# What weapon is the most effective?



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

What weapon is the most effective and what weapon gets the most shots.

Has there ever been any study done on what percentage of "hit" animals are retrieved by the different weapons? We often talk about success ratios but has anyone every tried to figure out what the combined ratio would be for not only "hit and retrieved" but also "hit and never found"?

I'm not picking a fight with anyone just curious.

All weapon types have their slobs that take dumb shots and shoot beyond their ability.

a rifle with a scope I would have to assume is the most forgiving as far as a fairly novice hunter can put it to his shoulder and connect under 100 yrds without much practice.

A muzzle loader less forgiving and archery even less.

I also assume archers and muzzle loaders, for the most part, practice more with their weapons than the average rifle hunter.

I am still always amazed at how many stories I hear every year of good archers who make a good shot, follow lots of blood but fail to retrieve their animal. I know these stories are in all weapon types but I honestly hear of this more with archers than any other weapon type each year.

These seem like valid questions that someone should gather factual figures on being that we justify how we manage our game and tag allotments based on *success *ratios but not always "*average number of animals killed per hunter*" ratios.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

There was a study done a few years back on this very subject that was published in Outdoor Life. (for whatever that's worth)

They compared kill, hit, miss, loss, statistics for the rifle, bow & arrow, and muzzle loader.

The rifle hunters hit, killed, and also lost WAY more than the other weapons combined. But, they outnumber the other weapons 3 to 1.

While bow hunters hit and lost more animals per capita, the numbers were so low compared to rifle hunting it was pathetic.

I wish I had the whole article to read again so I could post up more accurate numbers.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> The rifle hunters hit, killed, and also lost WAY more than the other weapons combined. But, they outnumber the other weapons 3 to 1.
> 
> While bow hunters hit and lost more animals per capita,


So Tex, are you saying that *percentage wise *archery and muzzleloader hunters hit/lost/killed more animals than rifle hunters?


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

Here we go................ o-|| *OOO* o-||


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > The rifle hunters hit, killed, and also lost WAY more than the other weapons combined. But, they outnumber the other weapons 3 to 1.
> >
> > While bow hunters hit and lost more animals per capita,
> 
> ...


I would assume percentage wise it is the case. If you have 5000 archers with a wound rate of 5%, there are 250 animals wounded. Now if there are 50000 rifle hunters with a wound rate of 2%, there are 1000 animals wounded. These numbers are made up, but I believe this is the point he was making. All weapons have the issue of wounding animals, all weapons have people that are unethical and it is not cool to have any animals wounded.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

How 'bout shotguns? They account for hundreds of thousands of deer every year. At less than 75 yards they are very formidable. Here's a slug from a whitetail shoulder:









Shotgun slug accuracy is poor compared to rifles and many critters are wounded.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Shot guns, pistols, and crossbows were not part of the study because so few hunters use them compared to the other three the data would be irrelevant.



> So Tex, are you saying that percentage wise archery and muzzle loader hunters hit/lost/killed more animals than rifle hunters?


Hit and lost, not killed. More animals went missing with archery equipment than with any other weapon "percentage wise". BUT, they also figured that more animals that were hit and not recovered with archery equipment survived than the ones hit and not recovered with rifles and muzzle loaders. Due mostly to the fact that arrows kill by hemorrhage alone, whereas rifles and muzzle loaders kill with shock AND hemorrhage. An animal hit with an arrow is far more likely to survive than one hit by a bullet. Bullets cause Hydrostatic shock that damages far more tissue than that of an arrow. Plus, bullets shatter and break bones whereas arrows seldom do.

It is MY opinion, although I have no scientific data to back it up, that bullets KILL far more animals that are not recovered than arrows do. Percentage wise, and sheer numbers wise.

Just my Opinion! not fact! :wink:


----------



## north slope (Sep 8, 2007)

Back to your question... The most effective weapon is the weapon that YOU are the most confindent, accurate, and familiar with. Be it a rifle, bow, shotgun or a sling shot.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The most effective weapon is the one used by a hunter that DOS-N'T get "buck fever".
Nervousness and excitement cause the majority of poor decision's, ending up with bad
shot's. I see guy's every year that can hit the bullseye all day long but it's a different
story in the field with wild game. I've seen it all the last 25 year's, good and bad.

Debating the effectivness of one weapon versus another, "IMO", is ridiculous.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I look at it this way. Bow hunters typically take shots under 50 yards. With a carbon arrow with broadhead running about $20 a piece, almost all archers follow-up their shots, even if the archer makes a poor shot, they usually see they hit the animal and/or find their arrow which will tell a detailed story. Even if the archer makes a poor shot (guts), there is likely a 1 1/2" entry/exit wound and a persistent archer can track the animal. I have helped friends on two occasions find animals that have been gut shot by an arrow by using our nose and seeing the occasional splash of stomach bile on some dead fall.

Rifle hunters take shots 100 - 500 + yards. I am guessing very few will follow-up shots unless the animal shows sign it has been hit. A poor shot (guts), depending on caliber and bullet, can pass through the animal with minimal damage. I have seen animals shot through the boiler that stood there as if they were never hit then just tip over. 

In summary, when an archer wounds an animal, he/she almost always knows. When a rifle hunter does it, it depends on the reaction of the animal and whether or not the hunter follows up the shot.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> I look at it this way. Bow hunters typically take shots under 50 yards. With a carbon arrow with broadhead running about $20 a piece, almost all archers follow-up their shots, even if the archer makes a poor shot, they usually see they hit the animal and/or find their arrow which will tell a detailed story. Even if the archer makes a poor shot (guts), there is likely a 1 1/2" entry/exit wound and a persistent archer can track the animal. I have helped friends on two occasions find animals that have been gut shot by an arrow by using our nose and seeing the occasional splash of stomach bile on some dead fall.
> 
> Rifle hunters take shots 100 - 500 + yards. I am guessing very few will follow-up shots unless the animal shows sign it has been hit. A poor shot (guts), depending on caliber and bullet, can pass through the animal with minimal damage. I have seen animals shot through the boiler that stood there as if they were never hit then just tip over.
> 
> In summary, when an archer wounds an animal, he/she almost always knows. When a rifle hunter does it, it depends on the reaction of the animal and whether or not the hunter follows up the shot.


Good post!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I guess a better way to phrase the question is...

For every GS rifle tag issued how many bucks are *killed* (on average)?

For every GS muzzy tag issued how many bucks are *killed* (on average)?

For every GS archery tag issued how many bucks are *killed* (on average)?

I trade off hunting rifle and muzzy about every other year and if my hunting party was interested in archery I would take it up in a heart beat. I just bring this point up becuase rifle hunters are often blamed for a lot of our management and quality of hunt problems. My question is for general season hunting, and for "end of the year buck/doe ratios", is it better to have the majority of hunters hunting the rifle hunt v.s. archery or muzzy? What would our deer population and buck/doe ratios be like if the numbers were flipped?

I hear a lot of proposals to increase primative weapon tags to increase opportunity and I haven't decided if this is something I support even though I participate in a few "primative weapon" hunts.

Again I am talking about the masses and averages, don't get caught up in your personal prefrance.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The answer to this question would be 

If all rifle hunters switched to archery you would have hennery mountain quality on every unit in this state. Why because most rifle hunters wouldn’t have a chance at killing a deer. Most don’t have the patients to use a bow. Most would never practice and most would never get close enough to kill a deer let alone wound one. 

Here is your proof to which weapons wound more deer look at the Wasatch front. It has hennery quality bucks. It has no winter range. It has over the counter tags and you can hunt for 4 months a year every year. You can take a buck or a doe and you can hunt in the rut. 

Look at any general rifle area in Utah and they can’t even compare so rifle hunters kill and wound more deer.

If utah went to archery equipment only it would be the shizzzz!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

10000ft. said:


> I guess a better way to phrase the question is...
> 
> For every GS rifle tag issued how many bucks are *killed* (on average)?
> 
> ...


What an interesting thought. What if one year everybody went to archery. Not to offend, but I think that some of the things that the archers call a good management points would be flung out the window. There are a lot of variables that would make it very difficult to predict.

On the muzzy if everybody was pushed to it I don't believe you would see any change of success ratio rifle vs muzzy. I think the only way you would impact the percentage would be to limit type of ammo, guns, and sights.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I am going to go with an automobile. :mrgreen: I have killed more animals with my car than with any other weapon. :shock:  :lol: 

All weapons are extremely effective if used correctly. It is not the weapons fault that animals get wounded it is the operators fault. 8)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> The answer to this question would be
> 
> If all rifle hunters switched to archery you would have hennery mountain quality on every unit in this state. Why because most rifle hunters wouldn't have a chance at killing a deer. Most don't have the patients to use a bow. Most would never practice and most would never get close enough to kill a deer let alone wound one.
> 
> ...


It would be interesting to see your view if they turned 20,000 archery hunters loose on the wasatch. Even with a 4 month season. I think you would be surprised.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I guess you havent been up on the wasatch there is already 20,000 archers up there.

The funny thing is the more people you get on a given unit with archery tackle the less odds you will have of actually killing something. You screw each other up.


You cant hit a deer on the run, you cant hit a deer across canyons, you have to be in effective killing range around 40 yards or less. 

look at the souther archery guys they cant kill anything already with 5,000 hunters on it. if you had 20,000 I would bet you would have a 1% success rate.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:
 

> I guess you havent been up on the wasatch there is already 20,000 archers up there.
> 
> The funny thing is the more people you get on a given unit with archery tackle the less odds you will have of actually killing something. You screw each other up.
> 
> ...


My mistake. When I said 20,000 I meant in addition too. Well you got to remember in that 20,000 addtional how many are going to be slobs. They will fling arrows at running animals. Next that animal has to slow down some time and chances are with a lot more hunters on the mountain he may very well run into a body. It is one thing to have a small group of fine hunters vs fine hunters and every Tom, Dick and Harry. Now in reality would everybody go, nope I don't think so. But out of 60,000 hunters I believe you could very well end up with an addtional 20,000 on the wasatch. I would in a heart beat. As far as I'm concerned it would be a good excuse to get some new archery gear.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Swbuckmaster the Hennries and the Wasatch Front are not the best examples to use when talking about broad base management. 

You yourself said that more archers means lower success ratios because they mess each others hunts up. :roll: Sounds like a great stratagey, our kids should love it.

So again, is having the majority of Utahs hunters "rifle hunters" the best way to maintain high quality hunts (in all three weapons) lowest number of bucks killed (retrieved + non retrieved) and highest deer populations.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> My question is for general season hunting, and for "end of the year buck/doe ratios", is it better to have the majority of hunters hunting the rifle hunt v.s. archery or muzzy? What would our deer population and buck/doe ratios be like if the numbers were flipped?


It doesn't matter one bit. The reason is simple...the DWR manages General Season units to a certain buck/doe ratio. If the region consistently dips below a certain buck/doe ratio, tag numbers are dropped...on the other hand, if buck/doe ratios were consistently above a certain level, tag numbers would be increased. So, to answer your question, it doesn't matter where the majority of hunters are hunting in terms of harvest or deer being killed.

This is the exact same reason that mandatory harvest reporting is not necessary and doesn't teach biologists anything that they can't get through random surveys...biologists look at the existing buck/doe ratio to determine tag numbers; not what was killed or harvested.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

OK wy2ut, so what I want to know is does the current percentage of rifle vs. muzzy vs. archery tags allow the maximum numbers of hunters to hunt during the GS and while still maintaining the DWR's desired buck/doe ratios?

Or in other words, if we pushed to get, supose 50%, of curret GS rifle hunters to switch to archery and muzzy while not adding any tags to the combined total of all three weapons how would that effect the buck/doe ratio?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This is the exact same reason that mandatory harvest reporting is not necessary and doesn't teach biologists anything that they can't get through random surveys...biologists look at the existing buck/doe ratio to determine tag numbers; not what was killed or harvested.


Correct and incorrect at the same time. Success rates DO factor in on how many tags to issue overall and per weapon type. that is where mandatory reporting can/will be of beneficial use. If the biologists can get all they need through random surveys, WTH are biologists recommending limiting archers to a region for 2/3 of the archery season? Their stated objective is to get 'real' data on how many hunters are in each region so that they know how many tags to issue per region.

Buck:doe ratios tell a lot, but they do not tell how the ratio arrived at the current level. KNOWN harvest numbers from hunters is a valuable tool in game management when hunters are a major part of the equation.


10000ft. said:


> OK wy2ut, so what I want to know is does the current percentage of rifle vs. muzzy vs. archery tags allow the maximum numbers of hunters to hunt during the GS and while still maintaining the DWR's desired buck/doe ratios?
> 
> Or in other words, if we pushed to get, suppose 50%, of current GS rifle hunters to switch to archery and muzzy while not adding any tags to the combined total of all three weapons how would that effect the buck/doe ratio?


The short answer is no. Having rifle/muzzle loader hunters in the field does NOT "maximize" the number of hunters that can be issued tags and maintain/increase buck:doe ratios. Rifle/muzzle loader hunters enjoy around 30% success rates year in and year out. Archery hunters enjoy 15-20% success rates, with the SR decreasing in significant numbers as tag numbers are increased.

Saying that, even as a HUGE supporter of increasing the number of archery tags, I do NOT favor 'forcing' hunters to switch from rifle/muzzle loader to archery. I believe the proper way to do so is to make the archery hunt more attractive and thus increase the demand BEFORE increasing the supply. I see a shift in that direction happening now, but if the Wildlife Board goes with the DWR recommendation of doing away with statewide archery for the first 2/3 of the hunt, it will reverse the direction back toward rifle/muzzle loader. Rifle/muzzle loader hunters, if they were to look at the big picture, should be as vocal and supportive of statewide archery staying as archers, as it benefits them as well.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

If *ALL* hunters used only one type of weapon, that is to say there was only a bow hunt or only a muzzy hunt, or only a rifle hunt AND there was the exact same number of hunters...then my guess would be that at the end of the bow hunt there would be LESS wounded not retreived deer than any other weapon and this is my logic: more long (bad shots) are taken with rifle and muzzy than with bows so I think there would be less wounded animals. 
Not sure, but is that what you were asking 10000ft?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Rifle/muzzle loader hunters enjoy around 30% success rates year in and year out. Archery hunters enjoy 15-20% success rates


Pro you are looking at it from a success rate stand point. I want to know from a combined total of animals retrieved and animals killed per hunter.

Yeah archery may only have a 15-20% success rate vs. rifles 30% but.....

For every 10,000 rifle tags issued how many bucks do you think are retrieved/never found?

And for every 10,000 archery tags issued how many bucks do you think are retrieved/never found?

I guess I am questioning wether archery merits any increase in tags just because their success ratio is lower while there combined kill ratio may be as high or higher than a rifle. I don't know.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> If *ALL* hunters used only one type of weapon, that is to say there was only a bow hunt or only a muzzy hunt, or only a rifle hunt AND there was the exact same number of hunters...then my guess would be that at the end of the bow hunt there would be LESS wounded not retreived deer than any other weapon and this is my logic: more long (bad shots) are taken with rifle and muzzy than with bows so I think there would be less wounded animals.
> Not sure, but is that what you were asking 10000ft?


Yeah, for the most part that is what I am prying at.

My *personal opinion* differs from yours based on the dozen archers I know personally who seem to stick on average 2-3 deer a year before they finally retrieve one. I think there is no debate that a rifle is a more deadly weapon and I would think that even factoring in the "slob shoots" (like all weapons would need to do) the retrieval rate is much higher with rifle, there for, fewer deer being killed per hunter.

Another factor would be, for every 10,000 rifle hunters how many never even get a shot vs. every 10,000 archers?

I have no data to back any of this up, Tex thought he had read something a while back related to this but for the most part it looks like nobody really knows.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I feel comfortable saying the wounded/non recovered rates are similar fro all weapon types. Archers just know more often when they do it more than muzzle loader/rifle hunters due to closeness of their quarry. So, I believe that 100,000 archers would end up *killing* far fewer animals than 100,000 rifle/muzzle loader hunters would *kill*. Does that answer your question better 10000ft?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > If *ALL* hunters used only one type of weapon, that is to say there was only a bow hunt or only a muzzy hunt, or only a rifle hunt AND there was the exact same number of hunters...then my guess would be that at the end of the bow hunt there would be LESS wounded not retreived deer than any other weapon and this is my logic: more long (bad shots) are taken with rifle and muzzy than with bows so I think there would be less wounded animals.
> ...


I actually would argue this statement. Have you seen the entrance and exit wounds that the EPEK broadheads do? That is deadly. I think where the confusion comes in, is I think bullets are more forgiving Is that what you are getting at? I can tale you at least a dozen rifle hunters this year that wounded animals, a couple wounded 5 in one day between their party. My point is there are slob hunters in all weapons. I am not a great example because I have only killed one animal with a bow, but I have also only hit that one deer. If I am going to take a shot I am 100% confident in the shot. Does that automatically mean I will never wound an animal, NO. I know many people who are excellent shots that have wounded animals, it is an unfortunate part of hunting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

As a guide and as a hunter I have witnessed firsthand over 500 kills on big game animals. IMHO nothing is more effective as a killing weapon than an arrow through the chest cavity. Take that for what it is worth. Also, as a guide, I have 'lost', by far, more animals shot with rifles/muzzle loaders than archery shot animals, that is overall and percentage wise.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Well you can argue "most effective" weapon all day long, but most agree that a "well placed shot" from nearly any appropriate weapon is going to be "deadly", so lets don't argue about "well, when hit with a bow he only goes 40 yards but hit with a muzzy he's dead in 20 yards"...those are good arguements for a bunch of drunks sittin around a fire by not relevent. I going to stick with the bow (by the way, I've never killed anything with a bow) hunt because I really think rifles give lots a guys to much confidence and they will take that questionable (usually way to long) shot...the shot that is nearly always responsable for wounded animals...when the bow hunter, knowing his weapon has a very limited range will probably hold off for a good, close killing shot. By the way Pro, how many animals that have been shot in the chest cavity with any weapon have you seen go very far? I mean, dead is dead isn't it?
P.S..pass that **** bottle over here bogart |-O-|


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Pro, how many animals that have been shot in the chest cavity with any weapon have you seen go very far? I mean, dead is dead isn't it?


Not necessarily. A bullet can pass through a lung without collapsing it, and arrow passing through a lung will collapse it. A small projectile such as a bullet can leave minimal damage, especially at long ranges. An arrow that will do MORE damage to lung tissue than a bullet will do, unless the bullet hits a rib sending shattered bone into the lung(s).


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

All I know for a FACT is what I have seen. All the deer and elk I have shot with a rifle have been droped in the tracks. The deer I have hit with arrows all have run at least some distance. I have also seen many many many more wounded deer during a rifle hunt then during the archery hunt. I think that they are all very effective, but sometimes things happen.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, how many animals that have been shot in the chest cavity with any weapon have you seen go very far? I mean, dead is dead isn't it?
> ...


Sorry Pro, but I'm still picking my mouth off the floor. You have the experience and I respect that. I shoot .30 cal bullets (.06 & 300 win mag) and I have never seen a lung with a pass through. I have had one lung more damaged than another, the lung that was hit is jello. My shots have been out to 500 yards.

Edit Note: Talking the same distance for both weapons and correctly selected projectiles I humbly do not think an arrow will do more damage then a bullet.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> shoot .30 cal bullets (.06 & 300 win mag) and I have never seen a lung with a pass through. I have had one lung more damaged than another, the lung that was hit is jello


Move up to a Weatherby mag and you will get pass though's every time. 



> A small projectile such as a bullet can leave minimal damage, especially at long ranges


I will dissagree with you strongly here. A bullet WILL not can leave minimal damage but 9 time's out of 10 it will leave a huge wound track. Not only that it has the shock that goes with it. Arrows have very little shock. I good bullet will leave small entrance and huge exit holes. If you are not getting the good exit hole try a diffrent bullet or move up to a bigger caliber.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> As a guide and as a hunter I have witnessed firsthand over 500 kills on big game animals. IMHO nothing is more effective as a killing weapon than an arrow through the chest cavity. Take that for what it is worth. Also, as a guide, I have 'lost', by far, more animals shot with rifles/muzzle loaders than archery shot animals, that is overall and percentage wise.


Pro,
Did you say over 500? Not doubting you have seen a lot but gee...that's 20 kills every single year for over 25 straight years...now that's a lot!

I said, pass that **** bottle over this way!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

this post is lame and I have been jerking your chain. 

as for wounding it would be less with a bow if people were forced to switch because after the first weekend all the deer would be off the roads so the average rifle hunter would never see a deer. It would never ruin a hunt to have people switch to bows but I dont want them to. I dont care what weapon they have or use. As close as i can get to deer I am thinking about switching to a knife.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

when anyone takes risks by extending their range the only thing that suffers is the game we hunt. I dont care what weapon you are using if you put it where you shold it will put it down quick. 

All 8 deer I have shot with my bow have died withing sight or hearing distance except this years buck which I had to track about a 1/2 mile and my first doe which I never recovered.

All of the deer I have shot with a rifle have died within sight. the two elk I have shot ran for ever and I only recovered one of them. I was using my 7mm mag

So by going off my own personal record I have lost a higher persentage with a rifle than with a bow. Going of my friends family they loose about half the deer/elk they shoot with a rifle every year. one of them in particular is very good at hitting them with his bazzoka .338 with a 225 grain bullet out to 100000000 yards but he cant find them when he gets over on the canyon he hits them on. So he goes and finds another one to shoot. he does this every year. 

This post is lame because it puts hunter against hunter. it dosent accomplish anything. If you want to see which areas do better with archery tackle then compare the wasatch front to any general area in Utah. There is your proof. The wasatch has a 35-40 bucks to 100 does and has an average age of 4 years old. What is the average age and what is the buck to doe ratio on a general rifle area? How often can you hunt a general rifle area? If all archers are wounding animals like you say then how do you factor in the front keeps getting better and better evey year and there is more and more people hunting it every year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > As a guide and as a hunter I have witnessed firsthand over 500 kills on big game animals. IMHO nothing is more effective as a killing weapon than an arrow through the chest cavity. Take that for what it is worth. Also, as a guide, I have 'lost', by far, more animals shot with rifles/muzzle loaders than archery shot animals, that is overall and percentage wise.
> ...


Put the bottle down. I used to run a guide service in Colorado where I would run 60+ hunters a year. I did that for several years. I also have killed over 50 big game animals myself.

I stand by my comments that a well placed arrow is more efficient than a bullet placed in the same spot.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Correct and incorrect at the same time. Success rates DO factor in on how many tags to issue overall and per weapon type. that is where mandatory reporting can/will be of beneficial use. If the biologists can get all they need through random surveys, WTH are biologists recommending limiting archers to a region for 2/3 of the archery season? Their stated objective is to get 'real' data on how many hunters are in each region so that they know how many tags to issue per region.
> 
> Buck:doe ratios tell a lot, but they do not tell how the ratio arrived at the current level. KNOWN harvest numbers from hunters is a valuable tool in game management when hunters are a major part of the equation.


1) Harvest rates are used in determining tag numbers; however, I still disagree with you on the mandatory harvest reporting...what good will it do biologists to know what was killed by hunters? The only thing important is knowing what is alive. Mandatory harvest reporting will give biologists absolutely zero information when it comes what animals were killed by natural causes, by predators, by cars, or non-hunting means. Mandatory harvest reporting would be an expensive way of finding out virtually nothing important. Harvest rates/success rates determined by statistically valid hunter surveys give us a good enough idea of what is being killed to fulfill our needs. Harvest/success rates would not change tag numbers one bit if buck/doe ratios stayed within the management objective...so what good do we gain from having exact numberts?

2) As far as the archery restriction....like Anis said during the recent RAC meetings, this is purely a social issue. This has nothing to do with the biology of deer management. IF you want mandatory harvest reports to help the DWR know where hunters are hunting, Anis made a great point when he said, "The thing is nothing that gets you better data than 
making people choose actually where they're going to hunt. So yeah you could get to it that 
way but it won't be as good a data." Also, at the November RAC meeting, you asked Anis about mandatory reporting, he said, "Now as far as why would this be a better way, because basically you are getting everybody versus a sample. Not saying that satisfaction, I mean you could do it both ways and you'd come up with the same solution. This would be more definitive because a lot of times when we do surveys we get exactly that, you know you only pooled X amount. Well statistically it's valid but since this is an issue that's mostly what people perceive we want it to be more definite than just doing a survey." You then specifically asked Anis if mandatory reporting would work for this archery question, Anis said, "I don't know how you'd enforce a mandatory compliance."

You claim that they want this "real" data to know how many hunters are in each region so that they know how many tags to issue for each region. But, this is not entirely true. Basically, after it is determined how many people are hunting in each region, a committe will be formed that will decide what overcrowding is. Anis said, "When it comes to overcrowding it becomes more of a who thinks it's overcrowding. So it's not really not for me to say what is overcrowding. I can just say X amount hunted there and leave it 
up to whoever's going to decide what overcrowding is." The whole overcrowding issue is NOT going to about how many deer were harvested, but how many people are hunting those deer. IT is NOT about deer harvest but the social issue revolving around what is/is not overcrowding.

Buck/doe ratios do tell a lot...and like mandatory harvest reporting they will not tell how we arrived at the current buck/doe ratio.



10000ft. said:


> OK wy2ut, so what I want to know is does the current percentage of rifle vs. muzzy vs. archery tags allow the maximum numbers of hunters to hunt during the GS and while still maintaining the DWR's desired buck/doe ratios?
> 
> Or in other words, if we pushed to get, suppose 50%, of current GS rifle hunters to switch to archery and muzzy while not adding any tags to the combined total of all three weapons how would that effect the buck/doe ratio?


1) NO. Tag allotment percentages are based on social as well as biological factors. We could definitely increase opportunity if we eliminated rifle hunting. But the social implications would be scary.

2) If we forced 50% of the current general season rifle hunters to switch to archery (and increased the archery allotment to allow for the increase of tags), we would definitely see an increase in the buck/doe ratio. But, as I tried to explain before, the DWR would then issue more tags--rifle, muzzy, and/or archery--if the buck/doe ratios increased above the management objective.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> when anyone takes risks by extending their range the only thing that suffers is the game we hunt. I dont care what weapon you are using if you put it where you shold it will put it down quick.
> 
> All 8 deer I have shot with my bow have died withing sight or hearing distance except this years buck which I had to track about a 1/2 mile and my first doe which I never recovered.
> 
> ...


Great post, this is similar to my observations also. I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head IMO.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Jahan you and SWbuckmaster are a little sensitive don't you think.

Like I said, I am not partial to rifle over muzzy and anticipate maybe even picking up archery in the near future. I asked some honest questions that I see as important while making management decissions and appreciated the logical, non emotional feedback I got from most of you.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Pro (and I ask these questions with respect),

1. I have seen only one lung shot with an arrow (many years ago) and it was no were near what I have seen with a bullet. But what are you seeing today? I other words what does the lung look like? Is it still in tack with a hole, slices and coagulation? It is flat?

2. When you said you had pass throughs, what was used? Caliber, range, bullet type?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

jahan said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > when anyone takes risks by extending their range the only thing that suffers is the game we hunt. I dont care what weapon you are using if you put it where you shold it will put it down quick.
> ...


I kind of feel like you two are comparing apples and oranges. There are a limited amount of hunters that hunt the wasatch and pretty much nobody else. This is the main reason that the quality is better. All things being equal (i.e. number of hunters) you should only see a 10 to 15% difference in success. The only thing that I could see that pushes that number higher would be the time of year. I still content that if you put 40,000 archery hunters on the wasatch your quality would not be the same.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

I am aware of one scientific study concerning wounding loss for bowhunters, google: Camp Ripley Bowhunting study, this should provide some perspective for bowhunting I don't believe it addresses firearm losses. 
Anyway if memory serves me correctly the study concludes there is a 13% wounding loss for bowhunters. It should provide some insight.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is a good comparison I personaly did. I have two antelope on the wall, one rifle and
one archery. I shot both at about 35 yard's, the bow kill was a double lunger, it ran 40 
yard's and dropped dead. The rifle was a 300 win mag 180 gr black talon, It literally picked
the lope off the ground and slamed it, this bullet caused more damage than a dozen
arrow's ever would have......Both were "effective". I do remember thinking the 300 was
to much gun, Both front shoulder's and chest cavity were toast.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

First of all 10000 ft I am not sensitive at all, I was stating my opinion is all, from what I have seen myself. Your whole statement and reasoning is biased in the first place, everyone on this forum knows your dislike for archery hunters. I have no problem with any weapon choice, I plan on using a rifle when I draw my once in a lifetime LE Elk tag. I am about the only one in my family that hunts with a bow. I have done a couple hunts with a rifle myself. 

All weapons are extremely effective if used properly, I have stated this many times. 10000 ft you have slanted your question so that some one will respond that rifle is the most effective weapon so you can turn around and say this is why you don't think adding more archery tags is an effective managing technique. 

Huntoholic, I am not comparing to the Wasatch Unit, that was swbuckmaster. I actually agree with you that if you stuck 40000 archers in the Wasatch quality would be hurt, how couldn't it. More people are going to get animals, but at the same time the hunt would become much more difficult than it already is. 

I think there is a slob hunters with all weapons. There are people with all weapons with 100% success rates, and there are some people with all the different weapons that wound more than they kill, it is an unfortunate part of hunting.

Goofy elk, so both ended with a dead lope. This just proves that point that all weapons are effective if used properly.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> This just proves that point that all weapons are effective if used properly


I agree. 
I am a convert to the bow world from the rifle world. I will be the frist one to say in the kills I have made the rifle was faster and much more effective, but my deer have always gone down from my arrow also.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

jahan said:


> First of all 10000 ft I am not sensitive at all, I was stating my opinion is all, from what I have seen myself. Your whole statement and reasoning is biased in the first place, everyone on this forum knows your dislike for archery hunters. I have no problem with any weapon choice, I plan on using a rifle when I draw my once in a lifetime LE Elk tag. I am about the only one in my family that hunts with a bow. I have done a couple hunts with a rifle myself.
> 
> All weapons are extremely effective if used properly, I have stated this many times. 10000 ft you have slanted your question so that some one will respond that rifle is the most effective weapon so you can turn around and say this is why you don't think adding more archery tags is an effective managing technique.
> 
> ...


Jahan, what makes you think I don't like archers? I'm not lieing when I say I am strongly thinking about picking archery up even though I don't have any archery hunting partners.

I do think some archers formulate management ideas sometimes that screw other weapon types in the name of "we are the lowest impact and lowest success ratio" even when I believe their ideas would be harmful to there own type of weapon/hunting. I want to gather evidence that this is true or not true before I decide if I will support it.

Please don't misunderstand and think I have it out for archers.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > First of all 10000 ft I am not sensitive at all, I was stating my opinion is all, from what I have seen myself. Your whole statement and reasoning is biased in the first place, everyone on this forum knows your dislike for archery hunters. I have no problem with any weapon choice, I plan on using a rifle when I draw my once in a lifetime LE Elk tag. I am about the only one in my family that hunts with a bow. I have done a couple hunts with a rifle myself.
> ...


I started looking around trying to find some studies that maybe have wound rates and other statistics for all weapon types, but all I could find was anti-hunting websites. :shock: -)O(- I am obviously looking in the wrong place. Sorry I can't give hard data, all I have is what I have seen with my own eyes.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

And I think you will have a very difficult time finding hard data on wounded animals.
I think unless you as the researcher are standing right there, you have to take the hunters word for it. At that point other factors start to way in (i.e. honesty, pride, not trailing the game for a distance to verify you hitting or not hitting the game, etc.).

I kind of feel after everybodies posts to date and my own experience, that there probably is not much difference in the lose numbers. At least not enough to make tag numbers different.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I kind of feel after everybodies posts to date and my own experience, that there probably is not much difference in the lose numbers. At least not enough to make tag numbers different.


BINGO!


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

Here's how to solve lost game problems. Make everyone shoot a 50 BMG like I do. If you hit anything other than ears and limbs its a dead right there animal. No more tracking, no more 2nd shots on gut shots. What we need is a 50 BMG law requiring all hunters to use nothing less. It would keep the panty waists out of the field. Anyone wanting to hunt would be forced into excellent shape just to pack the guns in the field, and noone would be taking those stupid off hand running shot anymore. Anyone packing a 40lb gun in the field would be nothing but the most die hard hunters period. So there you have it. The answer to all our problems. :mrgreen:


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

:rotfl: -_O- -oooo- -BaHa!-

You tell 'em stinky!!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Thanks All

I have concluded there have been few studies done and most of the decissions we make in tag alocation based on "how many deer die" per tag issued, per weapon, are based soley on opinion or best guesses or personal experience

or

like wy2ut said, the DWR really doesn't care as long as they keep their desired buck doe ratios and they are keeping the majority happy.

So another question for the archery and muzzy hunters....

*Obviously we want to improve the quality of experience on these primative weapon hunts so why would you want to encourage or incentivize any rifle hunters to join us in the hills? *

Would an increased number of hunters taking up muzzies and bows not take away from those hunts? The forest seems a lot smaller when you are limitted to 50-100 yard shots and depend on animals taking their natural routes. Again I am talking about GS not LE.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Would an increased number of hunters taking up muzzies and bows not take away from those hunts? NO!!!
> 
> The forest seems a lot smaller when you are limitted to 50-100 yard shots "no the forest is actually bigger because you dont have someone shooting over the top of your head from a 1000 yards away" and depend on animals taking their natural routes.
> 
> Again I am talking about GS not LE. "what difference would it make if you were talking LE over GS"


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> A bullet can pass through a lung without collapsing it, and arrow passing through a lung will collapse it. A small projectile such as a bullet can leave minimal damage, especially at long ranges. An arrow that will do MORE damage to lung tissue than a bullet will do, unless the bullet hits a rib sending shattered bone into the lung(s).


I would agree with this statement when speaking about the smaller, flat-shooting calibers like .243, 6mm-08, etc. A 30 caliber bullet leaves an exit hole the size of a dang baseball. I've never witnessed an animal properly hit with a large caliber bullet that didn't go right down. I guess it could happen if you couldn't shoot straight? Pro, I'd guess you've probably seen all sorts of hunters. Would you say that a large caliber bullet kills as effectively as an arrow?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> Pro, I'd guess you've probably seen all sorts of hunters. Would you say that a large caliber bullet kills as effectively as an arrow?


Yes.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I have not commented on this thread, because I think this is a rediculous argument, but sometimes I feel rediculous so here goes.............. What does it matter what is the most effective when effective is sufficient. I know for a fact that my weapon is more effective than Tex's weapon, but Tex is effective enough to stick em, make em bleed and cause them to die. Everything else is simply specific circumstance. Poop happens all the time. Sometimes poop is poopy and sometimes poop works out just fine. A very good hunter, who has well above average marksmanship, enough experience to deal with the situation and makes very wise and ethical decisions can still have poop get on their shoes ...... when it does. A very new hunter that simply gets invited to go with a few friends and has very little idea of what he is doing can happen upon a 225" buck moving from staging area with doe's and take a marginal shot and connect and get a photo session with a very stealthy buck that spent all of 2007 with me on his heals and most of 2008 eluding some of the more successful hunters on the front. If the occassion allowed me to carry an -06, I would have been more effective at closing the deal in 2007 but why, I would never choose that weapon because of MY CHOICE. My choice to use a bow is incompassed with my desire to first of all hunt in an enviroment that forces me to get well within range of every deer alert scense and then put my bow tuning, sighting in, knowledge gained over the years of learning by experience and shooting 3-D leagues and tournaments, and making that all come together to have that very special moment of being at full draw undetected. 

Now to the argument of managing to actual harvest vs reported 'tagged' harvest must be factored into the management decisions because durring the data collecting systems used, the DWR comes up with buck to doe ratios that are sufficient enough to allow rifle hunters to continue to hunt, muzzy hunters to continue to hunt and archery hunters to continue to hunt. Now 10,000 ft, I don't think you would just troll a stir up the pot argument, but this sort of smells like thats what you are trying to do. All weapons have their strengths and weaknesses and follow this analogy. Rifles are like football, archery is like wrestling. Everyone can run catch and throw a football, but in order to execute in a wrestling match, you have to learn difficult technique that is not that easy to learn. A lot more people play football than do wrestle because of this fact. It is a lot easier to screw up a wrestling technique than it is to screw up a football play, so more passes are completed than single legs finished. Rifles and rifle hunting is a ton easier than archery tackle and archery hunting so to conclude, rifles are a ton more effective than bows, but so the stink what!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

EPEK said:


> I have not commented on this thread, because I think this is a rediculous argument, but sometimes I feel rediculous so here goes.............. What does it matter what is the most effective when effective is sufficient. I know for a fact that my weapon is more effective than Tex's weapon, but Tex is effective enough to stick em, make em bleed and cause them to die. Everything else is simply specific circumstance. Poop happens all the time. Sometimes poop is poopy and sometimes poop works out just fine. A very good hunter, who has well above average marksmanship, enough experience to deal with the situation and makes very wise and ethical decisions can still have poop get on their shoes ...... when it does. A very new hunter that simply gets invited to go with a few friends and has very little idea of what he is doing can happen upon a 225" buck moving from staging area with doe's and take a marginal shot and connect and get a photo session with a very stealthy buck that spent all of 2007 with me on his heals and most of 2008 eluding some of the more successful hunters on the front. If the occassion allowed me to carry an -06, I would have been more effective at closing the deal in 2007 but why, I would never choose that weapon because of MY CHOICE. My choice to use a bow is incompassed with my desire to first of all hunt in an enviroment that forces me to get well within range of every deer alert scense and then put my bow tuning, sighting in, knowledge gained over the years of learning by experience and shooting 3-D leagues and tournaments, and making that all come together to have that very special moment of being at full draw undetected.
> 
> Now to the argument of managing to actual harvest vs reported 'tagged' harvest must be factored into the management decisions because durring the data collecting systems used, the DWR comes up with buck to doe ratios that are sufficient enough to allow rifle hunters to continue to hunt, muzzy hunters to continue to hunt and archery hunters to continue to hunt. Now 10,000 ft, I don't think you would just troll a stir up the pot argument, but this sort of smells like thats what you are trying to do. All weapons have their strengths and weaknesses and follow this analogy. Rifles are like football, archery is like wrestling. Everyone can run catch and throw a football, but in order to execute in a wrestling match, you have to learn difficult technique that is not that easy to learn. A lot more people play football than do wrestle because of this fact. It is a lot easier to screw up a wrestling technique than it is to screw up a football play, so more passes are completed than single legs finished. Rifles and rifle hunting is a ton easier than archery tackle and archery hunting so to conclude, rifles are a ton more effective than bows, but so the stink what!


+1000, you are so much better at wording stuff than I am, even with your never ending run on sentences. :wink: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Epek, you nailed it as you always do. Although I have finished more single legs than caught passes, I still "got it".  

Side note along with high caliber guns............My buddy was in Cabela's about a week ago. Some guy was sifting through the bullets and looked a bit lost as he was looking at the 50 caliber ammunition. As he was looking at a huge box of 50's, My buddy said, "Wow, you have a 50 caliber?" The man said "not yet, but I am about to purchase my first one." He reached over to show my buddy his new gun and my buddies jaw hit the floor when he showed him a 50 caliber muzzle loader.................Needless to say, my buddy had to enlighten him on a few things about guns.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

well place shot.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Now 10,000 ft, I don't think you would just troll a stir up the pot argument, but this sort of smells like thats what you are trying to do.


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Epek, I don't know if you can say the words rifle, muzzy and archery in the same sentence without stiring the pot (even though that was not my real intention).

The thread title was not my best choice of words as I am not soley wanting to know witch weapon is most effective. I really don't care.

I want to know if we entise more rifle hunters to take up primative weapons would this really be better for

The herd:
In the sense that based on the diffrent weapons "average number of connected shots" (reguardless of retrieved or not retrieved), would buck/doe ratios go up allowing more tags/opportunity.

And the hunt:
Would an additional 20,000-30,000 hunters out on the archery or muzzy hunt (or what ever additional number) destroy the apeal of those hunts?

You could say that I am really questioning if we really want more rifle hunters to switch over to primative weapons when most of them are content where they are. I'm not convinced there are any advantages.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > You could say that I am really questioning if we really want more rifle hunters to switch over to primative weapons when most of them are content where they are. I'm not convinced there are any advantages.


right now there are no reasons for them to switch. that is why we create more archery only areas, elk hunts in the rut. we make it so good you wouldnt want to ever hunt with a rifle.

if you dont see that archery areas are the shiz now then you wont ever see it.

By the way 1000' The front just put out another monster 42" wide two drop tines about 12" long. "o so close"









I can count at least 15 deer that have gone over 200" in the last 6 years up their. it keeps getting better.

if there are so many peple that have wounded animals up their how come it keeps getting better?

seriously the Wasatch fronts quality and opertunity sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl. the only ones that seem to not get it are the hard core rifle guys.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster 

You know I have read a lot of your post about the front and do agree with most of them. I am also number on on the hit list about helping people find deer on the front in the bountiful peak area mostly. But my question is why and or how do you take so much about the front and not get slammed for hotspotting?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

what is hotspoting?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

It is telling people where the big bucks are. I call it helping, but many do not like it.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> It is telling people where the big bucks are. I call it helping, but many do not like it.


Wasatch Unit is huge, that is like me telling you there are Elk in the Manti LaSal National Forest. Now if he was giving exact locations then maybe, but I don't usually buy into the whole hotspotting BS anyways.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The funny thing about the Wasatch Front is there are big bucks in every canyon. The real trick is to find one that made it another year older then the rest. I hunt deer not canyons. If people thought they could trail me or find my spots good luck because I rarely hunt the same canyons. I hike all summer long scouting different areas then my friends and we tell each other where the big ones are. We then hunt the big ones until they are dead. Every year is different because you just don’t know where that big one will end up. 

I am passionate about the Front I don’t want to ever see it go away. I also want people to see how good it is and enjoy it like I do. It is truly a “gem”. I honestly don’t think it will take long and we will have more areas just like it. Especially if people keep complaining about the general season hunts.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I also want people to see how good it is and enjoy it like I do. It is truly a "gem".


I could have not said that any better. In fact once again I agree with everything in your post. I love the front also. I hunt it from Ogden south. I find deer almost evey time I go up. The hiking is rough and steep and at times you have to be crazy to do it.

You made a post a while ago about spike deer on the front. I have never seen a spike while hunting. People thought I was crazy but now I know I am not crazy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2009)

You are crazy weatherby, I see spikes on the wasatch hanging around the big ones getting a education. Maybe your not there as often as you say you are


----------

