On hunting with less efficient weapons

[EastHumboldt]

I didn’t read every single reply. But a common theme emerges.

The Hunter is responsible to be proficient enough to kill quickly and reliably whatever the weapon. It takes research, practice, experience, and humility to determine what is your individual lethal range with a particular weapon. Then it takes skill, judgement, and restraint to put that into practice in the field.

It is certainly easier by any objective group of measurements to become proficient at using a scope sighted rifle, and getting within lethal range with that weapon, than it is to do those things with a more primitive weapon, such as a muzzle loader or bow. The number of things to go wrong is greater with primitive weapons, so lacking actual data, it doesn’t seem out of line to posit that wounding rates might be greater for those weapons.

 

[KHNC]

If one desires to be a “precision accurate” archer, then perhaps. But if one desires to be a hunter, nope. Never shot year round, never will, have many punched tags. Cute story. You do you. I’ll continue with my practice regiment and keep filling tags. Have a great season!

You can be a guy that hunts with a bow here and there , or you can be a full time archer. Shooting 3D, bowhunting all available seasons etc. or you can be a smartass. I see which category (or two) that you probably fit in. Nothing cute about it. I really dont care if you shoot year round or not. Its not just about the hunting side of archery for everyone out there.

 

[307]

How does a bullet in the vitals make an animal more dead than an arrow?

If that's our measuring stick, which it clearly isn't, a gut shot with a pellet gun will cause equal degree of death, eventually.

That doesn't make it preferable or optimal.

 

[Annapolis]

OP here again—to say thanks. And also to chime in: I’ve learned a ton from these replies, which have me reexamining several assumptions.

Re: selecting archery because the season is longer—that’s a practical response, of course, but it doesn’t get to the fundamental question, and that’s my fault. I should have asked in slightly different terms. Why would DNR want hunters to use archery or muzzleloader (eg) and therefore offer such seasons to begin with?—as opposed to making all hunting rifle-only, on the (perhaps faulty) premise that rifles kill more humanely and wound less?

I think you all have addressed that really well—I just wanted to clarify: the ‘because it’s a longer season so I can hunt more’ argument gets us into a chicken and egg game.

 

[Hnthrdr]

OP here again—to say thanks. And also to chime in: I’ve learned a ton from these replies, which have me reexamining several assumptions.

Re: selecting archery because the season is longer—that’s a practical response, of course, but it doesn’t get to the fundamental question, and that’s my fault. I should have asked in slightly different terms. Why would DNR want hunters to use archery or muzzleloader (eg) and therefore offer such seasons to begin with?—as opposed to making all hunting rifle-only, on the (perhaps faulty) premise that rifles kill more humanely and wound less?

I think you all have addressed that really well—I just wanted to clarify: the ‘because it’s a longer season so I can hunt more’ argument gets us into a chicken and egg game.

Well I think it has to do with a balance between tradition, sport, opportunity. You are correct if they just said hey we have a herd of 100 it can sustain 10 bulls killed a year. Success rate with a rifle during the rut is 100%; success rate with a rifle during later season is 10% ; with a bow it’s 5% during the rut, 2% late season with a bow. So they do their math thing and we can either hand out 10 tags a year to rifle hunt during the rut or we hand out 50 archery tags, so many muzzy tags, and 20 or so late rifle tags. If DNR went with most effective means not many if any
Of us would hunt. It would probably get to the point when the anti’s would say just let the state kill 10 bulls with a thermal drone at night and be done with it. I think the tradition, the opportunity, all of that enriches what we love to do. Also any weapon that is deemed legal to take an animal with used correctly within its limits with * accuracy is very very deadly. Never seen an elk shrug off a sharp broadhead, conical or bullet through the vitals

 

[Slickhill]

Much of the game department’s decision is made to increase license sales. Extra season=more tags sold.

 

[bowhuntercoop]

Because it’s America and we have choices haha. I’ve killed a few critters with a rifle…hard pass, doesn’t do it for me. Way to easy imo and doesn’t give me a rush or sense of accomplishment.

Over 100 deer with a compound. Loved it for many many years, got too easy and boring, then went down the stickbow route only about 5 years ago.

There is nothing like shooting one sub 10 yards with a recurve or long bow. I will stretch it to 30-40 on elk and mule deer out west, but all of those I’ve killed have been sub 30 anyways.

I have buddies from the Corps who are diehard long range guys, that’s their thing. Doesn’t tickle my fancy so I don’t do it. Much prefer the chase with trad gear. Everyone is different and we all get our choice, that’s what makes this country so great!

It’s up to the person with the weapon to decide what’s ethical and Lealthal in their hands when the time comes to punch the trigger. I’m not the person to judge them. If the weapon is legal, have at it, and have fun!

 

[Maverick1]

You can be a guy that hunts with a bow here and there , or you can be a full time archer. Shooting 3D, bowhunting all available seasons etc. or you can be a smartass. I see which category (or two) that you probably fit in. Nothing cute about it. I really dont care if you shoot year round or not. Its not just about the hunting side of archery for everyone out there.

Oh, ok. I’ve shot 23 bulls over 350” and 49 P&Y whitetail. Guess I must be doing something seriously wrong. I’ll promptly start shooting my bow all year round because it’s not working for me and you said so. Feel better now? Like I said, you do you! Have a great season. I’m out!

 

[Macintosh]

… I should have asked in slightly different terms. Why would DNR want hunters to use archery or muzzleloader (eg) and therefore offer such seasons to begin with?—as opposed to making all hunting rifle-only…

Simple. Read up on the North American Model, Pittman-Robertson and dingell-johnson funding, and look at what the status of now-common game animals like white tailed deer, turkeys, black bear, moose, waterfowl was directly after the market-hunting era, and compare that to today. Its because each tag (ie an “opportunity”)=license revenue=increased funding for habitat and wildlife management that goes directly to state wildlife agencies=increased benefit to wildlife (at least potentially).

More people get to hunt (or multiple tags for those who want) with the same # of animals taken=more funding for wildlife and habitat. Simple as that.

 

[blackveltbowhunter]

At the OP, Game departments ( DNR ) don't care what weapons get used to meet the management objectives. They just manage the seasons and weapon types to meet them. Hunters are the ones who typically drive the narrative on weapon choices and technology although some outside factors like population density can also be a driver.

Simply put, no one weapon is more inherently lethal than another. Dead is dead. Shock kills. Hemorrhagic shock being the most often used and widely accepted form of humane killing especially in hunting. Neurogenic shock is also very effective, but typically offers smaller targets, and is less "guaranteed" than hemorrhagic. IE.... Every butchered animal is bled out after neurogenic shock is administered to improve carcass quality and because animals can and do recover if the actual tissue itself doesn't sustain significant enough disruption to cause nervous system pause for a duration long enough to no longer support life. Basically its just temporary shock. This is in tightly controlled environments and limiting the variables as it pertains to domestic animal slaughter. If we are arguing over what is a more "humane" internal organ disruption or penetration and severing. There is no argument to be made. Both have variable that will impact duration of kill time, but are very similar in results all else being equal. The only argument would be for the hunter who takes brain pan shots at ranges close enough to then contact and bleed the animal within a few second of neurogenic trauma. If your aiming your projectile behind the shoulder, your choosing hemorrhagic shock as your method of killing. Period.

If we can get there, then its not a big step to concur that regardless of weapon, its on the hunter to put in the effort to remove as many variable as possible.

 

[KHNC]

Oh, ok. I’ve shot 23 bulls over 350” and 49 P&Y whitetail. Guess I must be doing something seriously wrong. I’ll promptly start shooting my bow all year round because it’s not working for me and you said so. Feel better now? Like I said, you do you! Have a great season. I’m out!

Nobody here is worthy of your greatness obviously. You are a Maverick for sure. Keep up the good work!

 

[wind gypsy]

Why would DNR want hunters to use archery or muzzleloader (eg) and therefore offer such seasons to begin with?—as opposed to making all hunting rifle-only, on the (perhaps faulty) premise that rifles kill more humanely and wound less?

More revenue from the resource (tags sold and in turn matching federal dollars from pittman robertson funds), more engagement and opportunity from resource stake holders, more $ from lobbyists. After all, DNR leadership is usually an appointed position by elected governors.

 

[displacedtexan]

If that's our measuring stick, which it clearly isn't, a gut shot with a pellet gun will cause equal degree of death, eventually.

That doesn't make it preferable or optimal.

A broadhead through the lungs will kill much sooner than later.

Same as a bullet.

If you need one to go down from a bad shot, you need range time or to pass on more shots. Regardless of weapon.

 

[Beendare]

You can be a guy that hunts with a bow here and there , or you can be a full time archer. Shooting 3D, bowhunting all available seasons etc. or you can be a smartass. I see which category (or two) that you probably fit in. Nothing cute about it. I really dont care if you shoot year round or not. Its not just about the hunting side of archery for everyone out there.

^Good post.

I suppose I identify as a bowhunter after the more important things.
I wouldn't say its to "Be a cool Kid" I started 4 decades ago to be in the quiet woods. Then I migrated to a recurve for the challenge and to bring the fun of shooting archery back- it was getting too automatic with a compound.
Bowhunting is more of the lifestyle you mention, walking the calming woods and shooting. I can shoot on my side yard and no one knows or cares. I like the fact that I have to really slow down and analyze the terrain and sign to even hope to get an opportunity. Developing the skill and maintaining it....then being forced to have patience is all part of it for me.

No Bowhunting Tats...no decals...my neighbors and local non hunting friends are barely aware that I hunt. Most bowhunters I know aren't like a vegetarian that lets you know in the first minute.

I have respect for a dedicated rifle hunter. I still pick up a rifle now and again to shoot coyotes. I shoot a pistol better than a rifle- but that I train with.

I have hunted rifle seasons in the past and all of the rifles going off mid day was concerning. Many rifle guys are just hiking with a rifle hoping to bump into something. I've talked to rifle guys when I used to run dogs for hogs saying they got off some good "Sound shots" and I just prefer to not be in the woods when a small % of guys still think that way.

 

[wind gypsy]

I have hunted rifle seasons in the past and all of the rifles going off mid day was concerning. Many rifle guys are just hiking with a rifle hoping to bump into something. I've talked to rifle guys when I used to run dogs for hogs saying they got off some good "Sound shots" and I just prefer to not be in the woods when a small % of guys still think that way.

I've heard of these "sound shots" on the internet before but never met someone stupid enough to say they do it themselves.

 

[307]

A broadhead through the lungs will kill much sooner than later.

Same as a bullet.

If you need one to go down from a bad shot, you need range time or to pass on more shots. Regardless of weapon.

Most studies report about 33% of animals hit with an arrow are not recovered compared to approximately 10% of those shot with a rifle are not recovered.

At least 3 times as many lost animals with archery equipment compared to rifle.

See:

• Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (1999–2009 elk studies):
  • Archery elk recovery: ~50–60%.
  • Rifle elk recovery: ~90%.
• Wisconsin DNR (Bowhunter Survey 2009–2013):
  • Archery deer recovery ~82% (≈18% unrecovered).
• Minnesota DNR study:
  • Archery deer unrecovered: ~27%.
  • Rifle deer unrecovered: ~7%.
• Wyoming Game & Fish (Elk studies):
  • Rifle non-recovery ~8%.
  • Archery non-recovery ~35%.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Most studies report about 33% of animals hit with an arrow are not recovered compared to approximately 10% of those shot with a rifle are not recovered.

At least 3 times as many lost animals with archery equipment compared to rifle.

See:

• Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (1999–2009 elk studies):
  • Archery elk recovery: ~50–60%.
  • Rifle elk recovery: ~90%.
• Wisconsin DNR (Bowhunter Survey 2009–2013):
  • Archery deer recovery ~82% (≈18% unrecovered).
• Minnesota DNR study:
  • Archery deer unrecovered: ~27%.
  • Rifle deer unrecovered: ~7%.
• Wyoming Game & Fish (Elk studies):
  • Rifle non-recovery ~8%.
  • Archery non-recovery ~35%.

I would venture not quite apples to apples, archery hunting it is very very easy to know that you hit an animal, I have known several fellas who will sling lead at a distance and then not go check, just the old huh they ran off I guess I missed.

 

[307]

I would venture not quite apples to apples, archery hunting it is very very easy to know that you hit an animal, I have known several fellas who will sling lead at a distance and then not go check, just the old huh they ran off I guess I missed.

I would imagine that the multiple professional wildlife agencies that funded and carried out multiple studies across multiple years put in just a little bit of effort in their research design to ensure that they were getting somewhat valid information.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I would imagine that the multiple professional wildlife agencies that funded and carried out multiple studies across multiple years put in just a little bit of effort in their research design to ensure that they were getting somewhat valid information.

For sure I would hope so, just from the surveys I’ve filled out, I wouldn’t be shocked it if was just that. The data can be hard to gather & I imagine and without a big enough sample size it isn’t all that telling. I just know most guys will walk 20-50 yards to look for an arrow or find blood a lot of guys won’t walk 300+ yards if they think that they didn’t hit it or they didn’t see it go down

 

[North of 60]

I would imagine that the multiple professional wildlife agencies that funded and carried out multiple studies across multiple years put in just a little bit of effort in their research design to ensure that they were getting somewhat valid information.

Let's hope...As someone who has worked with data, there are many levels of error with data and often there are agendas with whoever is leading the research. And typically the more polarized the topic, the greater the influence of agendas.