He only tracked four things.
Bow Weight
Arrow Weight
Broadhead type (either fixed or mechanical)
Was the animal recovered or hit and not recovered (did not track species)
What he learned from what he garnered from conversations of hunters who shared their stories (again not asked to speak or told that what they were saying was being logged) was that
light arrows had a lower lost animal rate
lighter draw weight bows had a lower lost animal rate
mechanical heads had a lower lost animal rate (by nearly 2x)
Thoughts on why?
His thinking was not that any of the options were inherently better or worse, but that often people are either over-bowed weight-wise, shooting too heavy an arrow to allow for accurate shots at unknown ranges, and mechanical heads are more accurate than untuned or poorly tunes fixed head set ups that a lot of people use.
Surprisingly, at least on the surface, but what it really says is that the equipment can't be evaluated in a vacuum it has to be paired with the user and some equipment or variations, seems to be, on average used by people who are more proficient or are inclined to take better advantage of it than others. Example, the macho guy pulling 80 pounds and flinging 525 grain fixed bladed arrows who practices little since he has it all figured out may be less proficient when it comes to what happens when he hunts than the woman who is shooting a light set up with a mechanical head that flies well and she practices a lot because she knows she has little room for error.
So “just maybe” it’s a reflection of who is most eager to talk about successes??
You know, like people who are new to the sport and don’t have the strength to draw a heavier bow and have bought into the light, fast arrow/long shot hype and the mechanical hype and/or are using mechanicals because they don’t know how to tune adequately and they’re looking for a chance to brag up the long shot that they pulled off. And not a lot of people are going to walk into an archery pro shop and start gushing about the animals that they winged and lost. But maybe people who shoot higher poundage and heavier arrows will bring up an unexpected result because they’re bewildered by it??
Way too many unknowns as to who is reporting in on their outcomes….
Under 40 40-60 60-70 70-80 80+
He has the wound unrecovered rate for each range Wound rates as a percentage of hit animals went up as draw weight went up
It makes sense that an arrow with flatter trajectory and a more controllable bow is more accurate- thus better shot locations.
The BH thing by 2x is tough....my guess is it has something to do with the longer shots guys take in AZ and Arrow tuning. I know guys that are killing deer at over 100y there....70 is a chip shot for many guys in AZ.
The heavier draw weight thing lends itself to many people being overbowed....which seems plausible.
The mechanical thing is easy. They are more efficient killers and best option when you encounter soft tissue. A marginal hit with a mechanical, so long as it is in the body cavity, is much more deadly than a fixed. I am not at all surprised about this result.
lighter draw weight bows had a lower lost animal rate
mechanical heads had a lower lost animal rate (by nearly 2x)
Thoughts on why?"
i suspect there might be something to the personality types that choose certain equipment (heavier vs lighter)...know their limitations with chosen equipment...willingness to precisely tune said equipment...and not falling into the biggest/baddest = better mentality
in a word..."ego."
I guess that depends on your understanding of the word “plausible”…. How the HELL is anybody “overbowed” with a 65% or higher let-off compound??
This reminds me of the guy with the blood-tracking dog business who had a big paper deer Target with color-coded pushpins indicating the reported shot placement and recovery status of all the calls he went out on, and the people who concluded from his “data” that shots along the wall of the diaphragm were more recoverable than shots tight to or into the meaty portion of the shoulder…. Totally ignoring the obvious fact that he was only collecting information on the subset of deer for which the hunters had called in help from a tracking service….
I can see how this could reflect a thin slice of reality for something like Coues deer, maybe — I have never hunted them, but if they are as small and as wired-up as I have heard, a light, fast arrow with a big mechanical could be an asset with relatively few liabilities. Not so much for Elk.
I am shocked that you have asked a question? I realize it is rhetorical but I was unaware that there was anything that you didn't have AN answer for. I'll keep following because I am pretty sure you won't be able to help yourself and eventually will enlighten us.
^Assuming that’s a rhetorical question…
I would also bet that majority of bowhunters shoot low poundage bows….but they don’t realize it’s low poundage. What’s “low poundage” anyways?
I would also surmise the majority of bowhunters use mechanicals. Because they don’t know how to tune a bow themselves. And they just screw on a mechanical and it happens to hit in a group, so they move their sight.
I would be curious what the numbers of heavy arrow, heavy draw weight, fixed BH group were compared to the other group. I’m betting the sample size is small.
But I can see how this owner came up with their results. 100%
Questions about the validity of the assessments used and reliability of the findings are endless. This was not real research, it was not reviewed, there were no statistics of any kind run (l assume, and even if there were i'm sure they weren't appropriate).
Believe whatever you want from whatever sources you so choose. Bou didn't call this research, but it is presented as if it were. It's not and shouldn't be talked about as if it were. To me this is of little more value than hearing some random dude in the locker room spout off about his opinion on the topic.
“I would also bet that majority of bowhunters shoot low poundage bows….but they don’t realize it’s low poundage. What’s ‘low poundage’ anyways?”
One man’s opinion (yes, I realize it was a rhetorical question ;) - never stopped me before….).
There is no such thing as a “low poundage” compound. Compared to about any stickbow on the market, they’re all Howitzers. Makes me wonder how fast an NASP bow #35@28” would throw a 500 grain arrow. Probably fast enough to make most Manly Man stick-shooters weep….
Carry on…
—Jim
Haha, Jim- that's so true! I know researchers who do that with their own research! People struggle with discordant info from their own set beliefs.
Shane
The only thing I will say to the post above is wrong and is not impacted by what was sold or used since the results are posted as percentages and not absolute numbers.
there could have been 5 wounds out of 10 with one variable (say mechanicals) and 500 out of 1000 on fixed heads and the wound percentage, which was all that was being looked for, would be the same regardless of how many more people bought fix vs. mechanical.
the above statement would be accurate if absolute numbers were being reported. That's the beauty of percentages it normalizes everything to how many out of each 100 regardless of how many 100's there may be.
lighter arrows create fewer marginal hits due to tragectory
Lighter draw weight requires the hunter to get closer and not only high percentage shot angles
Expandables fly like field points and create massive would channels
I would love to hear what the average shot distance was, in Arizona I’d wager it’s around 40 to 50 on mule deer
So my study would indicate everyone needs to switch over to a recurve......
Grin
Shane
And the Achilles Heel of just reporting percentages is that you have no idea what the sample size was, and Sample Size is HUGE. Especially when the size of the sample is Not….
I f you’re not reporting your N, you have nothing to report…
