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