You've got to remember something about Fred Bear. He, along with all the other old pioneers of modern bowhunting, were determined to prove that big game animals could be taken with a bow and arrow. They couldn't do that without putting arrows in the air. The reason for it was the game commissions didn't believe it could be done, and they had to be shown the bow was an effective hunting tool before they'd sign off on setting up bow seasons. So, a lot of the shots they took back then would be considered unethical today. Like Howard Hill killing an elk at 175 yards with his longbow.

They also did a lot of shooting at much longer distances than most people do these days, so they knew how to take long distance shots. Top that off with the fact they didn't have to deal with PETA and all kinds of other 'animal rights' wackos. If those old timers hadn't made shots like that, we wouldn't have bow seasons today.

In the same way, I never used to think twice about sailing an arrow 50-60 yards at an animal if I thought I could hit it. I even took shots over 100 yards at jackrabbits, because I knew I'd either miss or the arrow would pin the rabbit to the ground and I'd be able to just walk up and finish it off if the arrow didn't kill it outright.

When you get right down to it, you simply cannot judge the hunters of yesterday by today's standards. In fact, what we learned from them has gone into forming the code of ethics we go by today.

On the other hand, I think way too often we forget what might be unethical for one guy, at his skill level, would be an easy kill for someone else with superior skill. Each one of us has to decide what we consider ethical for ourselves and not be too quick to judge someone else's ethics. Especially when that someone else made a clean shot and quick kill. That's the final determining factor if the shot was ethical, in my book.