J.Wesbrock wrote: [quote=Sapcut]”There was a point in time when bows in the forty-to-fifty-pound range were standard fare for bowhunters pursuing big game”
That doesn’t mean it was the best thing to do. That is just what was available.
If it works, it works. And no, those bows weren’t “just what was available.” Bowyers made bows in most any poundage requested. There are certainly enough old Bear, Howatt, and Pearson 80# recurves out there to demonstrate the point. Why did they use bows in the forty-pound range?
Because they worked.
Ironically enough, when I interviewed Tim and Gabby Cosgrove of Kustom King Archery a couple years ago for TBM, the topic of draw weight came up. They told me that in the 80s they rarely ever sold a bow under fifty pounds. These days they don’t even stock them over sixty pounds. Perhaps bowhunters are starting to relearn what does and does not really work? It’s somewhat of a shame that we have to keep re-inventing the wheel, so to speak.
That is probably one reason that bowhunters got tagged as wounding too many deer.
You may want to read the writings of Glenn St. Charles or Chet Stevenson for insight as to why bowhunters were “tagged as wounding too many deer” back then. Suffice it to say, the problem was politics, and not draw weight.
What Kingwouldbe is saying is not up for debate. It is facts.
It is just a matter of whether a hunter has the desire to use the best setup available or the next best.
In that regard, we should all leave our bows at home and hunt with the previously mentioned .500 Nitros. Yet, we choose archery equipment. Why?
Because it works.
Rocket science it isn’t.
Indeed.
Hi J,
I am not hear to argue with anyone, and I like how we have respect for differing opinions.
Let’s make sure we treat each other with respect as we discuss this topic.
J. you keep saying ” because it works ” I beg to differ with you my friend, the FACTS say it don’t/didn’t work as ALL STUDYS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED indicate vary bad wound/kill losses.
Can you kill with light or poorly put together tackle? YES you can.
The study’s that have been done indicate we have a lot of room for improvement.
Bowhunting Studies
1. In an unpublished report for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Landwehr, T. J. (1983), surveyed 3,909 Minnesota bowhunters in 1982. The data from this study indicates a wounding rate of 53% in Minnesota. The study goes on to find that at a state-wide level nearly 6,500 Minnesota deer were shot by arrows and never retrieved in 1982.
2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from St. Croix, Jan. 15, 1947, 191 bowhunters killed 24 deer and left 6 carcasses. Wounding rate was 50% (61 shots per kill).
3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from St. Croix, Red lake, Jan, 15, 1948
St. Crox- 293 Bowhunters killed only 3 deer, Red lake- 83 Bowhunters killed one deer and wounded another.
4. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, Oct. 15, 1954, archers killed 43 deer. A large number of deer were reported as wounded by archers.
5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, Jan. 15, 1957, archers killed 96 deer. 30 deer were reported wounded.
6. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, July 15, 1959, 11,086 archers killed 403 deer, 59.1% wounding rate. In questionnaires bowhunters reported firing 2,550 shots to kill 126 deer (40.9%) and wound 182 (59.1%). An average of 20.2 arrows was fired per kill.
7. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Summaries of Wildlife Research Findings 1991, edited by Blair Joselyn, Camp Ripley Preliminary Results. 1st Hunt 1,376 hunters: Hunters killed 119 deer. Hunters reported wounding and not retrieving 40 deer. 2nd Hunt deer. 12 reports of wounded deer.
8. A major study in Texas by Boydston, G.A. and Gore, H.G., (1987) collected data from 3,568 hunters over a thirteen year time period. The authors found a wounding rate of over 50% and found that more than 21 shots were needed per kill. The authors state that these numbers are conservative due to the fact that they are based on bowhunter reported surveys. This study concluded that shot placement is for all practical purposes random, that wounds clot quickly leaving poor blood trails, that poorly hit deer, more often than not, are lost, and that almost all abdominally shot deer die a slow death due to peritonitis.
9. A study by Aho, R.W. (1984) for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources indicates that bowhunting results in a 58% wounding rate.
10. Causey, M.K., Kennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman, J.I., ( 1978 ) indicated that bowhunting in both Alabama and South Carolina results in a 50% wounding rate.
11. In a survey of Georgia bowhunters, Croft, R.L. (1963), found wounding rates over 78%.
12. A study by Downing, R.L., (1972) found crippling rates of 50%. Crippling rate refers to unretrieved mortally wounded deer in Georgia.
13. Garland, L.E., (1972) indicates that bowhunting in Vermont has resulted in a wounding rate of 63%.
