In 43 years of hunting, I’ve only once submitted a hunt survey that asked if I wounded anything(Utah). What the hell kind of study quantifies how people “feel” and in what context do rifle hunters “report” or “under report”?
Thank you! the family and are gonna give it a go this week then!
Well, that's cause people won't even look for blood with a gun.
Come to think of it you’re exactly right. I always look for blood when bowhunting but never ever during rifle season. I just assume they don’t bleed at all when shot with a bullet.
Same.
What the hell are you talking about? Either you hunt with some complete wing nuts or you’re just throwing stones because you can’t admit archery has a problem with the wounding and lost animals. Does it happen with rifles? Unfortunately yes, and there will never ever be a method that can prevent it from happening completely.
That was tongue in cheek.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but that movie is dumb.
Copy that. I didn’t pick up on the sarcasm
Rambo III > Hotshots 1 or 2. Change my mind.
The original post I responded to referred to people posting on Facebook looking for dogs to track their animals and using that to quantify wounding loss compared to the number rifle hunters posting. The data I referred to was collars being retrieved after a mortality signal and doing an investigation to determine cause of death. Those that were killed by hunters, wounding loss was the same proportion for rifle and archery (though the sample size was only 120 collared elk). We do tend to hear more often a out an animal being lost to a bow than to a rifle. The first paragraph of my post is the only one that spoke to the data in the study.
Sums up the jist of this topic. I used an example of a limited quota hunt (managed) currently has more than double the take of the quota - due to unlimited archery hunting. Its BS.
