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

[KSdan]

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"        

Thanks again for the thoughts guys.

Dan

[DanielB89]

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

       

[YosemiteSam]

Originally 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.

[YosemiteSam]

Originally 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.

Originally 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.

[Lefty]

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.

[ChuckC]

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.

[McDave]

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.

[mgf]

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".

Originally 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?"

[mgf]

"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.

Originally 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?    

[mgf]

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?

[BWallace10327]

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.

[McDave]

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.

[mgf]

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.

[mgf]

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.