Barbed Broadheads

[matt61]

Is it legal to hunt game or feral animals with barbed broadheads in Australia.I'm do remember being told that the Australian Bowhunting Assoc deems them unethical.

[Coach]

Do you mean serrated heads , rather than smooth ones ?

[Moss]

Im not sure about Melbourne but I heard Tasmania has just legalized it.

[matt61]

A broadhead with with blades like a fish arrow head or a broadhead were the cutting edges finish at the back the blade tapers forward back to the ferrule, not serrated. Coach

[Stickbow Hunter]

I don't know of them being illegal but why would anyone want to use such a head? A normal broadhead is tapered at the back so that if a non lethal hit is made the arrow can work its way backwards and fall out and allow the wound to heal. A barbed head will not do this and should not be used IMO.

Jeff

[matt61]

I dont wish to shoot this type of head Jeff, the reason why I asked this question is that I was reading my copy of Bowhunting Down Under and in the Tech Tawk section they show a mechanical broadhead for small game. And looking at the design I would call it a barbed broadhead as the blades open by sliding backwards and spreading out unlike the other mechanicals were the blades fold over into the open position and when the arrow is pulled backwards the blades fold closed allowing the arrow come out.As I said I did'nt think they were ethical.

[jindydiver]

I dont wish to shoot this type of head Jeff, the reason why I asked this question is that I was reading my copy of Bowhunting Down Under and in the Tech Tawk section they show a mechanical broadhead for small game. And looking at the design I would call it a barbed broadhead as the blades open by sliding backwards and spreading out unlike the other mechanicals were the blades fold over into the open position and when the arrow is pulled backwards the blades fold closed allowing the arrow come out.As I said I did'nt think they were ethical.

That G5 head in the article is a barbed head and is illegal in many states in the US. The rage 3 blade is banned in many places too because it doesn't reliably collapse when pulled out.

[Luke]

Are you referring to the Tekan II Jindy?

If so, does this "barbed" quality possibly stand to negate the claiming of any game taken with this head under those associations who have rules against using barbed heads?



cheers,

Luke

[jindydiver]

Are you referring to the Tekan II Jindy?

If so, does this "barbed" quality possibly stand to negate the claiming of any game taken with this head under those associations who have rules against using barbed heads?



cheers,

Luke

I wouldn't know

[Luke]

No worries mate, thanks.

[woody]

The barbed head design, in my opinion, is banned purely to appease the people who think they look evil and can cause a lingering death.

If a hunting arrow doesnt achive total pass thru, its because its encountered something too solid, to allow its passage.

Usually bone or very heavy muscle or cartilidge.

The odds of any design working free from being imbedded in any of the above are slim at best, barbed or not barbed.

Howard Hills earliest broadhead designs were barbed, his logic was that any barbed broadhead that was poking out the far side of the animal, had a good chance to snag on a bush and the arrow then drawn out of the animals body.

Basically, the percieved reason they are banned is the opposite in practical reality.

In any case, designs that more often than not, pass completely thru, exiting the far side of the animal, should be more relevant a criteria of how humane a design is, than barbed or not barbed

Having said that, if the overwhelming public opinion, is, that barbed designs are evil, it will continue to be a rarity in the bowhunting market place.

[woody]

A lot of the stigma about barbed designs, I think, is a carry over from the days when archery was used in human warfare.

A barbed design did make it very hard to extract.

The surgeon couldnt just wrap his two hands around the shaft and yank it out.

For hunting animals, my point is they dont have mates with hands that can yank an arrow out.

If an arrow is solidly embedded, it makes little difference to the animal if it is or is not barbed.

The most usual scenario, is that the shaft breaks behind the broadhead, and if the animal shakes off the wound and recovers, the broadhead is left with a calcified bone encapsulation.

A mate of mine used to work in a feral goat abbottoir in NSW. Once or twice a week, the meat bandsaw would stuff its blade on broadheads that were stuck in the bones, calcified over.

He had a little tin, where he would collect them, and show the boss why a new bandsaw blade was needed.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Matt,

To my knowledge they are not banned anywhere in Australia. The issue of their relative humaneness in killing animals has never arisen here legally.

ABA has something in its Code of Hunting Ethics and Bowhunter Education Manual to the effect that they are far less likely to work their way out of a wound than a tapered back broadhead so long as they don't embed in bone, which issue Woody raises above. However, neither design which embeds into bone is much of a candidate for working out of a wound, anyway.

There is nothing legal in Australia that I know of to prevent your using one if you wish. However, if you wish to claim game through ABA, you are required to demonstrate that you have followed that organization's code of bowhunting ethics. If you would like to change that aspect of the code, then you must put forward a cogent case with sound evidence for removing that aspect of the code.

Most/all of the USA, I understand, has a ban on barbed broadheads based on evidence/belief/conjecture that barbed heads are less humane than tapered back broadheads in the case of some/many kinds of soft tissue wounds. If you want to find out their reasons for prohibition, the relevant State Fish and Game Departments are readily contactable via the web and may be able to help. Try googling US Fish & Game Departments as a starter, then look for bowhunting regulations.

My own take on the matter is that the conventional tapered back broadheads are well-proven to kill reliably and humanely if the shot is well placed. Before I would consider changing to a barbed head, I would want to know that it is a substantially better humane killer than the tapered back broadhead and with clear supportable evidence to that effect. It would need to be a better case than one of personal preference.

Dennis La Varenne

[woody]

Dennis,
In the early days of bowhunting, barbed designs were quite common.

It was an efficient way of minimising surface area, so that they flew well and also were of adequate width with out too much weight and it was an easy design to manufacture.

Modern design with vented blades largely solve these problems.

To my mind, most of the horrendously poor performing broad head designs that are inhumane to use, are not barbed.

The focus should be on choosing efficiency of penetration designs.

If a broadhead arrow is excellently designed to pass completely thru the animal, coming out backwards is not even an issue.

Ed Ashbys broadhead studies should be mandatory in all bowhunter education courses.

[Coach]

Woody , would you class your Supremes as a barbed head ?
I don't care either way as they are the best Aussie head I have used and will continue to do so

[woody]

Coach,
If you mean will it dig in if pulled backwards, no, if thats your definition of barbed.

In the USA, I believe some of the states with laws about barbed heads, define a barbed head as the back of the blade not touching the rear of the ferrule.

I suppose it depends who is making the definition.

[Stickbow Hunter]

If a broadhead arrow is excellently designed to pass completely thru the animal, coming out backwards is not even an issue.

That's a bit like saying - a person who is an excellent shot, wounding an animal is not even an issue.

It's not a perfect world and unseen twigs have been known to deflect arrows that are excellently designed to pass completely thru animals but did not. The non barbed head was designed to give the best possibility of working their way out in such instances.

Jeff

[woody]

Jeff,
How many solid broadhead hit animals, where the broadhead has been shed, the animal recovers, and the animal shot later to confirm a previous hit, have you personally ever seen.

Not pass thrus. Imbedded broadheads

Have you any mates who have?

I think that solid broadhead hits, working their way out backwards, is a load of rubbish, barbed or not barbed.

My experience, with broadheads lodged in the body cavity( bone hit) that prevents full penetration, and the animal goes toes up, is that even with a two hand hold and one foot on the animal, their damm hard to extract.

Gut shots, should be pass throughs.

A shot to the hams should be a pass through, unless it lodges in the leg bones, or pelvic bones.

A strong 3:1 ratio broadhead, with a chisled/tanto tip on a medium to heavy arrow from a heavy hunting bow should drive arrows straight through all but the super big game. ( Camels / Buff)

If it doesnt, their lodged in so hard they arent going to work out by themselves.

The point I was making, is that good broadhead designs, drive in so deep they wont be coming out backwards, barbed or not

What I was saying, is that there are a lot of poorly designed broadheads on the market that are far more evil than "barbed" designs. Some of the "evil barbed ones" are actually superior.

Aussie heads are fine, but some of the imports are just rubbish.

This fixed mind set that barbed styles are " wicked" is based on historical attitudes from archery warfare when humans were the target and prejudices based on empathy not logic.

[woody]

Jeff,
The only flesh wound I have ever seen that would fit your criteria, was an arrow that deflected off a tree branch, then a strand of fencing wire, porpoised wildly and lodged about 3 inches deep in the upper ham of a rusa deer.

And no, I was just an observer from a distance, not the shooter

[Dennis La Varenne]

Woody

You seem to be vigorously defending barbed broadheads. Are you intending to manufacture one for use here in Australia? If so, what would be the particlular benefits of a barbed broadhead over and above a good 3:1 ration tanto tipped style conventional tapered back broadhead where identical lethal hits on an animal occur?

The original question was whether they are legal and or ethically humane, at least from an ABA perspective.

You haven't answered that question that I can see.

Dennis La Varenne

[woody]

Dennis,
You havent been paying attention have you.

They are legal and a well designed one, is, in my opinion a lot more ethical than than a host of junk broadheads that come into this country.

I have already pointed out the logic of Howard Hill, who maintained a barbed head, poking out the far side of an animal is far more likely to catch on a bush and be dragged clear.

Thats about as humane and ethical a design as you can get.

This, to my mind is a far more valid argument to think about than broadheads magically sliding out backward, barbed or not.

I also said, as long as the popular perception of them as being
" wicked evil broadheads" remains, they will be a rarity.

Nobody in their right mind makes models that will be unpopular to the majority of the market.

That is the only reason Howard Hill broadheads are not barbed today, money, the guy had to make a living.

Like Howard, I will bend my beliefs for fiscal advantage.

Do a bit of research and you will see what the early Hill broadheads looked like.

I try and read everything I can find on the subject of broadheads, there is a lot to them and I have a lot to learn, but just because I disagree with the "experts" doesnt nescessarily make me wrong.

From the perspective of ABA, they dont speak for 80 to 90% of the bowhunters in this country who are not ABA. Sad but true.

[woody]

Ps,
The biggest design flaw of barbed broadheads, is that the're cows of things for catching on grass and bushes and popping the nock off the string when stalking.

[Mike-dy]

For those that may not have seen them, heres the difference between the Howard Hill barbed and non barbed heads, both types were made in 1958.
Cheers,
Mike

[woody]

Thanks Mike,
That Howard Hill head is exactly what I'm talking about.

Ethical and humane broadhead designs have a lot more considerations than just being barbed or not.

Compared to the junk heads advertised on the inside front cover of the last issue of Archery Action magazine, I would choose them any day.

[Stickbow Hunter]

Woody,

I never said one word about imbeded broadheads and you seem stuck on that issue. Over the years I have witnessed numerous arrows that did not penetrate fully (and did not imbed in bone) and these arrows worked their way out giving every opportunity for the wound to heal. A barbed head would make this far less likely and it would seem that a lot of other bowhunters think likewise. That thinking has absolutely nothing to do with thinking they are evil or whatever but everything to do with the barbes stopping a head working out.

I was quite aware of what a barbed head was/is and what the Howard Hill barbed head looked like but there is no way that I think they should be used. In the same way, like you, I don't believe a lot of the junk newer heads should be used either but that has little to do with a discussion of barbed heads.

Jeff

[woody]

Woody,

I never said one word about imbeded broadheads and you seem stuck on that issue. Over the years I have witnessed numerous arrows that did not penetrate fully (and did not imbed in bone) and these arrows worked their way out giving every opportunity for the wound to heal. A barbed head would make this far less likely and it would seem that a lot of other bowhunters think likewise. That thinking has absolutely nothing to do with thinking they are evil or whatever but everything to do with the barbes stopping a head working out.

I was quite aware of what a barbed head was/is and what the Howard Hill barbed head looked like but there is no way that I think they should be used. In the same way, like you, I don't believe a lot of the junk newer heads should be used either but that has little to do with a discussion of barbed heads.

Jeff

To my mind, a broadhead hit that doesnt penetrate enough to not fall out merely points out their is other problems in play.

I really cant see any substantial hit working its way out, you must be talking about hits barely more than skin deep.

Also neither yourself or Dennis have commented on the logic of Howard Hill regards barbed heads.

We can argue back and forth all day, and you wont / choose not to agree, my maint point, that on a solid deep hit, barbed or not barbed, there is buckleys chance of that broadhead coming out backwards.

For a barely skin deep hit with the arrow flopping around all over the place, maybe you have a point.

Also for the purpose of the discussion, I would also like to point out I am not talking about pointy barbs, but rather blades that dont meet the back of the ferrule, as per the example of the howard Hill broadhead that Mike was kind enough to post up.

As pertains to what a lot of others think......I think its also good to think for yourself.

Do I use barbed heads myself, currently, no, some hand made proto type Supremes were years ago, and they worked very well.

Not one pig knew the difference....

These days I shoot what I sell my customers.

[woody]

As to relevance of junk heads to barbed broadheads discussion, my point was, that junk heads have no ethical dilema being advertised in the newsletter of the ABA, Archery Action magazine, and that ABA policy would ban the Howard Hill barbed head out of hand.

The discussion was about the legality and ethics of barbed heads.

I know which one would trouble my conscience to use.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Alan,

Always read your posts closely before I answer. Still can't see where you have addressed the matter of whether the barbed broadhead is more or less humane. You've talked all round it and brought in a lot of extraneous material, but nothing particularly pertinent to the issue.

If I were on the same Victorian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee which I fronted with a few other Branch people a few years back, and put your line of argument to them as a reason to in favour of barbed broadheads, I would not be convinced.

I am not anti-barbed broadhead on principle. I am convinced by the arguments that they are less humane in the case of a non-lethal wounding hit of being able to fall from the wound from normal muscular action which is a normal process whereby the body will try to eject a foreign object. Some/many non-lethal soft tissue wounding hits penetrate deeply but are not bilateral. If all wounding hits were bilateral, you would be correct. In real life, they just aren't and the proposition is that in such cases the probability of a tapered back broadhead being able to be ejected from a wound channel by normal muscular action is greater. In contrast and by design, barbed broadheads, whether of the pointed or Howard Hill design are purposely meant to prevent this norman muscular ejectory action by hooking on tissue. That is what is intended when they are referred to as less humane.

Howard Hills comment on the purpose of his design is not logic. It is hopeful speculation and certainly not proven by observable evidence which he gathered. He just said it and many believed it because he said it. That is the standard of his comment. Nothing more.

All through this thread, I have been waiting for you to offer some kind of reasonably objective evidence which would lead me to consider that there is an aspect of the design of the barbed broadhead which makes it as humane in the same terms as I have described above as the tapered back broadhead.

If you can offer that reasonable evidence, I am quite prepared to change my mind.

Dennis La Varenne

[woody]

Dennis,
I have no doubt Howards comments on the subject would be based on his observation of what actually happened in the real world.

Why are you so quick to dismiss the thoughts on the subject of a man who was using the design for at least 30 years.

Just because it doesnt mesh with your ideas you dismiss it out of hand as here say.

For a longbow shooter, thats like a catholic priest contradicting God.


Again you have completely rejected the concept that a barbed head may actually be beneficial in dragging an arrow out of an animals body.

From a deep pass thru wound at that, I would like to see you muscle spasm theory cope with that.

I have no degree in vetrinary science so I cant say for certain your argument is flawed, but it sounds a bit of a stretch to me.

I have no doubt there is a foreign body object, rejection reaction, where a foreign body will fester out.

This is a part of nature, no argument there.

I can also see, that a barbed head with pointy barbs, would hinder this process.

I have not said anywhere in my posts that I am in favour of heads with pointy barbs.

I refer again, to the picture Mike posted, as the style of head I am talking about.

For this to be a factor, barbed or not barbed, the hit would have to be of a very superficial nature.

What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that that doesnt count for diddly squat with a solid hit.

I have also said, that correct arrow weight , broadhead design and bow weight should routinely achieve pass thru penetration unless stopped by something solid.

A deep soft tissue hit, that you are talking about, should be a pass thru. If not, the bowhunter has other equipment issues which need sorting out.

I know people are going to take me to task on that last statement,
I dont care, its true.

To my knowledge, there has never been a study done on the subject, the wounding mortality rate of barbed /not barbed broadheads, and it irks me that so many people present their argument as fact, they know, everybody knows, when the reality is the subjects never been studied properly either way.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that if such a study is ever done, the numbers when crunched, would not be biased either way....

[woody]

Extract from Hunting the Hard Way, by Howard Hill.

How to make arrows.......Pg 117

One might ask why it is an advantage to shoot the head of the arrow completely through the animal. if the barbed-head type of broadhead is used and it is shot completely through the prey, there are ten chances to one that the protruding head will hang on some limb or brush in a short time and will pull the shaft out, so that if the game has not been hit in a vital spot, there will be left a clean wound which will heal quickly.

For this one reason I use only barbed broadheads.

I have never seen a broadhead arrow come back out the way it went in unless someone pulled it out, no matter what type of shoulder the head had; yet during my 25 years of hunting, I have had at least thirty arrowspulled out by having the barbed head hang on limbs, weeds, tall grass and so on. In nearly every instance of my shooting mountain lions, other cats, and bear, the broadheads have gone completely through the animal and stuck in the ground beyond the game