Knee-jerk reaction: Not a fan. What if it gets away? Now you've just wounded the shark and it will suffer.

Of course that was without knowing anything at all about what goes into the trip and how the process works...like 90% of the critics out there I'd guess.

After reflection for a few minutes: I think I'm either fully on-board with the idea (assuming the arrow typically causes only superficial wounds), or conditionally on-board (the condition being that, failing the previously-referenced assumption, you're fishing for keeps).

Correct me if I'm wrong (please!), but it seems the idea is to "hook" the shark (with the arrow) so that you can subsequently reel it in like in regular fishing. No vitals involved. Assuming the wound inflicted by the arrow is typically just superficial - i.e. along the lines of hooking a fish in the mouth - then it's not very different than regular fishing pain-and-suffering-wise, which most people are ok with. Is this typically the case? From the photo of the catch, that arrow looks pretty darn tiny compared to the shark...

Even still, I feel a little hypocritical taking that stance because I love to bow hunt for deer - which as we all know, can sometimes involve bad shots that can cause the kind of pain-and-suffering that absolutely haunts us hunters. Same with bad rifle shots. But while I may have trouble articulating exactly why I am ok with hunting (as many of us probably do when really put to the task), I am ok with the risk - perhaps because we strive to do the inevitable (the taking of life to sustain our own - even plants) in a responsible, ethical manner that enhances our natural connection with the land. Sorry to wax philosophical, but there's a point to this.

Maybe that point is:
- If low risk of significant wound, bow hunt sharks freely, whether catching for keeps or catch-and-release. That is, it's no different than regular fishing.
- If decent risk of significant wound, maybe only arrow those you intend to kill and eat, and stick to less risky methods for sport.

Few things in life can be boiled down into such a simple if-then, but maybe this is a starting point for those who may feel conflicted?

What if the deer you shoot gets away and it suffers and subsequently dies? What is the difference in shooting a shark and shooting a deer?

You loose an arrow at something you are intending to kill it. No catch and release with bow hunting

But if your "playing for keeps" your method of harvest should matter little as long as it does not cause undue suffering and offers the highest possible chance for success once the target is engaged.

I think it's comical how some think it's fine to shoot a deer or pig or gut hook a fish and have it die and think it's fine but shoot a fish with a bow and your some kind of Neanderthal

Used to grab small sharks by the tail and smack their head against the boat so to not destroy/tangle up all of the other stringers in the box, smack bigger sharks in the head with a club or sometimes a pipe wrench....sometimes just knifed them. Shoot them in the head with a 22 or a 12 gauge. If they were big enough they got stuck with the fly gaff before they got clubbed or shot with buckshot. Holy hell all this time we were being cruel to animals. I never knew it.

I think, in principle, we're on the same page, no?

Bowfishing is a kill harvest same as bowhunting deer. Bowfishing sharks same as when I now bow hunt alligators is a selective harvest. You only shoot what you intend to keep and eat. Though it was not managed well back when I did most of my shark fishing, saltwater bowfishing , and spearfishing in Texas or Florida, it is heavily managed now with bag limits, and restrictions on where and how you can fish. Same as any other managed fish or game resource. The kind of bowfishing equipment we used for Sharks and Rays, they did not get away. I had a 400 lb lead line on my bow. Larger fish were connected to a deep sea rod and reel, same one we used for hook and line shark fishing. Yes a hole was made in the shark, just like the point of a 14/0 or bigger hook is going to make a hole in a Sharks gullet or belly. If you want to debate weather or not a shark feels pain from a hook, arrow, gaff, or cut to bleed, there is no debate with me. They do. So does a pig when a pneumatic steel rod pierces it's head. They scream like a woman, sometimes for quite a while. Stop hunting and fishing, become a vegetarian, and join Peta forum if you can't live with that. Myself? I am going to have some more owens sausage with my breakfast this morning.

Sharks when dying and stressed create uric acid in their system. When we harvest a large shark, we tail rope it, leave it in the water and cut it to bleed it. If you don't bleed it, the uric acid will build up and remain in the meat. Large hook or Arrow, the fish is going to have a hole in it somewhere, it is going to be cut and bled, and is going to die a fairly fast death. A shark harvested in a faster manner such as bowfishing will actually taste better than will a shark that has been allowed to build up a large amount of uric acid caused by the stress of long fight on a rod and reel. A shark that has been Quickly caught, bled, then cut into steaks and put on ice or frozen while still fresh, tastes many times better and more humane than your nicely packaged commercial shark at the fish market that is full of uric acid from spending hours fighting for it's life on a long line or net.

Specially after feeding on some extra fat [censored]-sapiens