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

[Michael Arnette]

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.

[Sam McMichael]

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

[Trenton G.]

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.

[MnFn]

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.

[LBR]

For me the question is too vague.

[shankspony]

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.

[Bowwild]

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.

[Kevin Dill]

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.

[katman]

Simple answer, no.

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

[ChuckC]

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.

[KSdan]

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

[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.

[TSP]

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.

[elknutz]

No, I would not.

[Bvas]

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.

[JohnV]

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.

[SELFBOW19953]

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?

[Mint]

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.

[Mark R]

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.

[KSdan]

Thanks guys.  Some good thoughts contributed. . .

Dan in KS