TJD

A couple of other threads got me to thinking of this one. I' ll admit it is somewhat of an offshoot of a little informal study I did to see if the P&Y limitation I care for the least, the 65% let-off limitation, makes any sense.

What I did was this: looked at the Wisconsin bowhunting numbers going back to 1966, and calculated the success rate; that is the ratio of deer killed to the number of licenses sold. Since Wisconsin has one of the larger numbers of bowhunters in the US, I' m gonna guess that the results would be similar in other States as well.

In a nutshell, here' s what I found:

Year Total Kill Licensed Hunters Bow Success
1966 5,986 85,114 7.03%
1967 7,592 101,573 7.47%
1968 6,934 114,975 6.03%
1969 5,987 106,669 5.61%
1970 6,520 101,573 6.42%
1971 6,522 100,206 6.51%
1972 7,087 98,720 7.18%
1973 8,456 105,875 7.99%
1974 12,514 119,960 10.43%
1975 13,588 133,775 10.16%
1976 13,636 133,318 10.23%
1977 16,790 146,760 11.44%
1978 18,113 157,838 11.48%
1979 16,018 144,511 11.08%
1980 20,954 155,386 13.49%
1981 29,083 173,874 16.73%
1982 30,850 189,524 16.28%
1983 32,876 194,367 16.91%
1984 38,891 205,132 18.96%
1985 40,744 215,900 18.87%
1986 40,490 216,472 18.70%
1987 42,651 208,675 20.44%
1988 42,393 210,518 20.14%
1989 46,394 210,912 22.00%
1990 49,291 216,981 22.72%
1991 67,097 216,559 30.98%
1992 60,478 220,872 27.38%
1993 53,008 224,008 23.66%
1994 66,254 234,077 28.30%
1995 69,269 244,262 28.36%
1996 72,941 235,780 30.94%
1997 67,115 237,991 28.20%
1998 75,301 240,350 31.33%
1999 91,937 252,432 36.42%
2000 86,899 258,236 33.65%
2001 83,120 257,571 32.27%


Obviously a HUGH increase in success rate. Now the question is, what were the main reasons for the jump? I do think that technology has played a big part. My guess is that back in 1966, compounds were fairly rare as far as common hunting use. In addition, the additional availability of antlerless tags also may have played a part. But what did strike me it this: bows with let-off of greater than 65% did not really come into any sort of widespread availability until...what, 1994? But from 1994 tru 2001 there has really been nothing more than a small increase in success rates, an increase that could easily be explained by a number of other factors.

So how much of the increased success is due to technology? What technological improvements since 1966 do you think are most responsible for the jump? Or are other factors, namely a much higher deer density per suare mile, largely responsible for the increase in hunter success?

MBuckH72

I believe the introduction to new weapons and calibers has something to do with it. Alsothere is a higher population of deer. So many places are being built up, that the deer have to adapt to that environment. Some of the MOST HEAVILY populated areas are those that are unable to be hunted because the property is owned by the state or feds, or by private land owners.

The compound bow isn' t that old...It' s fairly new. All they had was recurves and long bows. When compounds were introduced, that drastically increased the amount of hunters. It was a big deal! Everyone wanted to try the compound bow cause they were tired of holding the draw of those long and recurve bows...It was tough!

Than you got the new caliber rifles....seems like a new caliber comes out every year. People wanna try them....see how they are, test them.

And when they get the caliber they want...you got reloading...Precise powder measurements and Technologically advanced reloading tools Reloading gets better by the year!

These are the reasons why I would say the success rate has increased

Arthur P

There are a lot more deer now than there were then. That' s a fact. But there is also a lot less land available to hunting now than there was then. More deer on less land = better chance to get a deer, but only if you can get on that land in the first place.

Interesting stuff. I think I can correlate a lot of it to technology.

If you' ll notice, the first big jump in success rate didn' t happen until 1974. That' s about the time Bear came out with their Whitetail Hunter. At the time, that was the bow that introduced more hunters to the compound than any other. Up until then, most hunters shot recurves.

In ' 81, that' s about when the compound finally wiped the recurve off the map. I was one of the very few who were still shooting recurves by then.

In ' 84, we got energy wheels and fairly shootable cams. Plus, most bows had gone from using hangars on solid limb tips to cutout limbs like we have today. Faster arrow speeds.

In ' 87, that' s when the first 65% letoff bows were coming out. And we started shooting at McKenzie 3D' s around that time instead of our old fashioned Hipps and Pottinger 2D' s.

Around ' 91, we saw the first 90% letoff production bow from McPherson (for turkey hunting only - yeah, right), pultruded carbon arrows were catching on, and a lot of people started making the switch from shooting fingers to releases.

In ' 93, people were wierding out over finding carbon splinters in their meat and carbon arrows kinda lost their popularity. Most folks went back to aluminum arrows.

Also, in the late 80' s/early 90' s is about when portable treestands started getting popular. And we got our first designer camo - Trebark.

From ' 91 to present, it' s just been one big arms race to see who can put the fastest bow on the market. When did that single cam nonsense start? ' 94? From ' 91 on, I' d gotten ticked at the way things were going and was shooting only trad for the remainder of the decade and not paying much attention to the techie side...

I guess the last biggie to hit was there around ' 98 when we got ICS carbons.

Big Country

Those numbers are interesting, I have seen them before.

Deer are now more plentiful, and in concentrated areas.

As far as technology advancements go...I don`t think that has made it any easier to harvest deer.

I mean, you can shoot a longbow as accurately as a new bowtech right?
You can hold a longbow at fulldraw as long as a new 80% letoff bow.

OK, I`m done being a wiseguy. I think a number of factors are responsible for increased success rates of archers. Not the least of which is due to technological advancements in equipment.

DL2

The anwer to your question without reading your post:

It has alot of the times pitted traditional, compound and crossbow hunters against one another.

That' s how much technology has changed bowhunting!

mez

I think that technology has certainly played a part in the jump in success rate but I think that shear numbers has a bigger role. I think that the technology advances account for a majority of the numbers increase. Stands to reason that the more hunters you have in the woods, the more are going to come out with game. It is still a close contact sport that requires a lot of skill and luck. If you compare the chart on a percentage basis the number of hunters has grown by 33% and the success rate has risen by 22%. I think the technology has a more indirect role by influencing the total number of hunters out there. Speaking strictly in technology terms, how many on here would attempt a 40 yard shot on live game? We are, for the most part, experienced dyed in the wool bowhunters with a passion for our game. I would bet most would answer no to the above question, I don' t think technology has changed things all that much.

Antler Eater

Many good replies that I would support so I will try not to be repetitive. One that hasn' t been mentioned that is related to technology of a totally different sort. The printed page. Hunter education has grown by leaps and bounds since the 60' s. Of course there were less deer back then so a lot of guys didn' t know what a rub or a scrape was, let alone the habits of an ungulate. It is hard to be consistantly successful at something you know little about.

In addition to the advancement in bow and arrow quality one of the tools that has affected deer harvest the most is the advent of mass produced tree stands. Getting off the ground increase success rates dramatically. I remember an article by Jim Dougherty in the early days stating what a potent weapon the treestand was because at that time the deer rarely looked up. My, how times have changed.

TJD

What is hard to quantify is how much is technology and how much is the result of other factors. I have been searching for the link on the WI DNR site, but haven' t found it yet that shows the population density changes over time. I do recall seeing a link a while back that indicated that the population of whitetails in WI is something like 3 times as high as it was in the 1960' s. Of course, that gives one a lot more opportunities to score than before.

I think backing the premise that increased deer density is the largest variable influencing increased hunter success is seen in the gun numbers. In 1966, 25% of hunters harvested a deer. By 2001, the number was 52% and actually got as high as 75% in 2000!

Antler Eater

I don' t think anyone would argue that is significantly more difficult to be a " good shot" with a recurve or a long bow versus the compound. However for a person who has mastered the traditional bow I don' t think there is that much difference in accuracy in a hunting scenario within reasonable ranges of around 20 yards.

I' m not sure how technology has affected the making of a traditional bow. Perhaps materials haven' t changed that much, I could only assume that the techniques in making them have been refined, and one would think the tools for making them are definitely better. I would have to say that the modern arrows would have to be an improvement in terms of straightness, spine consistency, and durability.

In the August issue of ' Deer & Deer Hunting' John Ozoga writes of two different studies comparing harvest results pitting traditional equipment against compounds. In both studies the difference between the two was approximately 7% with the compounds holding that edge. In terms of raw numbers 7% can be huge. But as far as percentages go, I don' t think it is that much when we are talking about success rates. When the difference between the two is less than 1 in 10, in my opinion that is pretty close. The article goes on to state that the wounding rates between the compound and traditional " are about equal" .

While there is no doubt technology has played a role in success rates the shear increase in deer numbers certainly has to be a major factor.

rcd567

Thirty years ago this year, I bought a Ben Pearson 45 lb. recurve and a dozen cedar arrows. Six with field points and six with Bear Razorheads. No sights, no nothing. Shot a lot and really enjoyed it. Did not kill a deer with that bow, but it was still great! (Wish I still had that bow today) I actually traded that bow off a few years later for a Compound with sights and aluminum arrows. Killed my first deer. It was a doe, but that was better than the bucks I' ve killed with a rifle. Today, I hunt with a modern compound with all the toys and totally enjoy it.

As someone mentioned earlier, it has created seperate catagories but theres no reason the traditional, compound, and crossbow users can' t unite to thrash the anti-everything crowd.