I presented the Broadhead Study to the Southeast Deer Study Group at their meeting in Athens, GA. I surf hunting web sites looking for discussions about the Study (courtesy of google) and occasionally step into the conversation to clarify, add background info, and further the discourse. The SEDSG presentation was based on a research paper I wrote last year, "A Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of Fixed Blade and Mechanical Broadheads". This 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 paper at the SEAFWA Conference in Oklahoma City last October. SEAFWA will publish the paper in their online Journal in April 2014(+/-). Once the paper is published, it will attain the status of scientific opinion. This is not the final word in the FB vs mech debate! Like all lines of scientific inquiry, the results remain to be either confirmed or refuted in future studies.
I included research data in my SEDSG presentation that is not in the paper as a matter of interest - I had the liberty to do so. QDMA wrote
their article based on my presentation. I invite reasoned questions on the Broadhead Study in the comment section of the QMDA article.
- Andy Pedersen
In the meantime, I'd like to address some of the above posts while I am here.
From past test results I've read in Deer & Deer Hunting I find this to be somewhat true as their research puts recovery at near 50% for both bow and gun hunters.
I've got a pretty good understanding of deer wounding/recovery rates research. The 20+ studies that report an average of 50% wounding rates are all over 25 years old. The four most recent studies (with modern archery equipment) report wounding rates of 13%,14%, 17% and18%. (I authored one of those studies that was published in 2008). So my advice is to not quote the 50% from these old studies (as HSUS and PETA are so fond of doing) - they are obsolete! Think of how the technology in bows, arrows, sights, broadheads, and 3-D practice targets have advanced since 1989.
Keep in mind, this study was done in an enclosure. Sure its 3000 acres, but the deer can't run onto a property where you don't have permission to retrieve etc. Not a fair chase situation. Also there was an earn a buck stipulation which would put added pressure to recover any wounded antlerless deer.
Actually P&Y reps came out to the Base and determined that the harvest of trophy bucks was under fair chase rules. The 3000A are on two separated parcels that are along the Potomac River and tidal creeks. There are ~15 miles of unfenced shoreline, and deer have no qualms about swimming. We also share unfenced boundaries with a State Park and a Wildlife Management Area.
The bowhunters on Base are monitored. Of course monitored bowhunters are going to be on their best behavior, and that alone separates the bowhunters on Base out from the general population.The preseason qualification test and education requirement are also unique qualifiers. And we do exert reasonable effort to recover every deer!
I do NOT like articles that pit equipment types against each other for comparisons, as to success. Nor do I like comparisons of methods of hunting success. It separates us as hunters and what is THOUGHT we should hunt with and/or how we should hunt.
What type of equipment is most successful is determined by the hunter using it.
What method of hunting is most successful is determined by the hunter using it and the location it's being used.
The variables for success are off of the chart.
Bowhunter57
This was a comparative study that allowed me to examine the effectiveness of fixed blade and mechanical broadheads. The events had already occurred, could we learn anything useful from the data? There are many other uncontrolled variables that determine whether a bowhunter will recover a deer or not. (e.g. lapsed time before taking up the track, hunter experience, alertness of the deer, arrow momentum, etc., etc.). For those who think that there are just too many variables to make any research meaningful, please read in Dr Ed Ashby's prologue his opinion of "outcome driven" studies:
http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/Momentum Kinetic Energy and Arrow Penetration.htm
Pay attention to:
"When dealing with infinitely complex variables, only ‘outcome driven’ information analysis, from a multiplicity of data, provides usable results."