Trad Gang

Honest question.  No real debate wanted.  Just curious. Something that has caused me questions for quite a few years.

If there was an overall (decent group study-not just an individual) 30-40% loss (no recovery) of a particular species of animal to the bow- would you still hunt that species with the bow?

Please.  I am not pulling some trick here.  YES or NO is fine.  (Some discussion is okay, I just am not interested in a ballistic debate.)

Thanks
Dan in KS

I think that's the reason string trackers are getting so popular .

Don't know of any study that has found such a rate. Would largely depend on what is considered a loss.  Does it mean that the wounded animals die 30-40% of the time or does it include minor flesh wounds from which they recover?  Regardless, I would still hunt because I know my personal loss rate is a lot less than that.

Even if my recovery rate were that low, I would still hunt. The animal is going to die one way or the other, maybe more humanely than an arrow wound, maybe not.

This is only half the comparison though.  Consider, too, that most animals aren't killed or wounded when hunting with a bow, but rather continue to live free.  Compare that to animals and birds raised for human consumption.  Many are raised in cages and all of them die, and many not so humanely.

I'm not counting misses and "nicks" (obviously or even proven non-fatal).

I'd be pretty disappointed with anything greater than 20% unrecovered. That would be about twice the average 10-11% when scientifically and thoroughly examined - same for firearms actually which surprises lots of people.

I like the way you think Orion!

I would.   I am not fond of studies.  Studies can be manipulated to say things you want it to say.  I am a hunter, it is in my genes to be out there.  I don't just fling arrows, I get close.

Chuck

I would still hunt, it would be the compounders and xbow users fault for such a low recovery rate though.

I would question those 40% stats.  Around here we have our share of dufuss bowhunters, but the inline muzzle crowd puts them to shame on the dufuss scale for hit but not recovered deer.  I do not know why, but some people will take just about any kind of a best guess shot under any and all circumstances.  Those same people also have the least amount of abilities when it comes as to what to do after the shot.  I do not think that hunting should declared null because of some stats that somebody conjured up, but I do believe that certain people should not hunt.

I hunt no matter what. Every year I see hundreds of dead deer hit by cars. If I shoot and wound one which it has happened to me I don't sweat it as much. It's just an animal. As long as you respect the animal you hunt and do your best, like my quote says. What  else is there?

It's a serious question.  It's the reason no bow hunting is allowed in many European countries: because the voting public, most of whom do not hunt but do eat meat, have been convinced that bow hunting is not humane and causes unnecessary suffering to animals.  The same thing could happen here.  In a democracy, if enough people vote to end hunting, legal hunting will end.  Period.  Actually, it's a testament to the spirit of fairness that must still exist in the American people that we are still allowed to hunt, when more than 50% of the people are personally opposed to hunting, but nonetheless think those who do want to hunt should continue to have the right to do so.

Anticipating that the day will probably come when we will be asked to vote on it, it is incumbent on us to prepare our case as well as we can, as there won't be any time to prepare a case between the time a measure to ban hunting qualifies for the ballot and the time it is voted on.  Between now and then we must do whatever we can to ensure that  a 30-40% loss rate is never allowed to happen.  I don't know how we can ever stop someone out in the field with no other hunters or game wardens in sight from taking a 50 yard shot at an animal with a traditional bow, or, for that matter, from taking a 20 yard shot at an animal when he is only capable of getting 2 out of 5 shots in a pie plate at 20 yards.  But that is what we should be thinking about, because that is what can cause such a loss rate to happen, and we need to stop that from happening, not only in our own personal ethics, but in any other hunter, whether trad, compound, X-bow, or black powder, who goes into the field.

I'm going to hunt! So YES. Big sharp broadheads     :thumbsup:      :archer2:

Steve Jr

Well said McDave.  

My shooting decisions won't contribute to a lack of effectiveness on my part.  I am a very conservative shot and have been since my 2nd year bowhunting (age 17 in 1971).  So, it will be the mastery of my shot from year to year and season to season that determines my effective range.  By conservative I mean: no running, no poor angles, and within my near 100% practice distances.

However, my accuracy (concentration?) can waiver.  In years I'm not shooting as well as I want, I restrict my distance even more.   I've found over the last 8 years that unless I do a lot more shooting (practice) at distance, I'm not going to achieve effective ranges beyond 20 yards.  

If not, I'll simply do a lot of wildlife watching when they won't come closer.

What species, what study, where published, and who did the study?  These are things I really need to know to make a more informed decision.

As a biologist, if I read the study, agreed with the methods, and felt their conclusions were based on objective data and the non-recovery rate was indeed 30 - 40%, I would probably take a firearm rather than a bow.

Thank goodness we don't have to suffer under a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic, which has certain protections against tyranny of the majority. Further, a number of states have specific legislation protecting our hunting heritage. Yes, it can be changed by a majority of a certain type of nut, and it's incumbent upon thinking people to ensure such nuts never yield a tree.

Imagine, if we did have a democracy, Hillary Clinton would be president.    :eek:

QuoteOriginally posted by jsweka:
What species, what study, where published, and who did the study?  These are things I really need to know to make a more informed decision.

As a biologist, if I read the study, agreed with the methods, and felt their conclusions were based on objective data and the non-recovery rate was indeed 30 - 40%, I would probably take a firearm rather than a bow.

This is actually my consideration.  There is one particular big game animal I have hunted a couple times with a bow over the years.  After much observation and discussion I now only hunt with a gun. I have no actual study other than dozens of serious-bowhunting friends who take many precautions and yet regularly lose this critter.  It would not surprise me among my limited discussions (which I fully accept is NOT a Study nor even a worthy Public Statement of the case) that the loss after apparently good hits is approaching 40%.

I will leave it at that.  I really do not want to argue here.  I was just curious what some of you honestly think.

Dan in KS

KSdan, I am afraid that I must say you have something very wrong in your head.  That is far beyond what even the worst do around here.  Perhaps you are are either very miss informed or just pumping for a reaction.  If you would have started out with that explanation, I would have told you to get off the bus right off. if you do not want an argument your statements must be based on something substantial and provable.

Pavan- No reason for an ad hominem shot. I requested refrain in my OP.  

I can guarantee there is nothing wrong with my head. I have had many discussions regards this with friends who are biologists, law enforcement, and hunters who play roles as leaders in various hunting and educative rolls. Without taking "a side" (I vacillate back and forth- not sure) I have considered this often over the years.  I was in a discussion last week with guys- serious conservationists- some of you would likely know the circle.  It was quite typical of other discussions- they were 1 for 3.  66% loss.  

As I stated in OP, I simply was curious what guys might say if there were viable evidence across the board of this type of loss (particularly as it seems that many TG guys are very ethical).  I have zero interest or time to research it- though it would be a great study for a Biology thesis, MA or PHd.  

Nothing ill is intended other than wondering what guys would say.  A few stated their position.  Thanks.

Dan in KS

If bowhunting only had a 10% success rate I would still do it just as much. I don't worry about 1 deer every 10 years being wounded by me when thousands of deer are hit by cars. Just wouldn't make sense to say I care about wounding an animal but don't care about deer getting hit by cars . It's just an animal

KSdan.  I suspect you're talking about turkeys.  Folks cut a lot of feathers from turkeys without ever hitting the body. If you count such hits as unrecovered woundings, then I could see where the "non-recovery " rate could approach 30-40%.  But I'd argue that a good share of those birds weren't wounded to begin with.

If I lost 30-40% of the deer I hit with a bow I would shoot something else and hang the bow up.

My answer is yes, if I ever saw a wound rate of my own creep past 10% I would alternate weapon scenarios to reduce the risk. I've done so with turkeys,I did kill one with my new longbow this year but I wasn't seriously hunting, and had I been seriously hunting them I would have taken a gun.
However on the greater discussion of the topic which is an important one:
As humans, we often make nature out to be a far more merciful beast than she is. The best thing we can do as hunters is compare our humanity to the utterly ruthless fate Mother Nature presents. When someone watches the nature channel they will see kills cropped and edited to remove the grizzly end many animals meet.  As hunters who are filming, taking photos, and telling stories, we need to share nature with the public as it is. People need to see a tiny young elk be mauled to death by a bear! It makes a 60 second death run for my well-placed arrow seem so incredibly merciful.
So, as I post videos and pictures on social media I'm going to made it a point to show everything.
And to those hunters who have wounded animals, and not properly recovered the meat due to unforeseeable circumstances, let's not forget that nature doesn't let anything go to waste.

I would not make the decision based on any national statistics. If my personal error rate went that high, I would probably stop hunting.

If as a whole, I would absolutely keep hunting because I know that I wouldn't be taking shots that would contribute to that number. If it was me personally, I would be rethinking my hunting ethics, equipment, etc. and be practicing very hard before returning to the woods again.

If I had a loss ratio of that magnitude I would change something for sure.
I am similar in age to Bowwild and have been bowhunting for a long time. I have not shot as many animals as many here for a lot of reasons. One of them being that I am really particular on the shot and limiting my distance.

One thing I am convinced of is Dan is not "trolling". He is not that kind of guy.  I had this conversation with him a few months ago, shortly after we shared a bear camp.

For me the question is too vague.

For me, if I had that kind of loss rate, I would sit down and change whatever needed changing. Most likely result would see me limit the distance I was shooting further to that point where a loss was unlikely.
Its interesting to note that Im in the lucky position to own a large property with plenty of hunting on it. I allow both bow and rifle hunters on farm, and the wounding rate between the two groups is identical. the difference is that the rifle wounding happens at longer distance is all. So In My opinion, whatever weapon is used, the biggest factor is the user pushing past their deffinite kill range.

By the way, all my comments refer to MY experience.  I know what my results are and am not influenced by those of others, national stats, etc.  EXCEPT: When I'm contemplating something different (style, equipment, etc.) I do like to see what others have experienced. Such is the case with the bullhead broadhead.  I had some to use with compounds. Before using with recurve I asked some trusted friends fist. The bullheads don't go on my recurve-launched arrows.

There are many fine bowhunters that I would love to be counted among but there are some on the other end of the spectrum that I  would not to be lumped with.  

I've sat in wildlife agency commission/board meetings where a "fellow" hunter criticizes another group. They sometimes use the worst example of unethical and ineffective hunter they've heard of or can make up.  Anecdotes, whether reflective of the group or not can influence the decisions of rule makers.  Not right, not accurate, but it happens.

Personal level: At 40% loss rate that would mean I'm hitting, wounding and losing almost half the animal(s) I'm taking shots on. I wouldn't accept that and would either make necessary changes to how I hunt, or I would stop bowhunting that animal. Losing 4/10 (if wounded) would sicken me. The reason...partly...is because I'm out there hunting for sport and enjoyment. I LOVE to eat what I kill but I'm not throwing arrows to stave off starvation. If I was hunting for absolute subsistence-need...arrows would fly until something died. But that's a non-reality for me. I'm hunting for the pleasure of hunting. Wounding/losing many animals would simply take the pleasure away.

Group level: Doesn't apply. If data showed a 70% wounding loss rate I still wouldn't let that determine MY decision to hunt (or not). It's always going to come down to the man and his beliefs, skills and ethics...personal at that.

Simple answer, no.

Would be curious to see what percentage is acceptable to the masses.

I think we have a couple thought trains going on here.   I don't care what the reported percentage lost is, as long as MY loss rate is not very high.

If MY loss rate grows unacceptably, well, I may very well change my ways, but first I would change tactics to attempt to change that rate.

I cannot control what other folks do.  You see this all the time.  A person bumps up to a compound bow (saw this first hand in the 80's) because they are way more accurate, "they owe it to the deer" (and so they can shoot a deer farther away and not let "their" buck get away).  They practice and are comparatively awesome at 30 yards, then take shots at 40+ ( actually unknown ranges, not paced or measured off) and miss or wound.  

Same with a gun.  On the range ( from the bench) they destroy the target at 100 and 200, but then they go and shoot at deer running full tilt thru the swamp. And of course it is followed by the statement that they shoot better at running deer than they do at stationary deer.   Right.

I witnessed a muzzleloader dude shoot (far) at several deer over the course of a morning hunt.  6" of snow on the ground ( great easy tracking).  When confronted as to why he was still shooting at deer he actually said he must have missed them all, none went down.  I trailed one small buck  of his and put the final kill shot into him, using up my tag.

Again... I can't control them, but I can control me.   I did, however, attempt to enlighten that obviously clueless muzzle dude about how his weapon works and how to follow up on every shot by actually getting off his butt and looking.  I didn't spend time getting to know him, but I often wondered how he got into MZ shooting in the first place ?  

I am guessing, and believe myself correct, that, since the state mandated this area be muzzleloader only, due to it being a portion of a state park ( safety), and since he wanted in on hunting a big deer, he by necessity had to buy a muzzleloader and go hunt. No special training, very little practice.  Same happens all over the place with other weapons.

Thanks for the responses and input guys. Some great points as I suspected on TG.

I understand some of the comments about needing more info.  That was sort of my point however- just accept the premises: IF you did have what appeared to be a viable study that showed such results would you keep using a bow for hunting that animal?

I wanted to keep it simple like talking to friends around the campfire.  I really was not interested in a huge unproductive on-line debate about all the variables that misses the point I am working through.  

And YES- without any formal studies I do wonder about some hunting/recovery statistics in certain animals with certain weapons. It is a personal question and consideration I have had for many years.  

Seriously.  Thanks again.  

Dan in KS

It is very difficult to conduct an accurate study of this type.  For example, one variable you deal with if interviewing hunters is part of the study; some hunters take pride in wounding (hitting their target) over missing it entirely.  Some take pride in suggesting that "it will die" (so they killed it) rather than it might recover.

I don't understand those justifications but that's how some folks' minds work.

If you do't know the cause you can't determine the approach.  For bowhunting stats two things come to mind for high wound rates...lack of hunter experience and taking shots that are too long.

No, I would not.

I don't think others success rates should effect your personal choice to pursue game with bow and arrow.  It is self imposed limits, ethics, and preparedness that that will ultimately determine your own personal success rate.  If I have hunted a specific species and had acceptable success rates with bow and arrow, then I would continue to do so no matter what "studies" might show.

The only reason I could see for basing my decision on the success of others would be if it was a species that I had never hunted or had experience with.

I believe wounding rates are much higher than we like to admit.  This is based on personal observation.  I have out of state friends that occasionally hunt whitetail deer on my property in Iowa and for every deer tagged, there is one that is hit and not recovered.  These are serious bowhunters with more than 30+ years of experience each.  I host pig hunts in Texas each year.  Once again, the hunters are all very serious, experienced bowhunters.  I estimate that for each pig that is recovered there is another one that is hit and not recovered.  I don't like it but it is what it is.

Yes, I would keep hunting, because I know and accept my limitations.

If my personal losses were that high, I'd have to ask why-is my shooting or lack of ability to trail what I shot.  Either can be improved with help and practice.  If there is a species that loss rates are that high, again I'd have to ask why.  Is it that bows aren't adequate?  Is it the only shots you get are from long distances?  Is it habitat, i.e., a water animal that sinks, impenetrable underbrush where if the animal doesn't die on the spot, you cant trail it?  Is it near a boundary of a restricted property where an animal can cross over but the shooter can't, making recovery impossible?

If for me personally I would either change the way I'm hunting or go to the gun. Last year I took a nice Eastern turkey with my bow but my limitations was that it had to be under 15 yards. With a shotgun my cut off distance is about 35 yards and that is with a turkey choke and 3 1/2 inch shells. If I don't get a turkey to come within those distances I just enjoy seeing them and let them walk.

KSdan you said,without a verifiable study, then why ask a unverifiable question,sounds like a baited question. JohnV serious experienced bow hunters that only recover 1 out of 2 animals they shoot are not very good at it and unethical, lazy and wasteful. JMHO.

Thanks guys.  Some good thoughts contributed. . .

Dan in KS

QuoteOriginally posted by Bowwild:
It is very difficult to conduct an accurate study of this type.  For example, one variable you deal with if interviewing hunters is part of the study; some hunters take pride in wounding (hitting their target) over missing it entirely.  Some take pride in suggesting that "it will die" (so they killed it) rather than it might recover.

I don't understand those justifications but that's how some folks' minds work.

I have never met anyone who thinks this way

To be brutally honest,

if I couldn't efficiently harvest an animal with a weapon, I wouldn't hunt with it.  I think I owe it to the game I pursue to kill them as ethically as possible.  Some people are just stuck on being "traditional" and freely mock others who use "training wheels", but at most of the tournaments I have been to and seeing people stuggle with just shooting a 3D target at 10 yards, I hope they're hunting with some other weapon.

"I would still hunt, it would be the compounders and xbow users fault for such a low recovery rate though."

Have you ever gone to a 3D shoot, I can tell that's not the case.

Just re-read the question.  Just based on an over-all study, no--I wouldn't stop hunting that animal with a bow.  In some places wound rates are stupid high.  It's not the weapon, it's the person using it.  A well placed broadhead is as lethal as anything;  a slob is a slob regardless of the weapon used.  My opinion of course.

We are all prone to overconfidence.  How many of us think we're above average drivers?  I appreciate your question and what it says about you -- that you care about the animals you hunt.  Hard to fault a guy for that.

Statistics are only as good as they are.  Loss/recovery is one way to look at it.  Another way is to consider the death & injury rates by those toting different kinds of gear.  In other words, how many animals die or are injured each year from hunters with firearms vs archery?  Unfortunately, that's a tough stat to quantify.

Personally, I'm pretty sure I'm going to hurt a lot fewer critters with a bow in my hand than with a firearm.  I'm a decent shot with a rifle.  But I've missed.  Higher probabilities of recovery aren't guarantees.  Sometimes, you just roll snake eyes.  It happens.  Continuing the casino metaphor, let's say you could choose to play at 2 different casinos.  One has a higher chance of winning (odds are still on the house, however -- it's a casino) while the other has a lower chance of winning, greater rewards when you do win and is located far enough away that you don't play too often.  In which casino should you play if your objective is to lose the least amount of money?  In all probability, the mere fact that you can't play that often means that you'll lose less if you choose the casino with lower odds of success.  Simply restricting your access means that your behavior will be under better control over your lifetime even if you occasionally lose your cool and dump your paycheck.  So, one could argue that even with lower recovery rates with a bow, your overall impact on a population is much lower simply because you have fewer shot opportunities.

Perhaps the difference in perspective is in the scale of the question.  If you're thinking about how to cause the least harm to the animal in front of you, then chose a firearm.  Hands down, it's more effective.  But if your objective is to cause the least harm to a population, grab something primitive.  Hands down, it's just harder.

People often run from hard questions.  Whatever you decide, I appreciate that you're at least willing to challenge yourself and your ethics in an attempt to be the best, most conscious and ethical hunter you can be.  Nothin' wrong with that.

Mark R., your response is why it is not possible to have a serious, honest discussion on wounding losses.  You know nothing of my friends and myself.  To call them "unethical, lazy, and wasteful" when you know nothing of them or the efforts they made to try to recover wounded deer only shows your ignorance.  No one is going to honestly talk about the topic if you get slammed for it.

If those were my statistics, I would change something.  If that was my statistics with the most accurate weapon and I limited shot angle and distance yet it didn't help, I would quit hunting.

YosemSam- Thanks. As I stated - this is not a sleight of hand.  I am thinking serious and wonder what other TG guys thought. I am in my late 50s, almost exclusively Trad, shot MANY critters w Trad (handful of species, a number of PY whitetails), taught IBEP, engage Legislative hearings, hunted 4 states last fall, as well as hunted/hosted almost 30 different hunters from 5 different states last fall (very typical for me).  I can honestly say I have hunted with over 120 different men in the past 5-10 years. LOTS of experiences. . . None of them were slobs; perhaps young in archery/hunting, naive, not the wisest decisions, but certainly quality guys.  So, YES I sort of think I am fairly SERIOUS.  And FWIW- within the law- while I love Trad, each guy's decision on MANY things including the weapon he/she chooses is their own.  

JohnV- I sort of wondered too why a guy would respond and question an "unverifiable question?"  I can FULLY VERIFY that KSDan DID ask the question.  So its VERIFIED.

For ALL those with questions about "Studies."  -  I get that, (particularly in the skeptical day we live.) But honestly guys, gathering research and resultant "Studies" are all serious areas of academics/knowledge for EVERYTHING we do! None except the Creator knows the future, but "Studies" of past reality/history help us be wise. Of course there are bad/good "studies", and bad/good interpretations.  But there are entire FIELDS of academics that do nothing but study "Studies;"  that is studying methods, research, gathering/interpreting data, etc.  This is ALL in effort to provide GOOD Studies(even with stated margins of error "+/- 3%" etc).  Frankly, every time someone asks a question on TG about equipment, tuning, experiences, etc it is in some fashion a "Study" albeit an informal one.  

Further, I get that we all have experiences that shape future decisions, but it would be foolish for me to think that my limited experiences were enough to draw hard conclusions. I NEED the collective wisdom of others. . . and in this case I actually REALLY DO APPRECIATE TG and many insights/civil discussions that occur here.  I have been corrected numerous times to which I appreciate.  That is why I asked the question here.  

THANK YOU that most replies "got the point" and gave VALUABLE insights.  

So- back to my original post (OP).  Notice the OP and following posts stated a PREMISE:  . . . a "decent" or "viable" Study.  I am not interested in debating "Studies" per se, but I am making an ASSUMPTION in my question that we are working with a GOOD (decent, apparently viable) study.  Even the 30-40% "LOSS" is making an assumption that the Study did a decent job gathering the data revealing it to be a true loss.  

MOST of you answered honest/fair. Appreciate it.

Thanks Again
Dan in KS

Why is this thread becoming a mud slinging event? It is a pretty simple question that, as I interpret it, is,  whether or not you would limit your personal choice based on broad based publicized statistics. Pretty much, a simple yes or no is sufficient (with perhaps a bit of personal explanation) without attacking other members.

Yup

I am new to tradgang, but am impressed with the civility and respect with which people responded to KSdan.  In other settings I have witnessed much polarization and derisiveness in that type of discussion.  Kudos all.

Oops, I guess I didn't realize there were more pages.  Maybe it did get a little nasty.

JohnV all I know about the people you mentioned is you stated they wound and or lose 1 out of every 2 animals they shoot. Why?

KSdan JMHO on a vague hypothetical question (no real debate wanted)

QuoteOriginally posted by McDave:
It's a serious question.  It's the reason no bow hunting is allowed in many European countries: because the voting public, most of whom do not hunt but do eat meat, have been convinced that bow hunting is not humane and causes unnecessary suffering to animals.  The same thing could happen here.  In a democracy, if enough people vote to end hunting, legal hunting will end.  Period.  Actually, it's a testament to the spirit of fairness that must still exist in the American people that we are still allowed to hunt, when more than 50% of the people are personally opposed to hunting, but nonetheless think those who do want to hunt should continue to have the right to do so.

You are kind of off tracks IMO. Europe is not so full of wild animals as you might think - in no way as rich as North America. When you have a limited population, you don't bring in different types of weapons without having a certain insurance that what is hunted is also killed. 20 bears wounded by bow here in the woods might not do much, but 20 bears wounded in Europe's forests might create havoc.
And to answer the question, if 30-40% is the losing game ratio I wouldn't hunt with that weapon. If I would still go, it means I go out to shoot the bow in living creatures and the meat is just a bonus - not that my life depends on that meat. If I need that meat, I would try to change something in my hunting habits to improve the percentage before going out again.

QuoteOriginally posted by KSdan:
 

QuoteOriginally posted by jsweka:
What species, what study, where published, and who did the study?  These are things I really need to know to make a more informed decision.

As a biologist, if I read the study, agreed with the methods, and felt their conclusions were based on objective data and the non-recovery rate was indeed 30 - 40%, I would probably take a firearm rather than a bow.

This is actually my consideration.  There is one particular big game animal I have hunted a couple times with a bow over the years.  After much observation and discussion I now only hunt with a gun. I have no actual study other than dozens of serious-bowhunting friends who take many precautions and yet regularly lose this critter.  It would not surprise me among my limited discussions (which I fully accept is NOT a Study nor even a worthy Public Statement of the case) that the loss after apparently good hits is approaching 40%.

I will leave it at that.  I really do not want to argue here.  I was just curious what some of you honestly think.

Dan in KS [/b]

Pretty sure I know the critter.  I killed many with the bow but actually enjoy hunting them better with the scattergun.  Can't quite grasp why this is, it just is.  I try and explain it and can't.  Not because of loss.  Probably because I hate hate hate sitting in a blind.

John V, I'll bet if you put a wounding policy in place the percentage would go way down. Obviously these guys are not shooting within their effective range or this would not happen.

On my annual hog hunt the outfitter charges the fee if we recover the hog or not and the wound rate is under 10%. Most of the hogs "wounded" are dead but we just fail to recover the hog because of a bad blood trail in the thick cover.

I think many people tend to "disremember" their bad shots.  Those little nicks and non lethal pokes are wounding none the less.  

As far as Europe not having as many animals, folks might be amazed.  England has no natural predators for deer, they need to be hunted very hard to keep numbers in check (my buddies used to shoot 200-250 per year). It's done very coverty to avoid bothering non hunters though.  Id point out that with the small size of landholdings it's easy for an animal killed with an arrow to leave the property before expiring.  This is the major hurtle to bow hunting in the old world.

The original post is a good thought though and like the way the antis use lead bans to make hunting with firearms more difficult they will use this type of statistic against us.  

We all need to shoot straight and only when it's appropriate.

I'd look at the specifics of the group study.
learn from the mistakes of others....and their successes.
Compare what worked and what didn't...might find the equipment used was the culprit..or maybe just the hunters.

Adjust my equipment (if needed) to a known successful combination.
Practice until I'm confident of making a GOOD shot with that equipment....and knowing my limits on making that GOOD shot.

There isn't a land animal on this planet that can't be killed with a good recovery percentage with the right trad setup..and the right shooter.

If I am confident in myself and my equipment..I will hunt.

As a Bowhunter gains experience, when not to shoot is a lesson learned and often learned the hard way. Self imposed lines are drawn and are not crossed. The Love of the hunted increases as well as the love of the hunt and then one day you begin  to only take shots you know you can make. When all this comes about your recovery ratio soars.
 I have to hunt with a trad bow. Its who I am and what I do, After God, Family , Friends and work. RC

If I was not competent enough to kill turkey with archery equipment I would stop hunting them.   If I could only make a lethal shot at 10 yards I would increase my scouting, stealth, and calling ability to get em that close.  

I'm a retired wildlife biologist.  Wounding (non-mortal) and mortally wounding are two very different things.   We shoot a single projectile that is very easy to evaluate in terms of a hit or miss.  The shotgunner (who I support and respect as much as any other hunter) cannot same the same about the several hundred pellets released from his scattergun.   I'm confident that many "missed" birds aren't quite. But, it doesn't concern me.

Even the hunter who's non-recovery rate is higher than most would tolerate, will do far less damage to the wildlife resource than the permanent habitat loss caused by activities of some who criticize hunting.  The activity of building houses in the fields and woods, draining wetlands for farming or construction, golf course construction, etc. reduce the area's carrying capacity. In other words, 10 acres less of hardwoods means a permanent reduction in the woodlot's ability to support about 30 squirrels, year in year out.  

The single greatest threat to continued wildlife survival is habitat loss. The greatest contributor to the conservation of wildlife is the hunter.

What I see a lot more around here is that the woods are getting sold off in affordable snippets. Each one of those gets a house, cabin or other structures built on it.  Brush gets cleared, trees get cut down or trimmed.  Every one running around with those four wheel toys, a lot less Peace In The Valley.

When studies are done about loss rate how are they done? I have made bad shots on deer with gun, bow and cross bow. But it wasn't anything to do with poor accuracy or not practicing. I have always found a sapling or branch that caused a deflection and sent my shot off mark. Hunting in the woods is nothing like shooting at a range. Saying that there is a 30%-40% loss from bow hunting study would be a poor way of knowing if it was poor shooting skills or arrow deflection or the bow itself was the problem. You need to know all the variables to get an idea what causes the losses. No my loss rate isn't that high but I would still hunt if some study came out with those numbers.

Personally I would continue to bow hunt.I know my recovery rate to be a heck of a lot better then those figures. Why should I suffer and quit hunting based on someone else's stats? I say let the one's with those low recovery percentages quit if they see fit, but im hunting... if hunters with higher recovery percentages begin to quit hunting, and the lower percentage crowd continues, the numbers will just get worse.

QuoteOriginally posted by Bowwild:
Even the hunter who's non-recovery rate is higher than most would tolerate, will do far less damage to the wildlife resource than the permanent habitat loss caused by activities of some who criticize hunting.  The activity of building houses in the fields and woods, draining wetlands for farming or construction, golf course construction, etc. reduce the area's carrying capacity. In other words, 10 acres less of hardwoods means a permanent reduction in the woodlot's ability to support about 30 squirrels, year in year out.  

The single greatest threat to continued wildlife survival is habitat loss. The greatest contributor to the conservation of wildlife is the hunter.

Well said!

The OP raised one issue and the responses have addressed several others, but the OP is not without examples in the real world. For one such example, there is a reason every legitimate outfitter for Cape Buffalo and Asiatic Buffalo who will guide archers has mimimum poundage to hunt those species and every state that I know of also has minimum poundage requirements for archery hunting. Those requirements are focused entirely upon one issue: the relatively prompt recovery of animals shot, and that reflects an assumption of such an ethic being integral to sport hunting.

Subsistence hunters in primitive cultures really didn't care as much about that ethic. Their concern was recovery of edible meat with acceptable losses and casualties to themselves. To this day, far more game is taken by subsistence hunters with poison and snares than with arrows.

So, returning to the OP, assuming a credible study from a credible source reached a fact-based conclusion that archers as a group have a 30-40 % recovery rate on species X, I am mature and secure enough to accept that I am not a "special" archer and would not hunt species X with my bow.

Actually,  the states have those rules based on almost nothing.  They range from no minimum at all to in the 40s and 50s.  Broadhead size was simply based upon the size of the Case Kiska head from back in the day.  The states asked the hunters groups what good benchmarks were and accepted them  Then the next state to do so looked at the ones that came before and said " yup.. that looks good".  At least, that is what I saw from a historical prospective.

Even minimum poundage by outfitters is a shot in the dark.  We all know that bow A can throw an arrow of a certain weight just so fast, while bow B can throw it 10, 20, 30% faster.  They are not the same.  A light arrow out of those same bows may not work the same as a heavy arrow.  Sharp Cut on Contact heads may not work the same as a mechanical.  

Like many things, we try to give simple, across the board answers, to things, but they don't always make sense in the real world.  We discuss this here.  

What if I show up with a 100 lb ASL, but can only draw it to 25", whether because I simply cannot pull it, or because my stature is such that that is full draw.  Does that meet the "100 lb minimum" ( a made up figure here).

Studies, unless they include a very large percent of the population being studied, better yet, include everybody, and ask questions in a direct, non leading manner, can easily lie.  

Do a study of folks' height and ask only those on basketball teams and you don't get a good picture.  Ask only those that live in ethnically Asian or hispanic neighborhoods and you may get a different picture than you might in others.  

Ask about wealth distribution and ask only those from urban centers and you may get poor responses.   Ask everybody about anything and you will get a certain percent who will not participate and a certain percent who jump at the chance.... how do you think THAT will skew results.  

Finally.... although not exactly the same, it is similar enough.... I really dislike having someone else's abilities or problems dictate what I can and will be able to do.  We see that often enough.  example..You need to be able to put 8 of 10 arrows into a kill zone at 30 yards to be allowed to hunt.  But... if I kill deer at 5-10 yards and never shoot 30 yards.... why ?  

Why not make it 100 yards, rifle hunters shoot that far.   Why not make it 500 yards for rifle hunters, some shoot that far.

It isn't easy, we ask a lot of folks to do the right thing.  The right thing for me is not the right thing for you AND  next year it might be all different.

Chuck, I get your point, but the modern world is full of rules that are the result of trying to find a reasonable compromise that achieves the stated objective a reasonable percentage of the time. A lot of folks think they're especially good drivers and can drive 15 mph over the posted speed limit, but the Highway Patrol wont care how good a driver they are, because excessive speed is more likely to result in death in the event of a collision and most folks accept the authority of governments to try to reduce highway deaths.

Yup... I hear ya, and agree, but the other side is what I said.  Somewhere in the middle is what we need.  

I spent 36 years as a regulator, on site, looking at the book that said " you can't do this" and knowing the background why that was so said, but also seeing, right there in front of me, that in this case, it has no bearing, but they sure can't do it....  In part that is why Trump wants to cut governmental regulations.   We need regulations.   But....

What I equate it to though is more widespread, take your auto example above.  Motorcycles as a class might be more dangerous than cars.  Let's not let them ride since that is the case (as in not let archers hunt turkeys because some lose them too often).  

And... while we are at it.... are we checking out the stats on shotgun dudes ?  In my admittedly little experience on this earth, I have seen, in part first hand, that switching to a "better weapon", because "I owe it to the critter to hit the very best I can", very often results in that person just shooting at farther away targets and negating that whole argument they just made.  The whole rising to your level of ineptness thing.  

I can generally hit a 6" circle every single time at ten yards or less with my ASL.  A bit better with a bigger riser recurve.  I haven't killed a deer over 12 yards away in years ( yes, I have killed deer).  

I arrange for very close shots.  That's my thing.  It also means I have let animals walk that you woulda probably shot because I know I miss at longer ranges ( read... I know I am not a great shot) and you can probably make those shots.  I can't.  Why should I be penalized ?

HA ... and, your last sentence.  Very true, but how sad we "accept the authority of the government" but can't seem to control ourselves to actually follow those rules.

I don't know the answer..

The reason hunters need so many regulations is because so many hunters are knuckheads.  18 yards, that is the closest that i have ever shot a deer and have done it many times.  I tried to shoot one at 15 feet two years, ago but I got into a wrestling match with a broken branch and the branch won.  Around here the stick bow hunters have a higher recovery rate than the compound hunters and the gun hunters.  That does not mean that they should be banned from hunting, although I would not mind it, that would be over stepping with the regulations.

QuoteOriginally posted by mangonboat:
 every state that I know of also has minimum poundage requirements for archery hunting.  

Montana has no draw weight requirement.

Or Iowa, but bow poundages or lack there of is not much a problem here.

Here's one! Sorry I know I drink too much,but 100% kill rate on rats,and five responses! Five pages on this,and most people aren't even getting the question. I think most people aren't into bowhunting,they just want to argue. Sorry Rob and Terry if this gets me kicked off.

It just seems my good times get clouded up with this and no responses to real hunting situations!

Sorry again for drinking too much!

http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=153959;p=1#000000

QuoteOriginally posted by mangonboat:
and every state that I know of also has minimum poundage requirements for archery hunting.  

No minimum draw weight in Texas either!

Bisch

ChuckC I think you stated it best, Myself I question the question.

Driving is probably the worst comparison possible!

While the rules of the road are junk (reference the highway death stats), most of us would agree that it's within the purview of government to restrain one person from causing harm to another. Your poor driving could certainly cause harm to another.

Now comes bow hunting. I can see the season dates and bag limits...conservation of a public resource. I can see certain weapon restrictions in the interest of preventing me from harming others...no nuclear weapons in the deer woods.

But, when they try to dictate what sort of bow and arrow I should shoot, they're up to no good.

Folks have gotten so used to having the governments nose up their shorts that they wouldn't know what to do without it.

I would still go out and give it at least 2 tries.

I figure adding a string tracker and only settling for the absolute best shot should reduce my chances of being in the 40% un-recovered club.

If I failed twice after I took all precautions, then I would opt for something that goes BOOM!

A 30-40% loss rate is about what I have at 3D shoots.    :banghead:

LMAO, Marty.

I think people should go back and read the original question again.


 

QuoteOriginally posted by KSdan:
Honest question.  No real debate wanted.  Just curious. Something that has caused me questions for quite a few years.

If there was an overall (decent group study-not just an individual) 30-40% loss (no recovery) of a particular species of animal to the bow-   would you still hunt that species with the bow?  

Please.  I am not pulling some trick here.  YES or NO is fine.  (Some discussion is okay, I just am not interested in a ballistic debate.)

Thanks
Dan in KS

The OP did not ask whether we thought a certain species should be allowed to be bow hunted by anyone, he asked if YOU would personally hunt the animal with a bow if you knew the overall wound rate was that high.

If you remove all the emotion, modern hunting (on the macro level) is primarily for wildlife management.  It holds individual meaning to all of us, but overall it is the most effective and humane way of keeping wildlife populations within the carrying capacity of the habitat.  This is for the benefit of the wildlife, the habitat, and society in general.

With that in mind, if you make a non-lethal hit on an animal, it is just another type of injury, out of a list of many, that they deal with every day.   If you make a lethal hit but don't recover, it's all the same to the animal. They are just as dead as if you recovered him, the only difference is who or what is going to consume the carcass.  Same holds true for those that are charged with managing the resource.  To them it is a dead animal, out of a certain amount that need to die every year to meet their management goals, the only difference is who or what consumed the carcass.  

As to my own feelings, I believe there is a learning curve with anything, and that includes hunting with a bow or any other weapon.  I know going in that there are risks, and sometimes attempting to kill a wild animal isn't always neat, clean, and pretty.  We all try to make it as much so as possible, but we can't always control things as much as we think we can.  Game departments determine what is a viable weapon to achieve their goals, and we as individuals decide whether we would like to participate.

Like it or not, as bad as a 30-40 percent loss rate seems, it is infinitely better than a much higher death rate caused by starvation, disease, and habitat destruction... which not only affects specific animals, but all those that are to come in the future.

Either you accept modern hunting for what it is, the most effective and humane management tool, or you don't.

Tooner- Thanks for "getting" it.  You make some very good consideration/points. As I tell my friends with a little tongue/cheek humor to lighten the frustration when they have a loss; "Well, you may not eat it, but you just fed a few coyotes and saved a handful of cute bunnies and mice for another day"    :bigsmyl:    

Thanks again for the thoughts guys.

Dan

QuoteOriginally posted by akdd:
A 30-40% loss rate is about what I have at 3D shoots.     :banghead:  

:biglaugh:     :biglaugh:    :biglaugh:

QuoteOriginally posted by mgf:
Driving is probably the worst comparison possible!
...
Folks have gotten so used to having the governments nose up their shorts that they wouldn't know what to do without it.

Driving is only worthwhile analogy when trying to compare statistical base rates (30-40% loss rates, in this thread) with what we feel is OUR probability of loss -- as if the law of averages don't apply to us.  We all think we're above average drivers.  But that's impossible.  We all think we're more ethical or make better judgments than the average hunter but, once again, we can't all be better than average.  Past that, you're right, the analogy doesn't hold.  Every comparison has its limits.

As for government intrusion, I can agree there.  I'm self-employed and am all too familiar with government & regulatory overreach.  Then there's the big businesses who want MORE overreach to raise the barriers of entry & drive out competition.  Oh well.  Such is our system.  And that's another topic entirely.

QuoteOriginally posted by Tooner:
I think people should go back and read the original question again.


 If you remove all the emotion, modern hunting (on the macro level) is primarily for wildlife management.  It holds individual meaning to all of us, but overall it is the most effective and humane way of keeping wildlife populations within the carrying capacity of the habitat.  This is for the benefit of the wildlife, the habitat, and society in general.

Well, that is how the government rationalizes it based on their goals.  If you're a wildlife manager, I can respect that point of view.  Me, I have my reasons and they're quite different (I'm just not very evolved or civilized for starters.  I just wanna.  Maybe I never really grew up.  Excuse to get away.  Lots of other reasons that my wife will roll her eyes at).  I'm just glad my goals and the "gubment's" goals share some common ground for a change.  I may completely disagree with some of their reasons or objectives.  But it's still nice to find some common ground.

As I see it, wildlife needs us to manage their populations like a fish need a bicycle.  It can serve a public (human) good.  But it's still mostly for OUR benefit, not that of the wildlife (unless we're talking about wildlife protections from us).  Our local National Parks are full of wildlife and have zero hunting.  Please excuse me for a bit while I fantasize about what it would be like to hunt those lands...
...Getting back to real life, nature can take care of itself just fine (although I'm glad to help when I can).

Personally, I don't hunt to satisfy the public agenda.  I hunt because I enjoy it.  My reasons can border on the spiritual and encompass family traditions, anthropology, formative life experiences and a host of other topics.  But, if I'm being honest, it's probably the same reason why a well-fed, domesticated cat still brings in a mouse -- it just does.  Whatever the case, I sure ain't out there for a public service, though I'm happy if it does have some public good.  And, like the neighborhood cats, the hunt isn't really for the benefit of the mice.  Some things, I just do.

QuoteOriginally posted by YosemiteSam:

Personally, I don't hunt to satisfy the public agenda.  I hunt because I enjoy it.  My reasons can border on the spiritual and encompass family traditions, anthropology, formative life experiences and a host of other topics.  But, if I'm being honest, it's probably the same reason why a well-fed, domesticated cat still brings in a mouse -- it just does.  Whatever the case, I sure ain't out there for a public service, though I'm happy if it does have some public good.  And, like the neighborhood cats, the hunt isn't really for the benefit of the mice.  Some things, I just do.

With all due respect, I get what you are saying, and while I can agree on a personal level, the only reason you are ALLOWED to hunt is for the "public agenda."  

We all may have our personal reasons for doing what we do within the "public agenda" framework, but the framework exists to protect and conserve the wildlife, the habitat, and society in general.

Furthermore, it you're truly like the cat, you wouldn't concern yourself one iota with wounding rates, ethics, and conservation.  The cat doesn't care if his personal wounding rate is 95%.  The cat just keeps on killing, or trying to kill, without ever thinking about the ramifications.

If my only personal recovery rate was only 60-70% recovery rate on the animals that I sent an arrow at, than I would look to find a way to improve that (shot distance, practice, better equipment, etc), or stop hunting with that particular weapon.

As lot of us "got it".  We also tried to express our frustration with the question as asked and the premise that I need to back off because you or someone else do something that is not well liked (by whoever).  I am not the general public, I am not the group in the study, I am me.  I follow my own personal rules and morals.  

Everybody, every day speeds past me on the road, don't completely stop at a stop sign, have no clue what that little  stick is on the left side of their steering wheel etc., but I generally do not follow their lead. I am not bound by the masses but by me.

Yeah.... I got it.  I would still hunt, if still legal to do so, because so far.... I don't have that same set of numbers.  If / when that changes I will reassess, but based upon MY numbers, not yours.

and... in response.... why are they (loss rates) so high ?  IF good hunters are losing those birds, maybe they need to become better hunters and reassess their own habits.  Shoot closer and use string trackers is one suggestion.  They are just birds, not tanks.

With respect, it really doesn't matter what we think an acceptable loss ratio is, or how we might rationalize it based on game management, they're all going to die anyway, or whatever.  The only thing that matters if we're going to continue to be allowed to hunt is the non-hunting public's perception of hunting.  Fortunately, historically there has been a generally favorable view of hunting among the majority of (non PETA) citizens, based on our history of inclusiveness, the pioneer spirit, etc., unlike Europe, where hunting was generally forbidden for centuries to all but the royalty.

Whether hunting will continue to be viewed as generally acceptable depends on a lot of things that are out of our control, such as the next Disney movie.  Bambi didn't stop hunting in the '50's, but Blackfish may well have doomed the captivity and training of killer whales more recently, as  other documentaries may have doomed trained elephants in circuses.  Watching elephants and killer whales perform is something the general public has enjoyed for generations, and yet it was willing to abandon those activities fairly quickly when it was convinced that the animals were being abused.

Would the result have been different if the industries involved had been able to publicly come forward at the time those documentaries were produced and show that the practices in the documentaries had already been stopped?  For that matter, would the documentaries have even been produced if that had been the case?

I think these are things we should be thinking about, and consider self-policing practices the general public would consider non-humane, before they do it for us.

There has been a lot said here about hunting as a wild life management tool. Maybe it has bee used that way in the past but I don't believe that's the general case today.

Lets face it, there's a pretty large industry (lots of tax revenue) that's grown up around hunting. Sportsmen buy a lot of licenses and support a pretty large bureaucracy. Those folks do not want to go out looking for another job.

It looks to me like the states are growing game in order to have something to sell.

If they want to keep raking in the dough, they just have to grow enough game to keep the market happy in spite of the "wounding loss".

QuoteOriginally posted by mgf:


If they want to keep raking in the dough, they just have to grow enough game to keep the market happy in spite of the "wounding loss".

If that's the case, why are most game departments trying to significantly  reduce herd numbers, in spite of the complaints of the "market?"

"Reducing herd numbers" = selling plenty of tags. Right? That's what I said. LOL

I have a 30 to 40% loss rate when hunting rabbits with a bow, , especially when there is snow on the ground.  Some days when hunting pheasants it is even higher.  That is why I use the cheapest wood arrows that I can slap together and still get good flight.

QuoteOriginally posted by mgf:
"Reducing herd numbers" = selling plenty of tags. Right? That's what I said. LOL

I guess I'm confused.  So the way the game departments "grow enough game to keep the market happy" is to sell more tags in order to kill more game?     :laughing:

They need enough deer to get the tags sold...or the perception that there are enough deer.

If asked why they sell so many tags the obvious answer is that they need to lower herd numbers.

Maybe revenue has something to do with it?

I put alot of faith in to carefully gathered data and research studies, so... where is the citation? What study?  I guess I would have to lose every animal I'd connected with for the next few years to get to an overall 30-40% loss rate overall.  But is the question pertaining to a lifetime loss rate or is data gathered from a different point?  KSDan, don't feel too bad, but when generic data from an unnamed study with unfounded means and percentages are/is introduced, the flood gates are wide open for scrutiny.

Regardless of whether studies are valid or flawed, or whether just as much game is lost in other types of hunting, for the good of our sport we must promote the idea that any loss of game through poor shot placement or inadequate equipment is unacceptable.  In the podcast with Rod Jenkins, he stated that he was so discouraged by shooting a deer that couldn't be recovered that he vowed never to let it happen again.  Unfortunately, 20 years later it happened again.  Now he has renewed his vow and has gone another 20 years without losing a game animal.  I think we can accept a once in 20 year loss ratio.

I don't think we need to promote any such thing. First of all it's an impossible goal regardless of weapon.

It's in the hunters best interest not to lose game he/she put time and hard work into. It's inefficient to have to put too much time into tracking. Too much of that and a predator would starve.

But, it's none of anybody else's business.

I think the problem with hunting is that it has been turned into a "sport".

Try thinking of it as an imperfect way to get meat.