Well said. I agree that there is only limited measurable data, I just wanted to point out that there is no way to truly conclude that one BH choice over another will undoubtedly make a bow hunter more successful in recovering game. I have 2 packs of Rage Hypodermics, a pack of the NAP Spitfire Double Cross, and 8 Wac 'Em XL's that I plan to unleash on unsuspecting game this year and I'm confident that if I hit a deer in the pump house I will find it regardless of fixed vs mech.
I agree with Brad that there are too many variables at play in a study like this to conclude an overarching scientific "fact" about the recovery rate of expandable vs fixed BH's. For example, were some of the fixed head users traditional archers? Did anyone or everyone use a tracking dog? Was there any post season follow-up on unrecovered, but deer found dead....as those would still be "kills" from one of the classes of BH? Does the data presume that the hunters who were interviewed were completely honest in their responses and field reports? Again, shot location is key to recovery and that does not appear to be factored into the data. While I appreciate the efforts expended and read such with interest, I don't see this study as any more "factal" than Dr. Ashby from Africa and his conclusions on arrow weight, BH design and penetration. I would surmise that if one did an online survey of experienced bowhunters after a given season, they could support, refute or contradict the conclusions of this study just as easily.
With all the possible reasons for why this study found what it found, I don't think anybody has mentioned the possibility of fixed heads not flying true due to improper bow tuning where a mechanical might not show the same poor flight. It's kind of a specific point in the shot placement angle of the discussion.
The study was not trying to find anything or have an agenda it simply listed recovery rates and the broad heads used, not sure what more variables would have done other than to build a case one way or the other.
After reading it for a third time, it seems to me that the study did have an agenda. More than once they stated that they were looking for data to help promote bowhunting in suburban areas where injured or lost deer would be judged more harshly by the public. They wanted to give officials something to consider when setting rules to hunt in those situations. Possibly requiring the use of a specific type of broadhead. The question was asked and answered. The researchers weren't concerend with "why". They only cared about "what". The problem I have is that no reasonable conclusion for anything can be drawn from the study. It's akin to saying that green cars get more parking tickets and red cars get more speeding tickets. It's a useless statistic without also considering other contributing factors. Some of which simply can't be measured in a scientific manner. It seemed so cut and dry on first read.
"Fact" was wrong in my post - "statistically significant finding" would be a better descriptor. Bowhunters at Indian Head had better recovery rates if they used mechanicals instead of fixed blades. It's hard to argue with the data. There are too many variables to know if this finding is applicable to other hunters/hunting situations. Everyone had to pass an annual qualification test. No one has ever passed the test with traditional equipment, but only a few have ever tried. A tracking dog was available starting in 2009. Only deer recovered within 24 hours of the hit were considered "recovered". Certainly hit deer were found 3 or 4 days later when buzzards/crows indicated their location. In those cases, the hunter could claim possession of the rack with a tag, but the "unrecovered" status of the deer did not change in the data base. Welcome to the human race. The circumstances of the managed and monitored bowhunting program on Indian Head are pretty unique, so that the hunter data base has a high assurance of quality. 1. Base access is restricted due to safety and security concerns - the Base activities include the manufacturing and testing of propellants and explosives.Felons need not apply. 2. You sign in to a specific area, hunt, and sign out at the end of your hunting day. If you have not signed out by 1 hour after sunset, someone is going to look for you. 3. You are required to submit a Data Sheet within 24 hours of ending your hunt. No data sheet, no more hunting. Data sheets are reconciled with the sign-in log by the Natural Resources Office. 4. If you hit a deer, you are required to notifiy the Hunt Captain if you want to look for it outside your assigned area. 5. There is no reason to not report hitting a deer if you want to recover it. If it's a doe, you may need it to qualify for earn-a-buck, or for a second buck. If it's a buck, it will be a nice one. Plus, once a hit deer is reported, there are experienced volunteer trackers who will help hunters track the deer. If you report a hit deer, there is nothing subjective about deer recovery - it was found or or not. If you try to sneak pass the rules, you run the risk of losing a very good place to hunt that is managed for quality and trophy deer. So sure, it's possible for someone with a pathological bent to shoot a deer with no intention of recovering it. But those cases have to be extremely rare, and in any case, probably not biased by broadhead choice... Well, if one believes that shot location is the key to recovery, then ever wonder why recovery rates are not 100%? Maybe one should consider the possibility that the bowhunters on Indian Head were able to be more accurate with mechs than with fixed blades. Added in edit: why isn't whether or not a deer was recovered a better measure of broadhead performance than "shot location"? How about all the deer I have tracked and recovered (for others) over the years that were shot in the hip? Since these deer were not heart-lung hits, would they not count if all you were concerned about was shot location (presummably in the heart-lung area)? Welcome to the human race, again - people will just not admit to behavior that casts them in a sorry light. (Ask Bill Clinton, lol). So unless you can control for that issue, then any online survey would not be worth the ink to print it. Accordingly, managed hunts are the usual source of published bowhunter performance data. -fsh
How about this consideration: The Navy Base used sharp shooters in the 1980s to control an out-of-control deer herd (est 200 dsm). A proposed bowhunting program in 1989 faced very strong opposition over concerns about excessive wounding,and so we banned the use of mechs for 18 years. (We also instituted a data management plan so we could document our recovery/wounding rates). If you are a decision maker interested in establishing a bowhunting program to control the deer population in a suburban park, would you ban mechs too? After all, there are plenty of anecdotal stories on the web about reliability and penetration issues with mechs... You are mistaken to say that we weren't interested in the "why". (Afterall, we unexpectedly found out that the recovery rates with mechs were not only as good as with fixed, they were even better. Not only did this hold for the original 6 year Study period, but it also holds up with added (unpublished) data from the past three years: further confirmation of the original finding. Hence my op - the data is what the data is). The referees of the Study did not care for speculation as to "why", so we took that out of the paper, and stuck to the facts in order to get the Study published. Many of the current bowhunting programs in the DC suburbs (Howard Co, Fairfax Co, Montgomery Co, etc) faced oppostion from PETA/HSUS over "cruelty and wounding" issues. HSUS will show up at hearings and cite over 20 published studies (1964-1985) that document an average 50% wounding rate for bowhunters. The only way to counter their claims is by citing the more recent published scientific studies (post 1989) that all determined much lower wounding rates. (IMHO), too many posters in this thread cannot see beyond their personal biases. (I'm not referring to you BB - you have the data and are free to draw your own conclusions). -fsh
