Archery vs Rifle Wound Loss

I am sure this has been discussed on this forum before, but I thought I would bring it up again.

The only detailed analysis of archery equipment efficacy (that I know of) was done under very controlled circumstances (how else would you get accurate data?) so it probably doesn't generalize very well, but here it is:

"...the number of deer killed and not recovered, or “loss
rate,” on NSFIH would be about 6% of the number of deer hit. This
loss rate compares favorably to the 11% of the deer population that
Eyler and Timko (2008) estimated were struck by motor vehicles
in Maryland in 2007."

from here: http://www.seafwa.org/pdfs/articles/Pedersen-31-34.pdf

I know Rinella talked to Pat Durkin(?) about this topic, but I don't remember what data (if any?) they were referencing for comparative rifle hunting stats. Anyone have that info?

I believe they referenced something to do with a culling at an airport. It's been a while though so I could be wrong.

In my opinion, most bow hunters are better hunters and therefore take more realistic shots. During rifle season (where I grew up in WI at least) everyone and their no-brother-good-in-laws from Illinois end up in the woods blazing away once a year; probably without any shooting practice whatsoever besides possibly shooting a paper plate at 50 yards. Our group has put down dozens of wounded deer during rifle season that were wounded by someone else.

That's not to say that wound loss doesn't happen with bows as there's a much steeper learning curve, but most people that I know that bow hunt make sure that they're making good shots within their effective range.

Interesting read.

I heard of a lot of people who wounded animals this archery season. I also noticed that a lot of guys were finding bulls and deer that other hunters had killed and never found.

Mallardsx2 said:

I heard of a lot of people who wounded animals this archery season. I also noticed that a lot of guys were finding bulls and deer that other hunters had killed and never found.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what got me interested in starting a thread specifically for this topic.

The article was very good. A couple things I thought were interesting for those who might not bother to read it.

Other minor factors affecting deer retrieval at NSFIH were firstly, the open understory of woodlots and the extensive network of roads facilitated effective grid searches (a structured ground search for a hit deer). Grid searches were usually conducted after a blood trail quit or was lost by trackers. Grid searches were used more often to verify that a deer was not likely to be recoverable because of possible superficial wounding than to locate a lost deer. Secondly, a group of volunteer trackers provided help to any bowhunter requesting assistance with locating a hit deer. Experienced trackers could help novice bowhunters avoid mistakes that could affect deer recovery, such as taking up a blood trail too soon after a poor hit.

Click to expand...

So it really sounds like they had a pretty ideal setup for locating deer. Areas with thick brush and rugged terrain might not end up with as high a % of recovery.

The 18% overall wounding rate we calculated was not the percentage of deer killed and not recovered. Two studies of collared deer provided mortality estimates for deer wounded but not recovered. Ditchkoff et al. (1998) reported 8 of 11 deer with archery related wounds survived wounding. Kilpatrick and Walter (1999) reported at least two deer with archery-related wounds survived. In their study, only one of three wounded deer was lost when it was not raining. If we assumed similar survival rates from these two studies, the number of deer killed and not recovered, or “loss rate,” on NSFIH would be about 6% of the number of deer hit.

Click to expand...

8 of 11 deer in the one study survived wounding! I would imagine elk could potentially be even higher. I've heard quite a few anecdotal accounts of finding some healed up broadheads or broken off arrows in harvested elk. Again, part of the high success on finding these animals probably had to do with the openness of the terrain and the ready assistance of additional trackers, but it really is amazing how tough these animals really are.

Last thought on the study is that all of the bow hunters participating had to take a proficiency test which might have eliminated a few yahoos to start with.

Now on to your question, comparing archery to rifle is going to be tricky. I think with the increased long range shooting craze the wounding loss with rifles may be increasing. No idea if it is comparable to archery or not.

My family has found elk during archery season will bullets embedded in them and elk during rifle season with broad heads. I think there are a couple of studies that look at the wounding rates under semi-controlled circumstances but I think that terrain at the time of the shot has way more to do with it than weapon. If the terrain has good shooting lanes, allows for follow up shots, and is easy to tract in your are going to see much lower wounding rates. I think part of the reason that archery hunters might have a lower recovery rate in some areas is simply because there are leaves on the trees, you might hunt an oak brush hill side in Aug with a bow and have tiny shooting lanes and a hell of a time recovering an animal if it runs more than 50 yards, in October you might be able to stand across canyon and glass the entire thing all the way to the dirt. Conversely in aug elk might be in the high country where you can watch them run for a mile or more whereas in Oct they are in the dark timber.

To me Whether a rifle, bow, cross or muzzloader have different losses is irrelevant. You just do everything you can to minimize loss.
Im primarily an archer but I have a pet peeve that I've mentioned on here before.
I always see guys archery hunting in the rain. How in the world can you ethically justify doing so?