute to bow hunters. How many rifle hunters do you know that only shoot once a year, if that, in order to site in their rifle just before season. Most bow hunters I know practice year round. Further, now you know an elk hunter who hasn't wounded one. You really should try to think with your brain and not your arse.

Thank you so much for the complimentary post. You must realise there is a lot of truth in my original post or it wouldn't have got you so ired up. I will admit I have bowhunted and for the most part support it. I have been told and read by more than one sorse some very experenced that you need to double lung an elk for it to die very quickly and that an elk can live for quite a while with a single lung hit from an arrow. So I would NOT agree with a quartering shot on elk. Bow shot animals usually run a little more distance so they are harder to find in low light. an animal shot in the liver with a bow will live for around three hours and leave no blood trail making them almost impossible to find if they go very far. A liver shot with a rifle still kills somewhat quickly. An arrow shot in the shoulder bone doesn't work very well at all. My ouncle shot a big bull a few years ago with a rifle that had an arrow in it right below the backbone and above the lungs aparently cause it was still alive and shot looked good but a little high 2 or 3 weeks after bow season was over. Interestingly enough, I know a guy that wounded a bear the other day with his bow. The shot looked good (it was quartering a little) and there was some blood but her never could find it. One anoying thing about a lot of bow hunters is they seem to be extremely into fads. For a while about all you see is overdraws and short lite arrows and every one that had them claimed they were "the best" and you almost ever see them and it' all carbon and paralele limbs or whatever their called. If you really want to hunt traditional and like the challenge why not hunt with recurve or longbow and get real close like I did? Most say you have to practice too much, I think thats a good thing. I'm not saying rifle hunters are all roll models and never wound game either cause they do, but like mrlexma sais, bows do wound more game and it is more criticle that you make a perfect shot. Carolina Counsel, I am so happy find some one that has not ever wounded an elk with a bow but how many elk have you accually killed with a bow.Maybe people should think with their backside more often. I am NOT against bow hunting but I think people should take only perfect shots that are pretty close.

I am going to go a bit of topic here and don't want to open a can of worms here, and hopefully I won't. With regards to many people wounding larger animals when bowhunting, such as elk, I think in many instances the arrow used may have been too light for one (especially the carbons), and/or they used a broadhead of inappropriate design, such as some of the wide-cutting diameter mechanical broadheads. These wide-cutting broadheads are fine for small antelope, turkeys, etc, but in my opinion, would be too flimsy on larger stuff, making penetration unpredictable or poor.

I know many hunters use them, because they require very little or no tuning, and should fly more or less to the same point as field points of the same weight, and it is easy to slip into that lazy kind of mindset to avoid the hassles of broad-head tuning. Mechanicals are fine most of the time for smaller antelope, such as white-tails (I would think), but risky for larger stuff such as elk, bear, etc. A friend of mine shot a small-ish warthog with a Spitfire mechanical (very large cutting diameter), which worked ok, but didnt exit on a broadside shot, and one of the blades broke off. Even for small-medium game like warthog, I would probably have used something like a Zwickey/Magnus/Thunderhead, etc, which would have guaranteed a pass-through. I have heard guys using Spitfires on kudu with ok results, but to me that might be pushing it.

I know many people have been successful with these wide-cutting mechs, but with how many failures in between? I have seen the blades of a 125gr Thunderhead fairly pitted and blunted after blowing right through both sides of an impala's ribs, and that is generally considered a good, fixed-blade broadhead on a relatively small, light-boned animal. If it were a larger-boned animal and a flimsy, wide cutting, opening broadhead, I can easily imagine bad things starting to happen.

I know people have thier own different ideas, but I would not risk wounding a large animal just because I was too lazy lazy to tune fixed-blade broadheads. I would also not feel comfortable taking a shot on a large animal if I was not sure of the penetration I could expect with it. My point is, I think too many bowhunters probably end up wounding larger game, (amongst other factors), because of pushing their luck and not knowing the limitations of the equipment that that they are using in many cases. I think many people try keep quiet too when they wound an animal, when in fact they should tell others why it was the case, especially when it was equipment failure, so that people can learn from other's mistakes, so that it does not happen more than it should.

quote:

Originally posted by Nzou:
I would also not feel comfortable taking a shot on a large animal if I was not sure of the penetration I could expect with it. My point is, I think too many bowhunters probably end up wounding larger game, (amongst other factors), because of pushing their luck and not knowing the limitations of the equipment that that they are using in many cases. I think many people try keep quiet too when they wound an animal, when in fact they should tell others why it was the case, especially when it was equipment failure, so that people can learn from other's mistakes, so that it does not happen more than it should.

I agree.
I don't know about mechanical broad-heads accept they are not legal in Idaho.
I was very surprised when I asked one bow hunter around here that gets an elk about every year what kind of broad-head he uses, the old Fred Bear cut on impact with bleeder blades.
I think cut on impact is the way to go.
I also think most arrows are too lite. Went to a local archery shop to get some arrows for my recurve and all they had was carbon and the heavest ones he had (wich he hardly ever sells) were still not quite as heavy as my cedar arrows.

/

Yes, except bowhunting dangerous game is not currently legal in RSA. I had a deposit on a CITES permit for leopard in the Limpopo region and had to cancel due to the change in legalities this year.

I'm not a bowhunter, never cared for it personally..... But, I'd let a carefull bowhunter hunt on my farm before I would any of the people here that post about " taking any shot offered" with a rifle. If the world record hippogrif was shot in the arse to get it, I wouldnt bother to walk across the room to look at its mount.

40-65,
I apologize for spitting so much venom. It was uncalled for. Must have been having a bad day. I do, however, continue to disagree with you about quartering away shots. A proper shot at a quartering away animal will still take both lungs. I agree with you 100%, a one-lunged animal can go a long, long way and you probably won't recover him. I'm surprised at your stats on liver-shot animals. I would think that a liver-shot elk would be dead in minutes, not hours, but I haven't tested that hypothesis.

Nzou, I agree with a great deal of what you wrote regarding the laziness of bowhunters. When I first started hunting with a bow, I shot mechs because I didn't want to bother with tuning BH's. Now I won't shoot mechs. Never had any problems with them, but I adopt the KISS principal and the mechs have too many parts which can fail. I shoot a light to medium weight carbon with stout, fixed cut-on-contact blades. I figure I should give myself every advantage in case I do make a bad shot (which certainly happens-I made a bad shot on an impala last month in Botswana. Got the back of the lungs and the ram still went quite a ways).