A story, an outcome, and maybe a change of direction

[crock239]

My wife asked me last night, after hearing me recount the trip to multiple people over the last two days, if I had fun. It wasn't a quick answer...When you pile all that on the scale of life. It doesn't tip to positive.

I think there's your answer. I've had similar questions myself sometimes when hunting, particularly sitting alone, cold, on a whitetail stand. If it isn't fun and you'd rather be doing something else with your time, go do that. No guilt. As you know we only have so much time to be here, and nobody is promised tomorrow.

I enjoy all the trip planning, prep work etc. because it connects me to family and friends before and during the hunt. The mountains motivate me to get in shape, I'm learning new skills for backpacking, camping etc. But that might change and then I'll know it's time to shift to other priorities. Bird hunting with my dog is a likely option, it's fun, feels rewarding, comparatively easy and I can include my young kids more easily.

We've all lost animals before, and it definitely sucks. Stepping back to a larger view of nature, like others have said, is likely to absolve you of guilt, eventually. Feels really bad in the moment though, I know it too well.

Here's to better hunting/fishing/camping trips ahead, and good times for you and yours.

 

[longbow51]

I think you are making the right decision.

Sounds like you are busy with family, and that will return more dividends.

You can always hunt more when your kids are out of the house. Maybe with a 30 cal.

 

[Stocker]

Man that stinks for you, we’ve all been there. I struggle in the moment too. I have to mentally relax myself and aim for a specific spot in an animal. If I do t block everything out but that spot I’m screwed, whether it’s a spike or a world record. The longer I have to think about the shot the worse I am.

I understand the feeling, I made a bad shot on a buck I’d been chasing all fall a couple years ago. Despite having a month and a half of season left I hung up the bow. It’s a sick feeling for sure, but if someone doesn’t have that feeling I’m not sure they have enough respect for the animals and probably shouldn’t be hunting.

 

[Trailsend]

Tough luck, target shooting distances and hunting distances aren’t always the same. Maybe start with somebody watching g you shoot to check your form, minor things can cause misses.

I don’t know if this would work for you. When I got into archery hunting I did a lot of 3D shoots, the guys I went with were real good. But we always had a lot of fun. However, they would pull pranks on each other as well as we would shoot for lunch or a pop at the break. These things added pressure, now not the same but when I started hunting in the field it helped.

 

[Irrelevant]

Be careful with this sentiment. While I think most hunters agree that hunting ethics require us to attempt to minimize the pain caused to an animal we're pursuing, if we're going to hunt at all we must accept we are not fully in control of the situation and we may inadvertently cause harm. Furthermore, nature is not kind, these creatures will die, and likely cold, alone, hungry and likely in pain from injuries or predators. If the Elk in question died quietly later that evening, it was likely a "kinder" death than nature would have supplied though it didn't make it to your freezer.

I don't disagree with the argument you're making, but we are not wolves, and I will not allow the bar to be set at anything better than starvation. My elk likely died while suffering greatly, if only for a day or so. We are hunters by choice, with incredibly efficient and lethal technology to allow to quick, ethical, humane kills, to write off our inability to perform an acceptable moral kill in the moment, as "better than nature" and thus just or even just okay, is unacceptable for me. I have a higher bar.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I don't disagree with the argument you're making, but we are not wolves, and I will not allow the bar to be set at anything better than starvation. My elk likely died while suffering greatly, if only for a day or so. We are hunters by choice, with incredibly efficient and lethal technology to allow to quick, ethical, humane kills, to write off out inability to perform an acceptable moral kill in the moment, as "better than nature" and thus just or even just okay, is unacceptable for me. I have a higher bar.

Good for you. I am still grappling with that kudu bull having to endure more than two days of pain and terror before we got lucky and ended it. Losing a trophy animal is just plain meaningless to me. Absolutely. It's the suffering I caused that kept me from sleeping. My PH and owner's wife did their best to help make me smile when back at the lodge but it just wasn't fun any more. The relief when I heard over the radio the bull was down was absolutely overwhelming. It was finally over for that poor kudu. I still felt terrible for what he had to endure. The second day my PH tried to feed me the "it happens to the best of us" line. I just looked at him sadly: "Well, it doesn't happen to ME." That morning he asked if it was okay if he brought a gun. "It will be very not okay if you don't!" Like I really cared who ended the suffering.

 

[Wild Bill]

Sorry to hear, man. That is tough to deal with. Keep your head up.
The fact that you are aware of it and have enough wherewithal to address it speaks a lot about your character and empathy towards the animals.
I have a buddy that is similar. He very often can not pull it together mentally before his first shot and rushes himself or disregards what is usually common sense. Very often, his first shot is a complete miss, or a maim. He is very quick on follow up shots and the first shot kind of pulls him back to reality and he executes follow up shots very well. I don't think I have seen him lose an animal, but I sure have seen him miss a ton. He is typically a rifle hunter, so obviously it is very different with a bow.
I hope you are able to work through this and get your confidence back.

 

[woods89]

Be careful with this sentiment. While I think most hunters agree that hunting ethics require us to attempt to minimize the pain caused to an animal we're pursuing, if we're going to hunt at all we must accept we are not fully in control of the situation and we may inadvertently cause harm. Furthermore, nature is not kind, these creatures will die, and likely cold, alone, hungry and likely in pain from injuries or predators. If the Elk in question died quietly later that evening, it was likely a "kinder" death than nature would have supplied though it didn't make it to your freezer.

Please don't think I'm trying to minimize the situation, or the overall weekend, but allow context to inform your thoughts. Running into drunk folks can screw up any camping trip - but camping that time of year in that place is something that likely wouldn't have occurred without a "hunting trip." Try to make sure you're separating the issue from the events.

To add.

We all want to be humane hunters, most of us, anyway. I grew up around feedlots and large dairies, and my wife's family raises broiler chickens and hogs. As much as we hate the idea of losing an animal, likely it's no worse than the cumulative quality of life of an animal raised and slaughtered in confinement. So unless you are quitting meat all together, you're trading the discomfort you know for the discomfort you can keep at arms length.

And this is not a knock on agriculture. The world needs to be fed, and there aren't easy, clean answers to that problem. But the act of procuring protein is at times a messy process, whether domestic or wild.

All that said, I can easily respect either choice in this area.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

I don't disagree with the argument you're making, but we are not wolves, and I will not allow the bar to be set at anything better than starvation. My elk likely died while suffering greatly, if only for a day or so. We are hunters by choice, with incredibly efficient and lethal technology to allow to quick, ethical, humane kills, to write off our inability to perform an acceptable moral kill in the moment, as "better than nature" and thus just or even just okay, is unacceptable for me. I have a higher bar.

Absolutely have a higher bar, but be careful how you set it. As a related, but unrelated example, I've noticed on the "wild krats" kids show, they never (or very rarely if I've missed one) show a predator kill an animal. This sets an unreasonable expectation of the rosy existence of real wild animals. As noted with the agriculture comparison, we all get to set our sliding scale of acceptable animal suffering from a vegan who doesn't even allow farming, to a house cat that kills purely for pleasure.
Choosing to participate in nature means we get to live with the uncontrolled reality of taking, and losing animals. Would you feel better if you knew a bear stole your Elk 15 minute after you saw it, or are you choosing to imagine the worst suffering outcome.
For me, I choose not to bow hunt, I don't have the time to develop the skills to have a reasonably high chance to make clean kills. But I think about shooting steel vs tungsten for waterfowl, and I wonder if the change to copper is a net positive or negative. Thinking is good, just make sure you're not starting from an unreasonable position.

 

[woods89]

For me, I choose not to bow hunt, I don't have the time to develop the skills to have a reasonably high chance to make clean kills. But I think about shooting steel vs tungsten for waterfowl, and I wonder if the change to copper is a net positive or negative. Thinking is good, just make sure you're not starting from an unreasonable position.

The more I think, the murkier it gets.....

 

[Irrelevant]

Absolutely have a higher bar, but be careful how you set it. As a related, but unrelated example, I've noticed on the "wild krats" kids show, they never (or very rarely if I've missed one) show a predator kill an animal. This sets an unreasonable expectation of the rosy existence of real wild animals. As noted with the agriculture comparison, we all get to set our sliding scale of acceptable animal suffering from a vegan who doesn't even allow farming, to a house cat that kills purely for pleasure.
Choosing to participate in nature means we get to live with the uncontrolled reality of taking, and losing animals. Would you feel better if you knew a bear stole your Elk 15 minute after you saw it, or are you choosing to imagine the worst suffering outcome.
For me, I choose not to bow hunt, I don't have the time to develop the skills to have a reasonably high chance to make clean kills. But I think about shooting steel vs tungsten for waterfowl, and I wonder if the change to copper is a net positive or negative. Thinking is good, just make sure you're not starting from an unreasonable position.

I know we're generally on the same page so please don't take offense to my counter points.

I understand the objective results that nature provides in it's Darwinian struggle of predator vs prey is not pretty, fair, or painless. I just don't view my actions in that same light. Yes, I would have preferred my bulls be taken down by a griz or a pack of wolves instead of my errantly flung arrow, not because the bull would have suffered less, because in reality he probably suffered more in a death by claw and tooth, but because his death by a griz/wolf must happen in order for the predator to survive. We all, thanks to technology and the luxury to not starve to death should we fail, have the ability to kill quickly and efficiently, therefore that is where I set the bar. The bear does not, he must eat that elk or starve and must keep trying till he does. Tipping and tearing are his only methods.

The argument @woods89 makes regarding outsourcing our suffering with agriculture is the more convincing argument to be made. Thankfully if I have to buy beef, it will be from a family friend who raises beef in what I see as the most ethical way, they don't live in confinement, and are as wild as elk when they come off the range.

 

[88man]

When you get bucked off you gotta get back on. The result was unintended but the hunt/kill is a place that is unstable and near the edge and most often highly pressurized and one step away from a blow up or a slip. Thats why it takes so much effort and costs so much its value is so high. If wounding occurs> It needs to remain a primordial action and not thought about in a modern sense or with morality because it doesn't belong there when you are using primitive equipment. I know it suc ks. Peace

 

[longtail55]

Someone referenced basketball but being around wrestling my whole life I compare bowhunting more to that. on the mat and behind the bow you have more control of your own destiny. Thats what makes the Highs and Lows so high and low, some days your on top of the world and others on the very bottom. You will have a lot of losses before you get to the top. But you learn so many valuble lessons along the way.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

 

[CoffeeGoat]

I know we're generally on the same page so please don't take offense to my counter points.

I understand the objective results that nature provides in it's Darwinian struggle of predator vs prey is not pretty, fair, or painless. I just don't view my actions in that same light. Yes, I would have preferred my bulls be taken down by a griz or a pack of wolves instead of my errantly flung arrow, not because the bull would have suffered less, because in reality he probably suffered more in a death by claw and tooth, but because his death by a griz/wolf must happen in order for the predator to survive. We all, thanks to technology and the luxury to not starve to death should we fail, have the ability to kill quickly and efficiently, therefore that is where I set the bar. The bear does not, he must eat that elk or starve and must keep trying till he does. Tipping and tearing are his only methods.

The argument @woods89 makes regarding outsourcing our suffering with agriculture is the more convincing argument to be made. Thankfully if I have to buy beef, it will be from a family friend who raises beef in what I see as the most ethical way, they don't live in confinement, and are as wild as elk when they come off the range.

No offense taken. I would suggest there are two pieces to the agriculture argument, you're outsourcing the suffering, but you're also outsourcing the uncertainty and risks. Your friend is doing everything they can to kill and process their animals well but they're also doing everything they can to raise their animals well. These are somewhat decoupled in agriculture, you don't see the animals that broke their leg, or died stillborn or the any number of other ways animals sometimes suffer - you only see the one clean death that resulted in your steaks.

Hunting blurs these lines, you're jumping into an active system and attempting to cleanly extract an animal, there are a huge number of moving parts, everything from weather to terrain to predators to other hunters. Your harvest of that animal might make a wolf pup starve, your loss might enable it to make it through the winter. It's what makes hunting a visceral experience - you are an active participant and might actually die harvesting an animal, and often you don't get anything. Hunting, among other outdoor pursuits, reminds us that we are not in full control. Of course we're going to do everything we can to push the odds in our favor, but we can't remove risk. You can adjust that risk profile, but you still either accept it, or you don't. But when you weigh those odds, make sure the scale is honest.

 

[3855WIN]

It’s not always practical or legal in every hunting situation, but tracking dogs are a big help with archery hunting. A couple of friends have Bavarian Mountain Hounds and they do amazing work.

 

[MTLabrador]

I personally have questions about archery hunting for elk, even though I do it myself (I just did it today). I am convinced if you shoot arrows at elk it’s a matter of when you wound one, not if. Probably one of the biggest reasons why I prefer rifle hunting.

None of this is meant to talk bad about archery hunting, except for the douchey social media aspect of BOWhuning for elk. That I will always make fun of.

 

[DFS]

I personally have questions about archery hunting for elk, even though I do it myself (I just did it today). I am convinced if you shoot arrows at elk it’s a matter of when you wound one, not if. Probably one of the biggest reasons why I prefer rifle hunting.

None of this is meant to talk bad about archery hunting, except for the douchey social media aspect of BOWhuning for elk. That I will always make fun of.

A good placed shot on a broadside elk and a good broadhead at point blank range will dispatch an elk just as fast as a rifle will. Thats how archery is supposed to be done. Long shots get you in trouble no matter how good of a shot you are.

 

[Irrelevant]

A good placed shot on a broadside elk and a good broadhead at point blank range will dispatch an elk just as fast as a rifle will. Thats how archery is supposed to be done. Long shots get you in trouble no matter how good of a shot you are.

Not always. I was just privy to a prime example

 

[DFS]

60 yards is long range archery.