The subject we don't like to discuss . . bad shots

[OsageBowyer]

no doubt one hair my first loosed arrow was less than 15yrds a head shot no recovery no blood no nuthin. I felt like S4!t for days took me a while to get over it too... practice practice practice now I'm a killer and this oct gonna fill my card again! Oh Yah.  

[TNstickn]

Get close, have confidence in yourself. Percentages are shot selection and concentration. Do bad on one or the other, no matter the distance, and the outcome will be the same. No gimmees bowhunting, thats golf.

[beaver#1]

last season waas my first with a trad. bow.  had a doe get 4 yards away and i passed on the shot.  now would i do that this season.... no.... but last season was my first and i didnt fully understand how my bow would react with even the smallest leaf in the way(that was the main reason i past on that does a few leaves).  like every one else above has said know your bow, know your arrows and the way they fly, and most importantly, know yourself.  other than that, get out there.  by the way, my range is not much more than 15 yards.  thats close enough

[JImmyDee]

Originally posted by futuredoc:
A friend of mine ... is of the opinion that the wounding rate of traditionalists ... is much higher than that of modern compound bow shooters.

Tough subject.

Saxton Pope felt that archers had a better recovered-to-wounded ratio than hunters who used firearms.

As I understand the situation, bow hunters continued to turn-in better kill rates than gun hunters until recurves became very popular.  The situation got even worse when compounds entered the field.  (I think Ashby cited wounding rates under 10% before the advent of compounds and as much as three times that in recent years.)

Part of the reason was thought to be the popularity of lighter and faster arrows -- although it's not clear whether reduced penetration or increased tendancy to attempt longer shots is the culprit.

The compound hunters I talk with report quite a few  misses; a lot more, it seems, than the longbow hunters I know.  The guys using longbows and heavy tackle seem to recover their deer.  Perhaps they're taking fewer shots.

I'd be interested in seeing reliable numbers...

[chessieboy]

I'm with most others in agreeing that bad hits happen we don't want them but things happen.  Not just with trad gear though. I was watching primos' show today and a guy missed an elk at 18 yards with a wheelie bow. Let me restate that he missed a broadside standing still elk at 18 yards. I'm not putting him down at all but this if nothing else proves that misses aren't limited to sticks and strings.

Bill

[Gehrke145]

I don't think bad hits are as big a reason for lost animals as people not knowing how to track. I hear on every site how guys have gut shot animals and not found them.  I have yet to loose one, not that I've had a bunch of gut shots (5 outa prolly 50+ animals)  Thats just me though.

[Dr. Ed Ashby]

I'm sure most everyone knows my take on this subject, and not nearly everyone agrees with it. None the less, here it is.

I don't care how good a shot one is, or how hard one tries, bad hits are going to happen. When things go badly, the bow one chooses to use makes absolutely no difference at all. The things that do matter are the skills and knowledge of the hunter himself  (as gehrke145 states) and the arrow he or she chooses to hunt with.

I bowhunted for 24 years without keeping any kill records; but I do have them - in painstaking detail - for the last 26 years. Across those last 26 years, with traditional archery gear, I have a big-game wound-loss rate of 0.638%. Don't misread that. It is ZERO POINT 638 PERCENT; or an equivilent wound-loss rate of 6.38 animals per one-thousand HITS.

The actuality of the numbers is four hit and non-recovered big game animals against 623 hit and recovered big game animals; regardless of the reason for non-recovery. One of those four was purloined by other hunters, and three simply went where I could not follow (one into a deep water swamp and two into uncrossable mud flats). Nonetheless, and allowing no excuses whatsoever, those four animals I did hit and I did fail to personally recover. They were wounded by me and not recovered by me. They count as wounded and lost; and that is as it should be. No 'assuming' that a hit animal is going to fully recover from a hypothetical 'non-lethal' hit just because we didn't, or couldn't, locate it.

I'm absolutely convinced that the major reasons for the high wound/loss rate(s) consistently shown by the many studies of bowhunted game are: (1) the arrow setups most commonly used by bowhunters and (2) the skills and knowledge of the hunter(s) involved. Those two reasons are closely interrelated, and some might reverse the order of the two; and I certainly could not say they were wrong, Regardless of the order of reasons, neither are insurmountable obstacles.

For years I did terminal ballistic studies on rifle bullets. My traditional archery wound-loss rate is LOWER than that for the animals I've taken with firearms. It is also lower than that of any of my friends, acquaintances or hunting partners who use compound bows. That's not putting any of them down. That are all learning and getting better by the year. My own wound-loss rate wasn't all that great during the years I was learning "how to hunt".

It's up to each hunter to look after out sport. Bowhunting is essentially a one-on-one exercise; hunter verses the quarry. We each make many, many choices that directly affect our individual success rate; and we each must live with each and every one of those choices. It is each hunter's responsibility to educate himself and act accordingly. That's something that can never be cured by a law written on a piece of paper. WE EACH ALSO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PASS ALONG WHAT WE KNOW TO THOSE THAT FOLLOW IN OUR FOOTSTEPS; AND THAT TOO IS BEST DONE ON A ONE-TO-ONE BASIS.

It's all up to each of us. We must each do our own part. Hunting is, and always will be, personal; for however long the right to hunt survives ... and that depends on US!

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

[James Wrenn]

I have no clue about anyone but myself but my recovrery rate has been a lot higher since I started shooting stickbows.Mostly I contribute that to stickbows being more fun to shoot so I shoot more often.The other is the simple fact I continue to gain experiance each day I hunt and learned over the years sometimes it is best not to shoot.I kill on my own terms now when all the cards are stacked in my favor instead on just trying to fill tags.jmo

[woodchucker]

I have to agree with Dr.Ashby.....

Unfortunately "Bad Hits" DO happen. They happen with bows (both traditional AND compound) and also with guns. Over the years I have also seen a fair share of GOOD hits on deer where the animal was not recovered right away,but found several days later hideing in a blowdown,thick brush,and even one found in a little "cave" under an overhanging piece of rock ledge,and one in the hole left by the roots of a toppled tree.

If you think a buck can hide while your hunting him,just think of where he's going to try and hide AFTER you hit him!!!!!

I HONESTLY believe that NONE of us are so caloused as to just fling arrows at deer,then only make a "half a$$ed" atempt at recovering one after we do hit something.

We all try our best to make the best shot we can.....then follow the trail untill the end.....

But, sometimes.....the trail is empty. Not by our own fault,but through fate.

All we can do.....is the BEST we can.

I firmly believe that ALL of us do our absolute best. If we didn't,I don't believe that we would be hunting.

[jacobsladder]

As far as hunting ethics... i feel that traditional hunters win hands down. A lost deer doesnt always mean a "bad hit".  It is our responsibility as bowhunters to do everything possible to minimize bad hits..Bad hits do happen with guns, compounds, and tradgear... If you've practiced enough, took a responsible shot within your range, and gave a valid effort to recover the animal. That is all that we can do..... A loose projectile doesnt guarantee a dead animal...So at sometime even the best shots or hunters will not be able to recover an animal. At that point , you go home play the scenario over and over , go back out look some more, and if you arent able to recover. Just remember ...nothing goes to waste in nature...  Get back out and go hunting and fill the freezer.

[vermonster13]

All the studies have shown that recovery rates are the same across all weapons used for hunting. Every group has those that range from very proficient to folks who need more practice/experience.

[frassettor]

I have been a compound hunter for 17 years prior to switching over to traditional only, and I have lost a few animals using my compound. I have yet to take a shot I was " comfortable" with my recurve. I personally feel that no matter how you choose to hunt, SHOT PLACEMENT IS SHOT PLACEMENT. It is ultimatly up to the hunter to put the shot where it belongs. A recurve, longbow, selfbow ect.. Will kill just as fast as a rifle,compound, or shotgun... Put the shot where it need to be period!  Just my .02

[Charlie Lamb]

Ray... Oh no! I think I'm a pygmy!!  :D

[Danny Roberts]

Compound shooters take a lot of Hail Mary shots a traditionalist wouldn't !

[Widowbender]

Doc, I agree, Bad hits do happen, bad luck happens. What I meant earlier is that the hunter needs to work hard to eliminate as much of the potential for a bad hit on their end. As in, becoming as good a shot as possible, and knowing what kind of shots your are competent in taking, proper shot angles, proper equipment, etc. This goes for any weapon. Even if you could hit a 3-d target in the eyeball at a hundred yards with a bow, bad hits still happen. Game animals aren't made out of foam, they tend to move around a bit. Limbs get in the way, rain washes away blood, arrow/broadhead failure. Stuff happens. I've shot many deer in the last twenty years(most with compound). I recovered all but one. I can attribute that record to some great shots and some even greater tracking(yes, there were a few bad hits, remember stuff happens). Tracking game is often overlooked as a needed skill. I was fortunate to learn how to track from a couple of men who treated every animal as if it were a world record. They were relentless trackers. Its something everyone should try to become proficient at. There are some good books out on the subject. Wounding and loss will never be eliminated, but it can be greatly reduced.

David

[Doc Nock]

I agree more with Ed's thoughtful piece.

People are people. Equipment notwithstanding. Some folks are more reckless. I've known guys in "rifle camps" upstate that shot across a valley and the buck didn't fall down with their high power rifle, so they 'assumed' they missed--and didn't "follow the shot".

If the camp didn't require we all go back there to check, I didn't return to hunt with that camp. Guess what, I no longer hunt "rifle camps". Do the math.

People are different. You have folks who are less devoted in any weapon group. I will let my own prejudice come out and say that from my years in traditional, I find that the "ethics" (attitudes, dedication, morals, whatever you call it) toward doing the "right thing" at all costs, seems to follow traditional archery.

I would guess those that take the "easy way out" aren't inclined to go to the trouble of "doing it the hard way" that trad equipment seems to conjur up.

I want to believe that trad hunters try harder to be good, take closer shots, and do their best to track and find hit game.

Having said that... I have not found that trad hunters (that I've hunted with) are that much better at actually tracking wounded game though! I don't see a major difference from the general hunting public with other weapons among when it comes to wounded game tracking skills. Like every thing else, some are better and can unravel a trail and some trad hunters, not so much.

That alone might be one area of our sport of trad hunting that we leave out of our emphasis of development...

We don't see many threads on how to become a better wounded game tracker, but lots on how to improve our shooting, our equipment choices, etc.

Our next frontier?  learning to track wounded game?

I've seen poor shots recovered by a group or an individual with great tracking skills...and I've found bloated critters with great shots in them, just someone wasn't good at tracking.

I'm not bad, but I would welcome as much input on how to track wounded critters as we all share here on every other aspect of equipment and shooting!

Afterall, it's not lost till you can't follow the track and find it...might THAT be the big variable?

[MI_Bowhunter]

Everyone can, has , or will make a bad shot.  It's just part of the sport and a fact that we cannot argue.

I hate generalizations made about people based on their equipment.   I shot a compound for 20+ years before I picked up a trad bow.  Am I magically a better person for doing so?  No, the same dedication, ethics and morals I had then are still with me.

I think it's like anything else.  One gets back what they put in to it.  Those that put countless hours towards learning and mastering their chosen tool will have better results then someone that does not, regrdless of the tool mastered

[ThePushArchery]

It simply all comes down to Numbers and probabilities.

100 traditional archers shoot at a buck at their comfort level ~ 15 yards

and

10,000 compound archers shoot at a buck at their comfort level ~ 28 yards.

The numbers will always show that compound archers wound more deer due to the sheer unbalance of number of hunters. Throw rifle hunters into the mix, and ofcourse they will wound the most.

But the thing that is the only measureable variable is the percentage of trad archers wounding, compared to the percentage of compound archers wounding. I would venture to say that the percentages are probably quit similiar.

Simply due to the fact that there are people that shoot traditional that will only take a 15 yard and in shot due to a 98.65% hit rate on the target bag. Do I feel comfortable shooting at 20??? ofcourse... but my hit percentage on the target bag is only ~ 85% at that distance. Are there people out there with trad equip that don't gauge their Yardage to Hit percentage... ofcourse, and do they shoot at distances that their percentage is less than stellar... ofcourse.

The example above relates to compounds, cross-bows, rifles, and even shot-guns while small gameing.

How do you increase your chances of not wounding an animal? I am a firm believer that if you hunt from the ground, you should practice shooting from your knees/seat. This applies to treestands as well. Practice how you hunt. Take 10 arrows a day and shoot at a certain distance. (cold, not warming up) Keep a rolling average of your Vital Hit Percentage, and if you are not keeping a 95% or above, you have no business taking the shot in the woods.

Now the unexpected always happens like many have said. This past season I missed two of the largest bucks I've seen in the woods back to back days. One from the ground at 10 yards (He jumped my string) and one from a tree-stand at 15 yards (shot under him). I was very very fortunate to have 2 clean misses.

Did I practice every single day for those shots... yes. And did I hold a 95% shot rate or above on both scenarios... yes to the ground buck. I barely practiced shooting from a stand during the off-season and I definetely should not have taken the shot. Emotions, Excitment, and overwhelming desire to make up for the previous days miss all weighed in me taking a shot that I had no business taking. I was 2 inches away from having a wounded buck on my hands. But you can bet the bank that I will never again take a shot in the woods that I KNOW I can make 95 times out of 100 or more.

All-in-all, we as hunters have the ability to increase our odds of success over failure with practice and a concrete gauge to make and educated decision as to which shot is feasable for the hunter, equipment, and situation.

[Orion]

cnphg:  In the studies I referred to, the wouldning percentage is not similar.  High tech compound shooters had the highest percentage of wounding, followed by finger shooting compound shooters, followed by traditional hunters.  These aren't my opinions, these are facts.

[pseman]

I can't help but wonder about the accuracy of these studies/surveys, etc. No one ever asked me(or anyone else that I know or have ever met) about our kill/wound ratios. It doesn't surprise me that a study published in TBM would show that traditional archers have a higher kill:wound ratio. I'd bet the survey results published in another magazine(say Bow and Bowhunting) might be different if that magazine catered to compound shooters.

Not trying to be a smarta**, just saying that I don't put a lot of trust in such studies. Coming from the medical field, I can tell you that you can manipulate a study to reveal whatever results you want(ie. to sell whatever product you want)

I'll bet that the study was based on the "honesty" of those surveyed. That in itself makes the results unreliable.

Just something to think about.