Yeti

Montana FWP Seeking Applicants For Elk Advisory Group

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,496
Location
Montana
For the second time. Take a look. The info is out there and I will not do thenelg work for you.
And I get out plenty.

I have time and played around with google. Your statement is accurate though the best I found, it is based on "traditional archery" - recurve and longbow. The study is from the 90s though it is based on traditional archery, so date wise, little relevance.

"Abstract: We captured and affixed radio collars to 80 male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during 1995-1997 to ascertain the wounding rate and proportion of deer that die from hunter-inflicted wounds. Our study population was hunted only with traditional archery equipment (recurve and longbows). Of the 22 deer shot by archers, 11 were recovered by the hunter, resulting in a 50% wounding rate (deer shot but not recovered). Only 3 (14%) of the 22 deer shot by hunters died and were not recovered. Based upon demographic and harvest statistics, these estimates indicate that approximately 4% of adult males in the population die from archery related wounds annually and are never recovered."

I would believe this recovery ratio is worse off than rifle though that's my assumption.

"Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment Stephen S. Ditchkoff, Department of Zoology and Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 Edgar R.Welch, Jr., Department of Zoology and Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 Robert L. Lochmiller, Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 Ronald E. Masters, Department of Forestry, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 William R. Starry, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, OK 74501 William C. Dinkines, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, 1801 N. Lincoln, Oklahoma City, OK 7310"
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
809
I will not do the leg work for you. The info is out there.
Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true. I haven’t found any relevant studies. Key word relevant. If you know of some please share them with us otherwise I’m going to stick to my assumption you are a blowhard know nothing and the only thing you shoot is your mouth off.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,496
Location
Montana
There's a reference to a MT FWP study that shared the following:

"As ethical and conservation driven hunters, minimizing wounding loss is an obsession. Our mission is to enjoy the sport and honor the critters we hunt by supporting quality management and ethical pursuit. Wounding loss flies in the face of quality management. However, identifying the influence of wounding loss on a big game population is tough.
Data collected during research designed to record wounding loss for deer and elk ranges from 15 to 30%. That means for every 100 deer or elk killed by hunters, 15-30 of those animals die, unrecovered due to wounding loss.
Montana biologists compiled hunter harvest information from 262 radio-collared cow elk and 40 radio-collared bull elk. They identified seven cows and eight bulls as hunter-caused wounding losses. However, identifying the source of mortalities on radio-collared elk was not the primary goal of these telemetry projects; hence these data are anecdotal at best."

This references both rifle and archery and doesn't differentiate. @rogerthat , I think you've expressed your disapproval of Bwalker a few times over. If he opts to not dig through the study he is sharing, so be it. If you don't want to waste your time searching yourself, no worries. Cheers.

I think it would be interesting to see an actual study, though I've yet to find one fitting anything other than traditional archery... even at best, seems the mortality rate was pretty low for those unrecovered. I'm not making issue with any person here, merely sharing what my "free" time has allowed for info on this topic.

I've yet to find a study that says archery or rifle causes more unrecovered kills. Interesting topic. If someone has - would be worth the read.

Edit added (Good read that covers the outlying query)
 
Last edited:

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
809
There's a reference to a MT FWP study that shared the following:

"As ethical and conservation driven hunters, minimizing wounding loss is an obsession. Our mission is to enjoy the sport and honor the critters we hunt by supporting quality management and ethical pursuit. Wounding loss flies in the face of quality management. However, identifying the influence of wounding loss on a big game population is tough.
Data collected during research designed to record wounding loss for deer and elk ranges from 15 to 30%. That means for every 100 deer or elk killed by hunters, 15-30 of those animals die, unrecovered due to wounding loss.
Montana biologists compiled hunter harvest information from 262 radio-collared cow elk and 40 radio-collared bull elk. They identified seven cows and eight bulls as hunter-caused wounding losses. However, identifying the source of mortalities on radio-collared elk was not the primary goal of these telemetry projects; hence these data are anecdotal at best."

This references both rifle and archery and doesn't differentiate. @rogerthat , I think you've expressed your disapproval of Bwalker a few times over. If he opts to not dig through the study he is sharing, so be it. If you don't want to waste your time searching yourself, no worries. Cheers.

I think it would be interesting to see an actual study, though I've yet to find one fitting anything other than traditional archery... even at best, seems the mortality rate was pretty low for those unrecovered. I'm not making issue with any person here, merely sharing what my "free" time has allowed for info on this topic.

I've yet to find a study that says archery or rifle causes more unrecovered kills. Interesting topic. If someone has - would be worth the read.
Maybe I missed it? What study did Bwalker share? I have yet to see a relevant peer reviewed study comparing rifle and bow wounding. Everything has been anecdotal including your citations. I have also done a fair amount of “free” time looking so not sure where your getting I haven’t done any looking. I can’t find anything so I have nothing to post. I am open to having my mind changed but it won’t be by anecdotes and guess and by golly comments.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,496
Location
Montana
Maybe I missed it? What study did Bwalker share?
I think you misunderstood my post or maybe I didn't. Your point was made clear - you disagree with one person on an internet hunt forum. Cheers. Life continues.
duty_calls.png
 

Wind Gypsy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
777
There's a reference to a MT FWP study that shared the following:

"As ethical and conservation driven hunters, minimizing wounding loss is an obsession. Our mission is to enjoy the sport and honor the critters we hunt by supporting quality management and ethical pursuit. Wounding loss flies in the face of quality management. However, identifying the influence of wounding loss on a big game population is tough.
Data collected during research designed to record wounding loss for deer and elk ranges from 15 to 30%. That means for every 100 deer or elk killed by hunters, 15-30 of those animals die, unrecovered due to wounding loss.
Montana biologists compiled hunter harvest information from 262 radio-collared cow elk and 40 radio-collared bull elk. They identified seven cows and eight bulls as hunter-caused wounding losses. However, identifying the source of mortalities on radio-collared elk was not the primary goal of these telemetry projects; hence these data are anecdotal at best."

This references both rifle and archery and doesn't differentiate. @rogerthat , I think you've expressed your disapproval of Bwalker a few times over. If he opts to not dig through the study he is sharing, so be it. If you don't want to waste your time searching yourself, no worries. Cheers.

I think it would be interesting to see an actual study, though I've yet to find one fitting anything other than traditional archery... even at best, seems the mortality rate was pretty low for those unrecovered. I'm not making issue with any person here, merely sharing what my "free" time has allowed for info on this topic.

I've yet to find a study that says archery or rifle causes more unrecovered kills. Interesting topic. If someone has - would be worth the read.

Edit added (Good read that covers the outlying query)

I see that you edited it but yeah, there are a number of them that I've seen referenced over time that are archery only and not just traditional archery. Seems they are commonly military base oriented like the camp ripley study in MN.
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
809
I think you misunderstood my post or maybe I didn't. Your point was made clear - you disagree with one person on an internet hunt forum. Cheers. Life continues.
duty_calls.png
Huh? Yeah your 100% right. I don’t have a clue what your talking about.

Bwalker said studies support his opinion. That’s a statement of fact. I would like to see that study. I suspect no studies exist and he is lying. But I guess this is social media on the internet where most people in America get their news, information, and facts nowadays. Just keep saying it and it’s true. Prolly get you elected president.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,890
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
Montana holds about half the number of elk as Colorado and is seemingly striving to drive the numbers even further down. I would rather prioritize redistribution of elk and deer to increase numbers on accessible lands open to hunting and increase the numbers so hunters would be less likely to take questionable shots, have more chances at easier shots ... thus avoiding or at least reducing wounded, escaping animals to suffer and die.

The debate about what weapon produces the most wounded elk or deer is pretty silly since there is little data and what data there is most likely very questionable. Seldom will the hunter fess up to a bad wounding shot ... that's really a miss!
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,496
Location
Montana
The debate about what weapon produces the most wounded elk or deer is pretty silly since there is little data and what data there is most likely very questionable.
I believe Oklahoma had a reasonable wildlife "study".
As for it's relevance, meh not much to it nor really holds potential to sway a stop for one devise... 🤣

Guess to each his / her own on the mortality rate for wildlife unrecovered.

As for this thread, meh, the intent was concluded a bit ago. This is more cannon fodder for chit chat... As you know, a common theme w/in HT.
 
Leupold Banner

Forum statistics

Threads
101,760
Messages
1,628,780
Members
31,822
Latest member
Munchiezzz
Top