[#1DEER 1-I]

I was wondering if anyone thinks that bows are more of a problem than there worth. What I mean is are there too many animals being wounded each year during bow season, what do you think. I think a lot of animals get wounded and never found each year during the bow hunt. I wish there was some way the DWR could help out this cause. Don't get me wrong I am a big fan of bows and bowhunting. I am just asking your opinion, what do you think would help it so less animals get wounded each year on the bow hunt? I myself know one person who hit a deer in the neck and another one in the rump this year, and I wasn't very happy when he kept on hunting. Typically I think the first animal you hit is yours whether you find it or not, it's yours and you need to tag it. I also know another person who hit two elk in the shoulder bone and never found either of them and then went out and got another elk and did find him, the guy who wounded the two deer I mentioned above also got his buck a week later. I just don't see the ethics in shooting more deer or elk, I say once you have hit the animal your looking for its yours and you need to tag it whether you find it or not, what are all your feelings on this?

 

[proutdoors]

This topic keeps coming up for some reason. I am a firm believer the rate of wounded animals is about the same for ALL weapons. The main difference is archers usually know when they hit an animal, while the rifle hunters have no idea. I skin out animals with bullet wounds and bullets under the hide way more often than animals injured from arrows.

PRO

 

[LETTER-RIP]

I belive that the DWR takes this into consideration. They know that on the front there will be no rifles or muzzeloaders. They know that bowhunters are going to be there only way of keeping the numbers down. Wounding animals is part of the game. However if people are wounding multiple animals every year they should question there shots. I have a hard time taking a 40 yrd shot even though I am deadly at this range when I target practice. Tell the people that you know to quit taking ****ty shots and close the distance to a slam dunk range. For the guy wounding the Elk I would tell him to start shooting some arrows with more weight and K.E..

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

I wouldn't say wounding animals is part of the game because that's just a plain waste, the DWR might take it into account that there will be wounded animals that go off and die but I am sure they don't support it. As for the guy who hit two deer, he probably needs to learn a little ethics and shooting skills because he ended up shooting his deer walking straight away the arrow went right in his but and luckily penetrated far enough in to take him down. Pro I am sure rifle hunters do wound some animals but not as many as bow hunters, if it would have been a rifle in the hand of either the guy shooting at the deer or the elk they would have been dead. The elk's shoulder bone would not have stopped a rifle bullet, while an arrow going at a smaller amount of speed just couldn't get in far enough. As for muzzleloaders I would have to say modern day muzzleloaders are great killers, and if you are close enough and take an ethical shot if you hit it, it will put a pretty big hole in the deer and I haven't seen many get away after being shot with a modern day muzz. I own a TC Omega and let me tell you, it only takes a second for the deer to be dead.

 

[proutdoors]

The reason for atleast as high of wounding % is the distance factor. Rifle hunters lob shots 300+ yards an have no idea whether they made a clean miss or a marginal hit, and I would say MOST don't bother to hike over and look for blood. A muzzy makes little penetration on an elk shoulder, I have seen this first hand more than once. A well placed arrow is atleast as lethal as a bullet from a gun/muzzy. It is the marginal hits, that usually take place from marginal shots, that lead to the majority of unrecovered animals. I feel confident saying rifle/muzzy hunters take atleast as many marginal shots, percentage wise, as archers, and there are many MORE rifle/muzzy hunters than archers, which means MORE unrecovered animals come from rifle/muzzy hunters than archers.

PRO.

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

Ya but lets talk percentage wize, because if there are 10 rifle hunters and 3 out of ten wound an animal thats 30%, where as if there are 5 bow hunters and 2 wound an animal then that is 40%.

 

[proutdoors]

Ya but lets talk percentage wize, because if there are 10 rifle hunters and 3 out of ten wound an animal thats 30%, where as if there are 5 bow hunters and 2 wound an animal then that is 40%.

If there are 10 hunters and 4 out of 10 wound an animal that's 40%, where as if there are 5 archers and ONE wounds an animal then that is 20%. :? Made up numbers, like what you and I just used, have nothing to do with anything based on facts, but only emotions and unsubstantiated guesses.

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

Pro, I am not disagreeing with you so much as I just think that if the shot was ethicallly taken there would be more animals wounded by a bow than by guns. Where as you are right people with rifles shoot and leave they just don't check hard enough to know.

 

[proutdoors]

I just think that if the shot was ethicallly taken there would be more animals wounded by a bow than by guns.

What do you have to back up such a claim? Let's say just for laughs you are right and an archer is more likely to wound an animal when he releases an arrow, which is more likely to 'launch' a projectile, an archer where he must get with double digit yards, or a rifle hunter where he can shoot at an animal 500 yars away on the run? A MUCH smaller percentage of archers ever take a shot during the season than rifle hunters due to yardage limits. This makes rifle hunters atleast as likely to make a marginal hit as an archer. Therefore, it seems only logical that rifle hunters are responsible for MORE unrecovered hit animals than archers could EVER dream of, making this topic nonsensical.

PRO

 

[TEX-O-BOB]

Pro's right.

Far more animals get hit and lost by rifle hunters than any other weapon. Outdoor life published an article of a study that was done on this subject. They took all points into account; distance, number of hunters with each weapon, season lengths, hunter user days in the field, recovery statistics, shot placement, everything. The percent of animals wounded and lost per capita, was much higher with rifle hunters. Archery was a distant second with muzzel loaders and crossbows bringing up the rear.

I tried to find a link to the article but I don't even remember what year it was I read it.

Bottom line is, Archery hunting will always get a bad rap because seeing an animal with an arrow sticking out of it is far more incriminating than the same animal with a tiny bullet hole.

 

[north slope]

This has nothing to do with weapons. It is about the jackass behind it!

 

[HOGAN]

There are more jackass rifle hunters than there are archery hunters...FACT!

The reason I can call this a fact is there are more rifle hunters. I would also say a higher % of rifle hunters are jackasses. But that is just opinion. And the wound rate is the same, opinion also. Archers take more time to get ready for their hunt than rifle hunters. So why point the finger at them and scream more ethics. This statement excludes forum members. Forum members obviously take hunting a little more serious than the average hunter, but overall what everyone has said pretty much clears it up.

 

[sagebrush]

The reason I can call this a fact is there are more rifle hunters. I would also say a higher % of rifle hunters are jackasses.

so you are calling yourself (bow hunters) jack asses how many of you are in the dedicated program? a good percentage

 

[Riverrat77]

I think the effort factor plays a part too... I just don't think there is nearly as much effort involved in rifle hunting, where, like somebody else said, you don't have to close the distance down as far to be effective. This one factor makes it worth it to me. It also matters to me that I don't have to be part of the orange army to hunt deer.... When I first moved here, went out by Cascade Springs for a drive and saw tons of rifle toting orangemen out in the woods... I knew I didn't want any part of that. Bowhunting, you might run into one or two guys in the woods... at least if you're far enough off the road. :lol: I don't think archers wound more animals, but yeah, it does take lots more practice to make things go just right. No practice, you probably will be eating an archery tag... unless you luck out on a poor shot. Folks that consistently take poor shots don't deserve to harvest an animal anyway and there are probably tons more poor shots taken during rifle season just because you can see the deer three ridges away than would ever be attempted during the stick flipper season. I think the rifle seasons bring the yahoos and wackjobs out of the woodwork because I'd guess the general public has some skewed opinion that anyone can pick up a rifle and kill deer. This probably accounts for the bad Bubba stereotype that goes along with firearms and hunting.... thankfully, bow hunting seems to sail under the radar with a lot of folks.... so there's not nearly the bad rep that rifles get.

 

[TEX-O-BOB]

I'd guess the general public has some skewed opinion that anyone can pick up a rifle and kill deer.

I think you'd have to be retarded, blind, lazy, extremely green, or all four not to kill a deer with a rifle. :? *\-\*

You rifle guys got it easy. :roll:

How's that fer stirin the pot! :twisted: :lol: 8)

 

[HOGAN]

The reason I can call this a fact is there are more rifle hunters. I would also say a higher % of rifle hunters are jackasses.[quote:f6fb1]

so you are calling yourself (bow hunters) jack asses how many of you are in the dedicated program? a good percentage

[/quote:f6fb1]

I am not in Dedicated hunter program, and if I were I would skip the rifle.

 

[TEX-O-BOB]

Dedicated Hunter:

"I need three seasons, three months, and three weapons to get a deer killed."

"I'm not worried about only being able to kill two deer in three years, I usually don't kill any."

"It gives me more time with my buddys away from my wife to drink beer and party."

Hows that for stereotyping! :twisted: :wink:

 

[elk22hunter]

Dedicated Hunter:

"I need three seasons, three months, and three weapons to get a deer killed."

"I'm not worried about only being able to kill two deer in three years, I usually don't kill any."

"It gives me more time with my buddys away from my wife to drink beer and party."

Hows that for stereotyping! :twisted: :wink:

I've been in the dedicated hunter program for 4 sessions now and I am pretty sure that I don't fall into that Stereotype that has been explained. Would you agree, Tex?

 

[proutdoors]

Dedicated Hunter:

"I need three seasons, three months, and three weapons to get a deer killed."

"I'm not worried about only being able to kill two deer in three years, I usually don't kill any."

"It gives me more time with my buddys away from my wife to drink beer and party."

Hows that for stereotyping! :twisted: :wink:

I've been in the dedicated hunter program for 4 sessions now and I am pretty sure that I don't fall into that Stereotype that has been explained. Would you agree, Tex?

Only because you don't drink beer. :wink:

PRO

 

[GaryFish]

Kind of an interesting twist in this discussion but what the heck. It is kind of a re-working of the fly-fisherman vs. bait fisherman. Probably the same guys actually.

Anyway, I would suggest the following breakdown of people based upon my vocational, avocational, and social interactions:

About 1/4 of the people out there I can be friends with - get along well with, and would be very happy to work/hunt/camp/hike/fish with and we'd get along great in the process. I would go out of my way to spend time with these folks. I would have no problem inviting them to my favorite hunting/fishing spot and would be glad to share the day with them.

About 1/2 the people out there I can get along with if I have to. When pressed into it, I can work/hunt/camp/hike/fish with them, I won't get in a fight with them, but given the choice, they wouldn't be someone I would call and say "Hey, let's head to Nebraska for a long week chasing pheasants." I could tolerate a road trip with these folks, but wouldn't enjoy it.

About 1/4 of the people out there I can't get along with even if I tried. These would be the A-holes that do everything I consider unethical, disrespectful, and perhaps illegal. These are people that I WON'T hunt, camp, hike or fish with, and if I am pressed into it, I would rather not go at all, than go with these guys. I would never hire them, and avoid them in any setting. These are the slob hunters/fishermen/workers/neighbors.

Now, I have noticed this breakdown applies to work, church, rifle hunters, bow hunters, bait fishermen, fly fishermen, my boy scouts in my troop, parents on the sidelines at my kid's football games, etc..... Any group with more than about 8-10 people and you will have this breakdown. Which leads me to think, which group am I in?