From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:43:48 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.165521.3131@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Sep30190220@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

[...]

>There is one reason why my experience if different from these studies:
>I take extensive measures to insure my success.  I am a member of an
>archery league that shoots every week at 28 cardboard targets with
>broadheads.  The distances are unknown and the kill zones are not
>marked.  The shots are though hole in the brush, over creeks, up hills
>and down hills.  I also shoot archery touraments about every other
>weekend.  I have become a fairly accurate shot.  All bowhunters I hunt
>with go though similar measures.

Okay, but there are always the unpredictable movements of the animals
and the less forgiving nature of arrow inflicted wounds.  (i.e.  less
forgiving than bullet or drug-tipped arrow)

>
>There is no doubt that a well-placed broadhead will bring a quick
>humane death to just about any game animal.  However, many folks do
>not take the time to insure such shots.  I was horrified to see a guy
>buying a bow from WalMart the week before bow season.  It is quite
>unlikely that he would be sufficiantly accurate to insure a good shot
>in the woods.
>
>So what should we do to prevent such problems?  This is one area where
>our efforts would be much better spent working together for a common
>goal rather than fighting each other.

Yes, I think there are areas of common concern, especially when it comes
to issues like reducing habitat loss - though once habitat is preserved
we might differ greatly on how that area would be "managed."

>  I feel hunters care far more
>about deer than nonhunters and antihunters.

I'm sure you'll appreciate that I disagree with this statement due the
inclusion of antihunters.  WRT nonhunters, it might be true in some
cases but not necessarily universally so. 

>  Most responsible hunters
>are working hard to prevent high wounding rates.  The easiest way is
>to help other archers become proficient with their equipment.  

Actually there is an easier way, one that even handles the unpredictable
movement by the target animals to an extent which no degree of
proficiency could ever achieve.  That way is described by Benke in his
book.  And that way is supported by others including the Mississippi
bowhunters and Dr. Keith Causey, Auburn University Professor of Zoology
and Wildlife Science (who has 31 years experience as a wildlife
scientist and bowhunter). 

>
>A less preferred way is to mandate proficiency.  I have a tough time
>with this but supprt a test of a bowhunters ability.  The ideal test
>would be to have all would-be bowhunters shoot a course similar to my
>league course and then require some minimum score to obtain a license.
>There are many logistical problems with this but it would succede in
>dramatically reducing wound rates.

I agree that this would help.  But your observations described earlier
indicated a 16% wounding rate (10 shots, 5 kills, 1 cripple, 4 misses). 
That rate is much better than the rates which I've been citing.  

So when you speak of "dramatically reducing wound rates", are you
referring to a dramatic reduction below the 16% you've observed?  A
dramatic reduction below this seems difficult to achieve.  Or are you
assuming that my values are more realistic and that a dramatic reduction
below 50% could be achieved?  These are the types of numbers where I
would be more inclined to use a dramatic word like "dramatic."

>
>I would welcome any other suggestions.

Benke's solution is to use SCC-tipped arrows.  With this technique, the
crippling rate effectively drops to about as close to zero as you'll ever
get.

>
>tim

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals