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

[Bowwild]

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.

[B.Barker]

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.

[Shadowhnter]

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.

[YosemiteSam]

Originally 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!

[mangonboat]

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.

[ChuckC]

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.

[mangonboat]

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.

[ChuckC]

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.

[Prairie Drifter]

Originally 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.

[Alexander Traditional]

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

Originally 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

[Mark R]

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

[mgf]

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.

[buckeye_hunter]

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!

[akdd]

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

[Roy from Pa]

LMAO, Marty.

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


 

Originally 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.