Kanstrup, N. & Sonne, C. 2021. Effektiviteten af buejagt på de store arter af hjortevildt – viden, erfaringer og skitser til kontrollerede forsøg. Aarhus Universitet, DCE – Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, 34 s. - Teknisk rapport nr. 218. http://dce2.au.dk/pub/TR218.pdf
This report was commissioned by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency to expand the decision basis for legislation on bow hunting for red deer, fallow deer and sika deer in Denmark. It contains a) a review of data from 140 bow-hunted red and fallow deer reported by Danish bow hunters in the experimental period 2018-2021 compared with data from the tracking dog register for the same period, b) a systematic review of popular and scientific literature on the effectiveness of bow hunting, and c) outlines of a scientific and controlled experiment to further clarify the effectiveness of bow hunting.
Data from the bow hunters on the experimental period constitute the most comprehensive and systematically collected material to date on bowhunting for the large deer game species in Denmark. Comparison with data from the tracking dog register, however, indicates that the material contains a number of errors and omissions and is not necessarily representative of bowhunting. However, this has been the subject of calculations that suggest that the flight distance (the distance from the place where the animal stood at the time of shooting to the place where it fell) for red and fallow deer shot during bow hunting is significantly longer than with rifle hunting, where reference data for rifle hunting have been obtained from Danish studies. Flight distances reported by Danish bow hunters also correspond to flight distances calculated in similar studies in other countries, including Finland. The extent of wounding (non-retrieved injured animals) is in the material calculated to 8%, which is lower than in some similar studies abroad and higher than in others. Experienced hunters seem to tend to wound fewer animals than inexperienced ones, which is also supported by other studies. There is no usable material for comparing with the risk of wounding during a rifle hunt. Data from the tracking dog register indicate that when tracking roe deer and fallow deer, the probability of finding the animal is approximately the same, while the success rate in tracking of red deer seems to be smaller.
The literature review showed that there are no studies that in a scientifically robust way clarify the effectiveness of bow hunting, neither absolutely nor in comparison with other forms of hunting. This is supported by recent literature studies in Norway, Sweden and Germany. The general picture is that the effectiveness of bow hunting for larger game species measured by flight distance alone is less than that of hunting with a rifle. Several researchers are calling for better assessments of the overall efficiency of hunting ammunition for killing animals, including better indications of "time to unconsciousness" and "time to death". A further aspect is the extent of the trauma to which the animal is exposed from the shooting until it loses consciousness. Here, the literature review indicates that a hunting arrow potentially causes less pain and stress than a rifle projectile, just as superficial wounds at accidental hit points with hunting arrows are more likely to heal than similar wounds caused by rifle ammunition.
Several authors are calling for a better scientific basis for assessing the effectiveness of hunting with rifles and shotguns than that currently used as a result of convention and non-scientifically established criteria for effectiveness. The report discusses the effectiveness of weapon and ammunition types and recommends that hunting with shotguns, rifle and bow due to their different modes of action and terminal ballistics be assessed individually and not only by comparison.
The reason for the lack of scientifically substantiated research results supporting the evaluation of the effectiveness of bow hunting as a method of killing animals is probably that the undertaking of specific studies is complicated and costly. This report outlines experiments ranging from setups where data collection is based on accurate observations of animal behaviour and responses to shooting with an arrow and rifle projectile under practical hunting-relevant circumstances to more clinical trials where the effect of ammunition is evaluated based on measurement of physiological variables in animals exposed to prior anesthesia. Both categories require extensive prior organisation and preparation, they are complicated to conduct and broad participation of veterinarians and forensic pathologists is needed as well as, presumably, approval from the Danish Council on Animal Experiments. There is a great demand for more knowledge in other countries and regardless of the type of research, it is recommended that a possible research programme is organised with international participation. In connection with the present study, expertise and interest were particularly pronounced in Norway and Australia.
