The Facts on Bow Wounding
Net version published by The Bowsite with permission from Wendy Krueger
Comprehensive Information From The Myth-Shattering Camp Ripley Study
This report is the result of a comprehensive study on bow-wounding on deer at
Camp Ripley in Central Minnesota. The articles originally appeared in the August
1994 and 1995 issues of Deer and Deer Hunting Magazine and have been
condensed for the web. For the full report, please contact the National Bowhunter
Education Foundation at 970-635-1994.
In May 1995, the wounding research was completed and accepted by West
Virginia University as a master's thesis. The study was paid for by the Save our
Heritage Committee of AMO, and more than 50 bowhunting and conservation
organizations. The study was written by Wendy Krueger of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. The study was supervised by Jay McAninch of
the Minnesota DNR and Professor Dave Samuel at West Virginia University.
An Attention-Getter
This study received extensive media coverage. Newspapers and most major
magazines carried the results as well as radio and television. By the end of 1995,
the bowhunting wounding study became the most widely known and understood
hunting study ever completed.
Anti-Hunting Response
How have anti-hunters responded to the study? No legal challenges or calls to
end bow-hunting have been made since the study's release. That doesn't mean
wounding rates are satisfactory to anyone, but it indicates the anti-hunters'
message has been damaged by hard evidence collected scientifically.
The Animal-Rights Influence
At the core of the study - like it or not - was one of hunting's most debated
questions: "Do archers wound too many deer?" The study needed to address a
growing number of controversial statements about bowhunting wounding rates.
McAninch, Dr. Dave Samuel of West Virginia University, and their colleagues on
the professional Wildlife Management Committee of the American Archery
Council realized the trump card the animal protectionists groups kept drawing
was wounding rates taken from sometimes questionable research. Clearly an
intense, scientific look at this issue was warranted.
First, Krueger and her colleagues reviewed the available technical literature,
which involved 47 papers on bow wounding. They found few of the studies had
dealt with archery wounding in depth, and only three had used post-hunt ground
searches to locate dead or dying deer.
Research Team Forms
McAninch, Krueger, and Samuel set out to develop a meaningful study, and to
find a way to pay for it. The research would eventually cost $250,000, which the
Minnesota DNR could never have paid for by itself. Even though animal-rights
groups were asked to help financially, none responded. The cost was picked up
by those who had the most to lose: bowhunters and archery companies.
Why Camp Ripley?
The researchers chose Minnesota's Camp Ripley for their work. This National
Guard camp covers 53,000 acres and is the site of two, two-day archery hunts
each fall. Krueger said camp Ripley was picked because it has a long history of
bowhunting. "It's been famous since 1950's and has produced more than 40 P&Y
bucks," she said.
Ripley was also ideal for this study because all hunters must check in and out of
the camp at the start and end of each hunting day. These factors allowed the
research team to interview most hunters at the close of each day. Most previous
studies were conducted well after the hunts conclusion, and relied mainly on
interviews or mail-in surveys. Krueger trained her interviewers to conduct the on-
site questioning using a non-threatening, conversational technique that allowed
the hunters to participate in the information-gathering process.
Figure 1. Percent of Bow-Hunters Interviewed
Hunt 1 - Hunt 2 - Hunt 1 - Hunt 2 -
Hunters Average
1992 1992 1993 1993
Successful 96% 99% 100% 100% 98.9
Unsuccessful 49% 51% 65% 79% 60.8%
Total Hunters 1,859 1,307 2,107 2,020 1,823
This chart shows the percentage of archers who were interviewed after
their daily hunts by researchers at Camp Ripley. For example, after Hunt 1
in 1992, 96 percent of the successful hunters were interviewed, while 49%
of the unsuccessful hunters were interviewed.
Interview Data
Questions Asked of Successful
Questions Asked of all Hunters
Hunters
Compartment (area) where they hunted Type of bow used
Hunting method used Bow's draw weight
Number of deer seen Deer's position when shot
Shots taken and their outcome Time of the kill
Shots passed on deer they could have
killed
Standard Terminology
A primary goal of the Camp Ripley research was to develop standard
terminology for the many scenarios that can occur after a hit. This chart
shows the various outcomes of deer hit, and how they are categorized by
researchers.
Figure 2: Outcomes of Deer Hit
Defining Standard Terms
Retrieved Deer A killed deer taken from the field by a hunter
A deer the hunter reported hitting, but did not retrieve.
Reported Deer
These deer were listed as follows:
The hunter believes he hit a deer, but could provide no
direct evidence, such as blood or hair on the arrow or
Presumed Deer ground. The hunter said the deer limped, jumped or
moved abnormally after the shot. The hunter might or
might not have recovered his arrow, but perhaps his shot
missed.
Substantiated The hunter found direct evidence of a hit, such as blood
Deer or hair on the arrow or ground, or saw a wound or arrow
in the deer.
Claimed Deer The hunter reported hitting a deer, but claimed it was
retrieved by another hunter.
A hit made on a deer by another archer before the deer
Prior Hits was shot by the hunter who retrieved it. Prior hits came
to light while researchers were examining a hunters deer,
and discovered another wound made earlier in the day.
Figure 3. Estimated Percent of Deer Hit by Type
Hunt 1 - Hunt 2 - Hunt 1 - Hunt 2-
Deer Hit Average
1992 1992 1993 1993
Retrieved 75% 72% 72% 70% 72.3%
Presumed 2% 0% 2% 0% 1.0%
Substantiated 13% 22% 20% 22% 19.3%
Claimed 10% 6% 6% 8% 7.5%
Total Deer
331 219 266 139 238.8
Hit
Researchers found that 45 percent of deer that sustained a substantiated
hit were soon retrieved by another hunter. In the past, these substantiated
hits were more than likely recorded as wounded deer, and received no
further consideration. Thus this oversight inflated the "wounding rate" in
previous studies unintentionally.
Figure 4. Percent of substantiated deer hit that were accounted for as prior
hits
Hunt 1 - 1992 Hunt 2 - 1992 Hunt 1 - 1993 Hunt 2 -1993 Average
50% 35% 50% 44% 45%
Unretreived Deer
Next, researchers turned their attention to the remaining substantiated deer
hit that they could not account for at the end of the hunt. They did this by
carefully recording all deer hit during the Ripley hunts categorizing them
by type, and tracking the fate of as many wounded deer as possible. After
taking those steps, researchers came up with a number they called the
"loss rate" those percentages are shown in figure 5.
Figure 5. Loss Rate
Hunt 1 - 1992 Hunt 2 - 1992 Hunt 1 - 1993 Hunt 2 - 1993 Average
8% 17% 12% 16% 13%
Locating Unrecovered Deer
Unlike most previous research, a big part of the Camp Ripley study
involved expensive, exhaustive searches for deer that weren't
recovered by bowhunters. Besides interviewing archers after the
hunt, the research team went out and looked for dead deer in each
hunt area. This was accomplished in two phases: The first involved
flying the various hunt compartments (areas) with a helicopter and
scanning the terrain for carcasses with high-tech infrared video
equipment. This technique called aerial videography, is "terribly
expensive," McAninch said. The helicopter alone cost about $600
per hour to operate. In addition, all videotapes were enhanced by a
computer and evaluated by research staff.
In the second phase of the search, researchers went to the
coordinates provided on the video tape to verify that the video
image actually was a deer carcass.
Conclusion
What is McAninch's biggest impression after spending thousands of
hours involved in this study? "I'm more clearly focused than ever on
using bowhunting as a management tool," he said. "Bowhunting
deserves to maintain its place as a legitimate form of recreation,
primarily because it's a sound tool for controlling deer populations."
"This study reinforced that the number of deer lost to bowhunting is
not biologically significant. The loss rates are extremely low, and
they show archers are working hard to get those numbers as low as
possible."
Camp Ripley Study Contributors
Save Our Heritage Foundation (AMO) Kansas Bowhunters Association
Safari Club International (SCI) Maine Bowhunters Association
SCI-Minnesota Maryland Bowhunters Society
SCI- Minnesota Archery Committees Michigan Bowhunters
SCI- West Michigan Bowhunters Commemorative Bucks of Michigan
SCI-Houston Chapter Missouri Bowhunters
International Bowhunting Organization North Carolina Bowhunters Association
Retailers and Archery Manufacturers of
Saskatchewan Bowhunters Association
Minnesota
Australian Bowhunters Assoc. United Bowhunters of New Jersey
Bowhunting Council of Oklahoma United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Bowhunters of Wyoming Wapiti Bowmen of Oregon
Idaho State Bowhunters West Virginia Bowhunters Association
Colorado Bowhunters Association Wisconsin Bowhunters Association
Illinois Bowhunters Society Bowbenders Archery Club; Mankato, Mn.
Indiana Bowhunters Association Frankenmuth Archers, Mi.
Iowa Bowhunters Association Martin Archery, Wallawalla, Wa.
Lapeer County Sportsmen, MI Bad River Bowhunters, ST. Charles, MI
Flint Bowmen; Burton MI Krause Publications, Wisconsin
Little Crow Archery, Hutchinson, MN Rapids Archery Club, Coon Rapids MN
Kaposia Archers; South St. Paul MN George Mann, AL
Reference: Krueger, Wendy J. 1995 - "Aspects of Wounding of
Whitetailed Deer by bowhunters." MS-Thesis, School of
Agriculture and Forestry, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W.V.