Issues of big game wounding and unrecovered kills

By Michael T. (Finnegan) Anderson

Vice President, BOU

Let’s start off with a story.  This one’s about my general season deer hunt 39 years ago.  Yes, I remember it; it was one of those formative experiences that shaped who I became as a hunter in later years.  I was young and eager to kill my first buck.  With gunshots echoing back and forth across the mountain from every direction, I was definitely feeling “trigger happy”.  So when I saw a big buck bouncing through the sage brush 300 yards away, I didn’t hesitate to empty the magazine of my 30.06 at that deer.  Of course, I missed.

I met up with my dad a bit later and told him what had happened.  His response surprised me and I didn’t understand it.  He looked at his boots for a minute, with his hands on his hips in that familiar posture that he took whenever he was rolling a decision around in his head.  And then he said, “If you haven’t learned to shoot any better than that, then put your damn gun away.  Your hunt’s over.”

But, but, but…I still had the rest of a box of 20 rounds!  Well, Dad wouldn’t explain and so it took me the rest of that day to figure it out for myself.  The figuring started with the obvious question.  How could I have missed like that?

First it occurred to me that there was an issue of range.  A 300 yard shot with an .06 and open sights at an erratic moving target is, well, let’s just say it’s less than responsible.  In retrospect, the range was probably more like 450 yards by the time I cut loose with that last shot.   Then there was an issue of my aim.  I was aiming at the animal rather than a spot on the animal.  In fact, again in retrospect, I was probably aiming at the antlers.  But it wasn’t until much later that I figured out my biggest mistake of all and really understood what Dad was thinking.  Since that buck didn’t pile up in the dirt, I assumed that I’d missed.  But I didn’t follow up my shots, so I couldn’t really know for sure whether I missed or not.  There’s no foul in a clean miss.  But wounding an animal?  That’s definitely foul…it’s the dark side of hunting.

As embarrassing as that experience was, we all know that it isn’t unusual.  Even a casual observer can see similar behavior on just about any general season hunt.  As responsible hunters, we all need to be willing to look at the issue, understand it and do everything possible to minimize wounding and unrecovered kills.  But from recent comments by hunters and even by members of the Wildlife Board, I can’t say I’m sure that we’re doing that.

Examination

So, just how big of an issue are we talking about?  There are at least three ways to answer that question: anecdotally, scientifically and personally.

Anecdotally, those of us who talk with a lot of hunters or spend much time reading hunting forums on the Internet know that every year’s tales include at least a couple about wounded animals.  Sometimes we hear requests for assistance in the recovery of lost animals and to be sure, there are lots of hunters who take such recovery very seriously, spending days in search of lost animals and even punching their tags when recovery isn’t successful.  But if we’re going to acknowledge those hunters, we also need to acknowledge those who accept wounded and unrecovered animals with a cavalier attitude as “just part of the hunt”, including those who report repeated incidents, including repeated incidents in a single season.  In addition to these reports, the matter of wounded animals and unrecovered kills absolutely sings out loud on those many occasions on the hunt when gunshots ring out with the rhythm of a popcorn popper.

Scientifically, many statistical studies have been conducted over the years to determine wounding rates.  The bulk of the research has focused on whitetail deer hunts using data gathered by hunter surveys.  But as a Utah hunter writing predominantly for Utah hunters, I want to first examine the results of hunter surveys conducted by the UDWR from the years 2006-2008.  This collection of data is broken down by permit types, each permit type corresponding to a separate season. (Appendix I)

What’s interesting in the UDWR data is the discrepancy between the rates for general season bowhunters and limited entry bowhunters.  While the data for general season bowhunters remained constant at between 3.39% and 3.83% over the 3 year period, the data for limited entry bowhunters varied from 13.36% to 19.20%.  Consistently over the 3 year period, the data shows a rate for limited entry hunts that is significantly higher than that of the general season hunts, regardless of weapon type.  The highest reported rate was 19.20% for limited entry bowhunters in 2007; the lowest reported rate was 0.63% for dedicated hunter any weapon hunts in 2008.

In the UDWR data for elk hunters, (Appendix II), the rates are comparable and consistent in variation between general season and limited entry hunts.  The data again indicates that the highest wounding rate was for bowhunters with the highest rate of all permit types being for limited entry bowhunters.  This may seem counter-intuitive, but abundant research shows an increase in wounding rates that correlates to the difficulty of the hunt.  The difficulty of a limited entry hunt is the pressure of a rare opportunity to fill what is perceived to be a trophy permit. 

Panning out from the UDWR data to examine the results of other studies, another important observation of the Utah data can be made.  Given that the majority of historical studies elsewhere have indicated wounding rates of 50%, or a ratio of one wounded animal for every animal killed and recovered, Utah’s data indicates a wounding rate significantly less than what would be expected.  In fact, some studies have indicated wounding rates as high as 1.4 deer wounded for every deer killed, or a 68% wounding rate. (Aho)

Similar research indicating outrageous wounding rates fueled the efforts of anti-hunting organizations and especially anti-bowhunters until a controversial landmark study was conducted at Camp Ripley (Appendix III).  What set this study apart was its unusual attempt at thoroughness in determining the accuracy of the data.  The Krueger study estimated the wounding rate at 13.2% - a number which became generally accepted by the Department of Natural Resources and many state agencies.

Meanwhile, in a much longer study conducted at the Naval Support Facility at Indian Head, Maryland, bowhunters were required to pass the International Bowhunter Education Program (now mandatory for bowhunters in many states) and an annual pre-season shoot­ing proficiency test.  That study indicated an 18% wounding rate.

In the midst of all these wildly divergent numbers, researchers from Oklahoma State University attempted to examine wounding itself more closely.  Using 80 radio-collared bucks, they gathered data that indicated a 50% wounding rate like numerous studies before.  But since they were able to track each individual buck after the shot, they were able to demonstrate that only 14% of the wounded deer in their study eventually died as a result of their wounds. (Ditchkoff)

As any hunter examines these statistics, he or she inevitably does so through the filters of personal experiences.  Among hunters who have only experienced rare personal incidents of unrecovered animals, challenges to the data question both the reliability and the validity of the research.  But if those numbers are put into the context of known variables, we get a better understanding.

Of those variables, very little historical research has attempted to consider the most influential variable of all and none has adequately incorporated it.  Obviously, that variable is the hunter.  Since a weapon doesn’t decide to fire itself, it seems almost ludicrous to separate data by weapon types as though they are the cause of unrecovered kills.  In all fairness, research can’t examine that variable because a hunter’s ethics, wisdom, experience and self-restraint are neither observable nor quantifiable.  The point is simply that research alone cannot provide an adequate understanding.

Understanding

The overwhelming majority of historical research has involved wounding rates for bowhunting based upon hunter surveys.  This methodology has been deliberate and for the purpose of accuracy.  It’s an inherent characteristic of bowhunting that archers are aware of each and every shot and because of the relatively short distances between the hunter and the animal at the time of the shot, bowhunters are aware of exactly how many animals they wound.  The same doesn’t necessarily hold true for hunters using rifles.

Even if a bowhunter’s vision of the shot is obscured, shots are short range and a good hunting arrow can often cost $15.00, so a bowhunter always follows up his shots.  When he finds the arrow, (and a growing number of bowhunters use electronic nocks to aid in that purpose), it clearly reveals whether the shot was a clean miss.  In fact, the blood, tissue and other evidence found on the arrow and broad head will tell the experienced bowhunter not only if the animal was hit, but where it was hit.  Since a hunter using a rifle never expects to recover a bullet and since he is typically shooting at a much longer distance, he is far less likely to follow up every shot or be as aware of a hit if the animal doesn’t fall or otherwise show an indication.  Obviously, a hunter using a rifle is less likely to be aware of a wounded animal.

We should also understand and fully appreciate the context of hunter expectations when using these very different weapons.  While a typical hunting rifle holds 4 rounds, many if not most hunters carry additional bullets and can expect the possibility for multiple shots at any given animal.  A typical bowhunter only carries the arrows in his quiver, usually either 4 or 6 arrows, and never expects even a second shot.  It’s only reasonable to assume that on average, (with acknowledgement of many exceptions), a hunter has more motivation for careful shot selection when using a bow than he does when using a rifle.

None of this is to suggest that a hunter is more proficient with either a bow or a rifle, but to illustrate the obvious differences between the weapon types.  It’s a case of apples and oranges and nothing in any of the research on the subject of wounding and unrecovered kills supports a comparison.  The hunter who is most likely to wound animals with a bow is the same hunter who is most likely to wound animals with a rifle.  Conversely, the hunter who has the self discipline to make a clean, humane kill with a rifle will exercise that same discipline with a bow.

Remediation

While estimates of wounding rates and animal recovery from wounds can certainly be debated, the fact that animals are shot, unrecovered and die during every hunting season is undeniable.  Hopefully, there’s no debate that reducing wounding rates is good for wildlife and good for the hunting tradition.  But folklore remedies nothing.  Believing that porcupines throw their quills or that Bigfoot roams the high Uintas doesn’t make it true any more than believing that primitive weapons wound more animals than modern rifles shooting high-tech ammunitions.

If we truly care about the issue, then keeping wounding rates and unrecovered kills at a minimum requires a focus on the hunter with a reaffirmation of traditional values.  The simple and basic bullet points are: 

• Weapon proficiency/efficiency
• Education/mentorship
• Personal responsibility

Appendix I:

Appendix II:

Appendix III

Camp Ripley Data (Krueger 1995)

Bibliography & References:

Oklahoma State University:

https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/ditchkoff/PDF%20publications/1998%20-%20SEAFWA.pdf 

Our data suggest that wounding rates of white-tailed deer approaching 50% are possible when using archery equipment, but the majority (73%) of those deer survive.  These estimates corroborate other comprehensive studies that have reported wounding loss estimates below 20% (Lohfield 1980, Herron 1984, Krueger 1995).  As a result, inflated estimates based upon conjecture (Dechert 1967, Benke 1989) rather than science should be accepted as opinion rather than fact.

Indian Head:

http://www.marylandqdma.com/files/Download/Pedersen-31-34.pdf

Abstract: We determined wounding rates of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) by bowhunters using modern (compound bow and crossbow) archery equipment. Our study relied on daily reports submitted by bowhunters who participated in managed hunts at the Naval Support Facility Indian Head at Indian Head, Maryland. Bowhunters were required to pass the International Bowhunter Education Program and an annual pre-season shoot­ing proficiency test. During the 1989–2006 hunting seasons, 104 bowhunters failed to recover 162 of 908 deer hit by arrows or crossbow bolts, corre­sponding to an 18% wounding rate. There was no difference in deer recovery metrics between compound bow and crossbow users (χ21 = 0.01; P = 0.92). Bowhunters who harvested the most deer (>20 deer per hunter) had a lower pooled wounding rate than bowhunters who killed fewer deer (χ21 = 22.2; P < 0.005). Based on our estimates, qualified bowhunters were able to recover 1 deer for every 1.4 shots using modern archery equipment.

http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/Arrow%20Lethality%201.htm