Kanstrup, N., Balsby, T.J.S. & Sonne, C. 2022. Effektiviteten af buejagt – opfølgende undersøgelser. Aarhus Universitet, DCE – Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, 28 s. - Teknisk rapport nr. 257
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/TR257.pdf
Title: Efficacy of bow hunting – follow-up studies
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 review of data for the shooting of 282 fallow deer, fallow deer and sika deer reported by Danish bowhunters in the experimental period 2018-2022, combined with data from the “schweiss register” (Danish register of tracking dogs) for the same period. In addition, the report contains a review of “schweiss dog” handlers' experience with tracking game shot with a bow, as well as a forensic assessment of the pathophysiological effect of a bow shot compared to a rifle shot.
For a full understanding of the work, the report must be read in conjunction with the previous report by Kanstrup & Sonne (2021), which dealt with reports from bow hunters for the period 2018-2021 and reviewed Danish and international literature, analyzed technical and ballistic conditions as well as suggested more laboratory-based trials to clarify the effectiveness of bowhunting. This summary brings together the overall conclusions from both reports.
Data from the bow hunters from the full experimental period (2018-2022) constitute the most comprehensive and systematically collected material on bow hunting of the large deer game species in Denmark to date. Together with corresponding data from abroad, they suggest that the flight distance (the distance from where the animal was initially struck to where it fell, incapacitated) for deer shot during bowhunting is longer than in rifle hunting, where reference data for rifle hunting is obtained from Danish studies of practical hunting of similar animal species. Data from the schweiss register suggest that track lengths for animals shot with a bow are longer than for animals shot with a rifle. Both conditions are supported by a pathophysiological analysis (forensic medical statement) based on an assessment comparing the terminal ballistics of the arrow and the rifle projectile.
The analysis of the bow hunting data indicates that flight distances increase with the size of the animal. This applies to both bow and rifle hunting, but the correlation does not depend on the type of weapon. Data from the schweiss register indicate that the probability of a positive search (=the tracked animal is found) is less with bowhunting than with rifle hunting. The extent of wounding (hit animals that are not recovered) in the material for bowhunting is 8-9%, which corresponds to the level in other studies of bowhunting. There seems to be a tendency for experienced bow hunters have a low wounding risk than non-experienced ones, which is also supported by other studies. There is no corresponding useful basis for comparing the risk of wounding during rifle hunting.
Experience among schweiss dog handlers supports these results and indicates that the biggest difference between bow and rifle hunting is seen at shot placements outside the heart-lung region, where tracking of bow shot animals is complicated in the form of greater track length and reduced probability of finding the animal. Several schweiss dog handlers emphasize the importance of the shot placement and advise against non-horizontal shots.
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 for riffle hunting. 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", as well as an expanded scientific basis for assessing the effectiveness of hunting with rifles and shotgun, which today is used as a result of convention and not scientifically established criteria for effectiveness.
It is generally recommended that the effectiveness of weapon and ammunition types (shotgun, rifle and bow) due to the different technologies and terminal ballistics of these methods be assessed individually and not only by comparison. The literature review suggests that a hunting arrow potentially elicits less pain than a rifle projectile. This is supported by the pathophysiological opinion in the present report. Superficial wounds from accidental points of impact with hunting arrows may be more likely to heal than similar wounds caused by rifle ammunition.
Pathophysiological studies that can support evaluation of the effectiveness of bowhunting as a method for killing animals are complicated and costly. Aarhus University has outlined experiments that range from setups where data collection is based on accurate observations of animal behavior and reaction when shot with arrows and rifle projectiles under practical hunting-relevant circumstances, to more clinical experiments where the effect of the ammunition is evaluated from measurement of physiological variables in animals that are shot after prior anesthesia. Both categories of experiments and data collection require extensive prior organization and preparation. They are complicated to implement and probably require approval from the Council for Animal Experimentation. The suggested investigations have not been initiated.
