Ethical Kill Ratio

[Swede]

Have you ever missed when shooting at game? Have you ever wounded, or killed an animal that you could not recover? Maybe you kept the ivories and antlers, but nothing else was salvageable. If you ever shot and missed, then there was a strong potential for wounding. I really don\'t want anyone to supply us with personal testimony in this area. What I am really wondering is; what percent of a hunter\'s shots should result in a recoverable kill in order for the hunter to be considered ethical?
Personally I think it he or she should experience about 80% over a long period of hunts. What I am saying here is; if you had a bad experience on the first shot you ever made, learn from it an improve, but don\'t throw in the towel. If you are something like 4 for 10, then you should reexamine your tendency to take poor shots.

 

[Ol' Arky]

I don\'t know about the 80% thing... :think: :think:

I know I\'ve hunted deer since I was a kid and have lost 2 that were shot and hit and not recovered... One was with my bow a long long time ago and one with my rifle a few seasons back... Both were good shots and both were hit good but we never could find either after following blood for several hours and finally losing the blood...

I\'ve killed a lot of white tail but remember both of them far more that the others...

I\'ve only shot one elk and she wasn\'t hard to find... Shot with my muzzleloader at about 25 yards and she dropped in her tracks... The 6x6 and other cow that was with her couldn\'t figure out what happen for a long time until I stepped out from behind a tree...

I guess 80% is ok but I loce 100% better...

 

[cnelk]

Swede
Your math is fuzzy.

With the success rate on archey elk hovering around 10%,
That would mean that there is a lot of missing shots going on.

I think we as hunters are much more responsible than missing 90% of the time.

 

[Swede]

If you ever missed (arrow or bullet) a shot at an animal, and did not get it with a follow-up fatal shot that ended in a good recovery, you are not 100%. If you make 9 shots and only miss once, you are 90% only. So, you hit a limb on that 3rd shot that deflected your arrow, it is still 90%. The deer jumped the string on shot 7. Oops you are at 80%. You misjudged the distance or had an equipment problem on shot 10. Oh boy, you are a 70% shooter. To be honest, (gun and bow) I likely used the 80% mark because feel I am close. I know I don\'t make the 90% level.

Based on the midnight treks I have been on, the time I watched a fellow shoot a cow that escaped, but should not have, the stories told, the bones, antlers and dead animals I have seen in the forest, the display of broad-heads I see at the butcher shop, etc., etc. My gut says 80% is far above what many hunters are achieving. I am not suggesting, after one mistake, anyone throw in the towel, but a high level of ethics is the only appropriate standard. Anyone can make a mistake or have something go wrong, but we should never have the attitude one hunter expressed to me a few years ago. I quote, \"You will not get anything if you don\'t shoot.\" He said that while bragging on a nice buck he killed with his bow. The shot was 80+ yards, and he cut the animal\'s throat with the broad-head.

Brad, I am not talking about overall success in general, but percent of shots that ended in a successful recovery.

 

[WW]

I wonder if the Site Administrators might consider pulling this thread. (No offence Swede) but I see the potential that it could develop into something that the antis could use against hunters. Misses and wounded animals are something that would be better off discussed in private.

 

[Ol' Arky]

Swede
Your math is fuzzy.

With the success rate on archey elk hovering around 10%,
That would mean that there is a lot of missing shots going on.

I think we as hunters are much more responsible than missing 90% of the time.

You really don\'t think 100% of elk archery hunters shoot at elk every year or am I not understanding what you just said.

 

[Swede]

Bill, I don\'t think the topic is controversial at all. I have read published studies on the subject, but they were more limited to wounding vs. kill in a limited controlled area. Do you really think there is any intelligent adult on the planet so na?ve as to believe all hunters are perfect?

 

[WW]

What ever turns you on Bud! Personally, I will have no part in subjects such as this. Others can do as they please.

 

[Bowfreak]

Personally, I don\'t think wounding or losing animals should be taboo to talk about. It happens to everyone and it is a harsh reality to the game we play. I always hear about how wounding can be used as ammo for antis but truth be told all humans have blood on their hands from survival....even if you are a vegan. Some of us literally have blood on our hands while others just choose to let others kill for their food.

To answer the question....I am not sure exactly how many deer I have killed with a bow (at least 50) but I do know how many deer I have wounded that I am willing to bet died. I wish I could say zero but it is 4. I also have shot 2 deer that I know were just flesh wounds (clipped the brisket and the top of the back). I have also made about an equal amount of poor shots that I actually recovered the deer. It is sometimes a split second that separates a great shot from a poor shot.

 

[Swede]

I just spent the last half hour scanning published studies on deer wounding rates. Some studies are questionable. Some are straight up. One is from some wolf lover group, and another is fredbear-online.com. It is not especially notable that the different groups came to different conclusions. If we don\'t count clean misses then my 80% is in the ball park. Adding complete misses, it appears in reality I am quite high. I was not wanting to get into any debate here, but you can see what I looked at when I went through Yahoo and typed in \"studies on deer wounding rates and ratios\".
I remember a study published in Bowhunter Magazine, plus Dwight Schuh, and Dr. Dave Samuals are quoted on-line from research or analysis they published. If Bowhunter can cover the subject, we should be able to discuss it. Just my thought.

 

[mainebrdr]

Swede, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on ones viewpoint, one thing that cannot be legislated in humans is the area of ethics. Of course this is as true in hunting as in any other arena. Because of this fact I think a thread like this can be extremely beneficial if used properly! I believe that most hunters today strive to increase their skill and knowledge in an effort to be as ethical a hunter as they can possibly be.

I have known and hunted with some that were not even aware of how poor a marksman they actually were. One told me a few years back that he had hit 4 deer before he killed one and had what he thought was a perfectly legitimate excuse for each unsuccessful attempt. When I first started deer hunting with a bow I didn\'t do very well for the first few years. I decided to get better or quit! In the last 30 years I have hit one deer that I did not recover. I haven\'t taken a huge amount but enough that I feel good about my success ratio. I might say also that in that time I have missed none. I am not saying at all that I am an excellent shot but I do my best to take only shots that will be ethically successful.

Can we put a percentage number down that should be attained by a hunter to be considered ethical? No. Should we encourage each other to strive for a high standard? Of course!

Edit: Turkeys? A work in progress!

 

[Pop-r]

To run from the facts & try to hide them is just the reason we have issues from anti\'s. It happens. If you do your part to try to alleviate it in the future then that is what responsibility is about. If anybody who bow hunts for very long hasn\'t missed or wounded an animal then they\'re a liar. Fred Bear missed & wounded animals. I think alot of the negativity we have as hunters, gun owners or whatever \"fits our fancy\" is brought on by us trying to be \"correct or proper\". Hunting, shooting or whatever & being a \"professional\" at anything requires practice. Doctors \"practice\" medicine. It\'s very similar. By the time we die we are becoming professional.

 

[Deertick]

It\'s really tough for me to gauge other hunters. I don\'t really know. I hear horror stories, but I don\'t think I have any reasonable way to know this is representative.

I\'m pretty happy with my current numbers. I have recovered every animal I\'ve injureed for quite a few years now. One was months later, but I ended up killing her eventually. My earlier days, particularly with muzzleloaders were not near as good, which is one reason I haven\'t picked one up for years. Archery is much cleaner at least in my case

 

[StartMyHunt]

Swede,

Interesting topic. I can honestly say that I have never not recovered an elk that I have shot. One reason is that I only have one bullet at the time in my gun. Doing so makes you think about the shot. I have passed on many shots that others may have tried, but I am not willing to risk injuring an animal. Not bragging, but every shot that I have taken has been through the heart. Patience and waiting have been have taught me much.

Mike