Broadhead recovery rates

[NYBuckHunter27]

http://www.qdma.com/articles/high-deer-recovery-rates-for-fixed-blade-and-mechanical-broadheads#.UwvWsBLaCqk.facebook

[Lawdwaz]

Interesting read, thanks.

 

I wonder how many shots were in excess of 75 yards?

[NFA-ADK]

Love that last paragraph! 

 

"In the hands of informed, proficient and selective archers, bows are more than sufficient to the task of managing deer herds in suburban areas, small military bases, and anywhere else deer herds require management but where firearms are not a practical solution. Andy’s data can be used to help secure new hunting opportunities for archers of all types – no matter what equipment they prefer – wherever there are deer that need hunters, and archers who need a place to hunt."

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Love that last paragraph! 

 

"In the hands of informed, proficient and selective archers, bows are more than sufficient to the task of managing deer herds in suburban areas, small military bases, and anywhere else deer herds require management but where firearms are not a practical solution. Andy’s data can be used to help secure new hunting opportunities for archers of all types – no matter what equipment they prefer – wherever there are deer that need hunters, and archers who need a place to hunt."

And the one right above this one that speak's of 20 yard shot's.

[Doc]

What a great study! Spanning 24 seasons. That kind of duration of a study almost never happens anymore. And the average shot distances, restores my faith in the restraint of bow hunters and their ability to make responsible shot selections.

[nyslowhand]

Okay, interesting read, especially the author's summary. But...pretty limited & inclusive study parameters.

[Lawdwaz]

But...pretty limited & inclusive study parameters.

You have a better one for us?

[Doc]

Okay, interesting read, especially the author's summary. But...pretty limited & inclusive study parameters.

Limited AND inclusive????? In what ways?

[thphm]

Interesting and It was not a short term study.

[RangerClay]

Ok school me here old timers.  Do mechanical broadheads go back 24 years?  I would like to see the recovery rates of mechanical heads over the last 10 years.

[nyslowhand]

Unfortunately, no - there is no way to do a similar study in a "real world" scenario, ie; NYS. Survey required 100% reporting of hits, misses & recoveries. Isn't NYDEC Decal reporting something in the range of 65% & not verifiable?

 

Recovery data for mechanical vs fixed BHs included mechanicals for the linked survey only since 2007.

 

Doc; Go back and reread survey. Author mentioned a bow only, exclusive (& fenced-in?), non-public area(s). Recovery data derived from only 135 successful hunters of the 209 participants. Experience, proficiency, skill level &/or long-term participation of hunters was noted a few times.  "Andy reported that several of their most skilled, long-term bowhunters have taken a lot more than eight deer in the years they’ve been hunting the base, including Andy". Required AR & earn-a-buck. "Finally, hunters almost always ask for help with blood-trailing because recovery is so important." Not to rekindle the Xbow debate, but unlike NY regs, survey included compounds & Xbow equipment. IMHO - Seems to be semi-controlled survey parameters. Interesting read all the same! 

 

 

 

[Doc]

Ok school me here old timers.  Do mechanical broadheads go back 24 years?  I would like to see the recovery rates of mechanical heads over the last 10 years.

There is a forum for everything ..... lol. "Broadhead Talk.com"

http://www.broadheadtalk.com/broadhead-collectors/691-little-mechanical-history.html had a topic asking about the oldest mechanical broadheads. Following is one of the posts:

 

"So when do you think the first mechanical broadhead was patented and when was the first one manufactured? I am not including a couple of fishheads with movable barbs that preceded the broadhead by a couple of years.

Well the first patent was 2,568,417 which was applied for in 1948 and was issued to Beryl Steinbacher on September 18, 1951."

 

Credibility??? well I have no reason to believe that his guy is making this up, so I'll accept it as authentic info. I also found other references to something called the "Hinged Fang", circa 1960...... and others. The point is that apparently mechanical broadheads have been around a long time.

 

But your point is well taken. For a lot of years they were not generally accepted. This study that was started in 1989 probably did not have mechanical broadheads used at the same rate as fixed blades (likely it was not even close), so there is a bias entered into the study because of that when they talk about anything relating to mechanical broadheads vs. fixed blade.

[Doc]

Unfortunately, no - there is no way to do a similar study in a "real world" scenario, ie; NYS. Survey required 100% reporting of hits, misses & recoveries. Isn't NYDEC Decal reporting something in the range of 65% & not verifiable?

 

Recovery data for mechanical vs fixed BHs included mechanicals for the linked survey only since 2007.

 

Doc; Go back and reread survey. Author mentioned a bow only, exclusive (& fenced-in?), non-public area(s). Recovery data derived from only 135 successful hunters of the 209 participants. Experience, proficiency, skill level &/or long-term participation of hunters was noted a few times.  "Andy reported that several of their most skilled, long-term bowhunters have taken a lot more than eight deer in the years they’ve been hunting the base, including Andy". Required AR & earn-a-buck. "Finally, hunters almost always ask for help with blood-trailing because recovery is so important." Not to rekindle the Xbow debate, but unlike NY regs, survey included compounds & Xbow equipment. IMHO - Seems to be semi-controlled survey parameters. Interesting read all the same! 

Well, I have to admit that it is usually me that is super-skeptical about any kinds of surveys and studies, and other types of statistical data that is being sold to the public. There is so much opportunity for skewing inputs to bias outputs toward a specific outcome. However, if the study also fesses up to their short-comings, I tend to view their work with much more credibility that if they were to conceal it. And they were quite forthcoming with the study construction and any potential soft-spots. Also, it helps that there is no real ax to grind here, and the subject matter had no reason for bias.

 

Of course they have to control parameters as best they can, that is not a surprise, and I wouldn't expect any kind of a study not to do that. Overall, it seems like they did as good a job as could be expected.

 

So I am willing to accept some of their conclusions at face value with some of the caveats that they have declared. But yes, you are right, as in any study there are some things that are unaccounted for. I haven't seen a study that didn't. Personal evaluation of the results do have to take flaws into consideration. Nothing new or unique about that.

[Arrow Flinger]

Reading comprehension must not be a high priority with some of you guys......

 

 

These comparisons involve deer killed with mechanical broadheads only from 2007 on, but with fixed-blade broadheads going back all the way to 1989. Is that fair? Could it be that the efficiency and accuracy of compound bows and crossbows are higher since 2007, after mechanical broadheads were allowed on the hunts? Andy, being an admitted data geek, had anticipated that question. He separated fixed-blade recovery rates into pre- and post-mechanical eras. There was no statistically significant difference. Recovery rates with fixed-blade broadheads shot from compound bows were 82.2 percent from 1989 to 2006 and 81.0 percent from 2007 to 2012

[Trial153]

So is there any consensus among us that this study proves anything?

[nyslowhand]

Putting my skepticism about the survey aside, I think the author's summary is valid.

"The differences in performance between bow types and broadhead types are small."

Which leaves the human factor as the wild card in determining recovery rates!

IE; proficiency with equipment, patience to make ethical shots and hunting skills.

[Doc]

I'm not sure that any one study ever proves anything. It would be nice to have others do similar studies so that some kind of consensus could be evaluated. And who knows? ..... Maybe there are others that we just aren't aware of.

[AndyP]

I am the principle author of the Broadhead Study (my two co-authors are professional wildlife biologists), and am surfing the discussions about it in Hunting Forums on the web. I would like to put out some information for your consideration.

 

The presentation I gave at the SEDSG meeting in Athens, GA, was based on a research paper, "A Comparative Study on the Effectivenss of Fixed Blade and Mechanical Broadheads". This was a retrospective study on bowhunter performance - the events had already occured - could anything be learned from the data? (Read Dr Ashby's prologue about outcome-driven studies for additonal insight: http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/Momentum%20Kinetic%20Energy%20and%20Arrow%20Penetration.htm). The paper's research methodology, data analysis, results and conclusions were independently reviewed by University wildlife scientists under the purview of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I presented the Study results at the SEAFWA conference in Oklahoma City last October. I expect the paper to be published online in the SEAFWA Journal April 2014(+/-). After the paper is published, it will carry the weight of scientific opinion. 

 

This research is not the final word in the FB/mechanical debate! Like all lines of scientific inquiry, opinions today are subject to confirmation or refutation by additional studies. The unique hunting situation at the Naval Support Facility (where all hunting activity is monitored, including wounded deer tracking) allowed me to mitigate many of the biases inherent in such as study, such as reluctance to self-report shameful behavior (ask Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer about that one), skill level, willingness to take long shots, etc., etc. Anytime someone is monitored, it is reasonable to expect that they would behave differently under a different circumstance - again one of the many reasons not to apply these absolute results to the general hunter population. But I believe the Study's relative (or comparative) results carry weight.

 

I don't know of any published studies on broadhead performance. If you find any, please pass them on. Wendy Kruegar was the principle author of the oft-cited Camp Ripley Study that investigated bowhunter wounding rates. Here are a few quotes from her study:

“Wounding information is difficult to obtain.”

“It would be a logistical nightmare to collect wounding data in the field during regular seasons which take place from sunrise to sunset and last many weeks to several months.”

 

Try collecting data over 24 years! QDMA wrote their article based on my SEDSG presentation. I invite reasoned questions about the Study in the comment section of the QDMA article.

 

Andy Pedersen

 

(added in edit: there were no shots over 75 yards. The longest successful shot was 52 yards).

Edited March 2, 2014 by AndyP

[G-Man]

The thing is i dont really see compounds or crossbows truly out preforming one another. fixed or mechanical broadheads are very close to same recovery. shot distance is aproximatly 20 yards for both. perhaps the evil crossbow isnt so evil...

[nyslowhand]

WOW, thank you AndyP for your direct input about your survey on this forum and especially your candor! Congrats on your study being published!

[Lawdwaz]

 

Andy Pedersen

 

(added in edit: there were no shots over 75 yards. The longest successful shot was 52 yards).

 

Thanks for the added edit.  I'm not surprised in the least............experienced, ethical bow hunters know their limitations.

 

We had a spirited thread here recently that had some folks pimpimg those long range shots and they needed schooling....