June 10th, 2014, 08:11 AM
Bowhunting World Deer Recovery Study
Interesting that xbow average shot was about 2 yds more than average compound. Wow ! RC was right ! LOL
Mechanicals are more effective in recovery than fixed... That should be interesting in the Rage section of AT.
Nothing is fool proof because fools are so ingenious.
Quote of the day : " Life is too short to shoot and hunt with a mediocre crossbow ".
June 10th, 2014, 08:36 AM
Interesting, but I believe there is way to much bias here to extrapolate this study to the general hunting public. Here is why:
1.) The researcher himself was involved in tracking many animals. They called him an "expert tracker". Not all trackers are created equal, we know this, and not all hunters have access to an "expert tracker"
2.) All hunters were required to take and pass a profiency test every year! How many archers in general would pass this before hunting? 90% 50%? Less? It certainly isn't required for the general public to hunt, and is definetly a huge source of bias, IMO.
3.) Hunts were not conducted in the rain. Again not a real world scenario. Deer season doesn't close in the real world when rain starts falling the first week in November.
I think this quote from the article sums up a large amount of bias the best: "We were determined to have a select group of dedicated hunters in our tightly contolled program." Basically all they did was prove how proficient bowhunters can be under near perfect circumstances. IMO, this data in no way can be used to reflect the general hunting public. Not trying to give the anti's ammunition here, just looking at this from a realistic scientific standpoint.
Love your crossbow? Join the ranks of the American Crossobow Federation so others might have the same opportunity you do.
June 11th, 2014, 08:19 AM
QDMA had a study with similar findings.
June 11th, 2014, 09:43 AM
Realistically ... bow hunters suck at killing deer. For every 1.4 "flights of the arrow" ONE deer was recovered? By a relatively well vetted group of bow hunters. Eighty three point six percent recovery? Pretty much means that 1 in 5 deer or 20% are wounded and lost ... by tested and above average proficiency bow hunters. I shutter to think the havoc our average bow hunter is wrecking out there. BUT ... we don't want to think about that, do we. If we think about it ... we're liable to be forced to actually DO something about it. That takes work and would be unpopular, so let's wait for the general public to catch on to the dirty little secret. Sort of like the public FINALLY caught on to the fact that Auntie's little house kitties, the cuties she lets run loose, are wanton killers devastating to all the small mammals, reptiles and birds in the neighborhood and habitat.
Scorpyd Velocity165 425.5fps @ 426gr & 171KE, Zeiss 3-12 Illum Duralyt, CamX Accuspine, 100gr RamCats, & Firenocks. Scorpyd Orion150 Leupold 2.5-8x36mm, AcuDraw. Swarovski bino, Leica rangefinder, Surefire, Deerelight & Fenix lights.
White Buffalo Inc. - Project Manager ... Wounded Warrior Project - Mentor ... NRA Life Member 1971
June 11th, 2014, 10:43 AM
I hunted urban hunts for 10 years or so before moving to the country. Every year we had to take a profiency test that was a joke. 20 shots, 10@ 20yds and 10@ 15 yds of which 80% had to be in the vital area as marked on a delta buck target or inside the 3 ring on a regular target. Not many ever failed and if they did they got a 2nd chance. The test was a money maker for the shop that have the test $10 to shoot 20 arrows.
I also thought the study proved little, because of the closed access to hunters and the conditions. I'm not sure you could ever get a factual study based on hunter reporting during a general deer season with the use of any weapon. Hunters don't like to report bad shots. I think thats human nature. How many horific shots have you seen on tv shows that the hunter proclaims was a bit back or high. They never actually admit to making a lousy shot. This was just another study like a poll, that the findings are exactly the results they needed.
Optimizers, Nikon Bolt
Living The Dream
July 13th, 2014, 11:44 AM
Wounded and lost? What exactly does that mean? Is it wounded and living or dead? How many "wounded" deer survive? My guess is alot. So, of the percent "lost", would you say half survived? Who knows. I pulled a 6" piece of arrow with the broadhead intact from a deer I shot with my ML. The deer was acting normal and had no sign of poor health. The wounded and lost question can never be reconciled.
Originally Posted by Iron Duke
July 13th, 2014, 12:26 PM
I don't trust studies or polls. How many double lung or heart shot deer are still running the woods. Its hard for many to admit they made a bad shot, and a flesh wound can leave a good blood trail for awhile. You don't see many tv hunters actually admit they made a bad shot, its usually a bit high a bit back. I see more deer on tv left until morning, telling me it was probably a bad hit, or the deer that hard hit deer that went 200yds according to the show hunter. I dont trust these types of studies because people aren't all honest and the results can be squewerd any direction you want.
Optimizers, Nikon Bolt
Living The Dream