30-40% loss rate: Would you keep hunting?

KSdan · April 16, 2017, 01:43:00 PM

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

Pine · April 16, 2017, 01:53:00 PM

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

Orion · April 16, 2017, 02:16:00 PM

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.

Bowwild · April 16, 2017, 03:51:00 PM

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.

Bowwild · April 16, 2017, 03:52:00 PM

I like the way you think Orion!

ChuckC · April 16, 2017, 03:53:00 PM

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

forestdweller · April 16, 2017, 03:55:00 PM

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

April 16, 2017, 04:10:00 PM

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.

crazynate · April 16, 2017, 04:32:00 PM

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?

McDave · April 16, 2017, 04:38:00 PM

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.

Steve Jr · April 16, 2017, 05:15:00 PM

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

Steve Jr

Bowwild · April 16, 2017, 05:24:00 PM

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.

jsweka · April 16, 2017, 06:02:00 PM

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.

Woodpuppy · April 16, 2017, 06:13:00 PM

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:

KSdan · April 16, 2017, 06:33:00 PM

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

April 16, 2017, 07:04:00 PM

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.

KSdan · April 16, 2017, 08:29:00 PM

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

crazynate · April 16, 2017, 08:33:00 PM

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

Orion · April 16, 2017, 08:46:00 PM

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.

tracker12 · April 16, 2017, 09:01:00 PM

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