From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:11:21 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Nov18150329@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.184847.25815@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Nov15164405@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >This makes no sense to me.  If this was just a study, then its
>   >conclusions are completely worthless due to the flaws in the method.
>
>   Huh? As I previously indicated the purpose of that particular study was
>   to learn what happens to wounded deer.  However the archers were not
>   told the purpose; they were merely instructed to aim for the lungs. 
>   Wounded deer were produced and then observed.  What do you mean by
>   "flaws in the method?"
>
>You quoted a study in which 22 shots were required to barely hit and
>wound 10 penned goats.  This accuracy is so pathetic and bears so
>little in common with typical hunting accuracy that it provides no
>insight on the efficiency of bowhunting equipment.

The accuracy for this study is not relevant.  The purpose of the study
was to determine what happens to wounded animals. 

>
>The above study only indicates that animals that recieve very poor
>hits are likely to suffer painful deaths.  However, no conclusions
>about how common such poor hits are can be drawn.

The claim was made and has often been made that wounded animals
often recover because arrows cut "cleanly."  This study purported
to test that claim.

>
>   >But you have argued in the cited post and numerous others that the
>   >results from Benke's studies are typical.  They are not!  It appears
>   >that you are basing many of your opinions on Benke's book.  
>
>   No.  Not just Benke's book.  I made that clear right from the outset.  I
>   said that there existed at least 18 studies which indicated a consistent
>   pattern of 50% wounding rates for bowhunting and I even listed some. 
>   From an October 8, posting:
>
>A 50 percent wounding rate is quite different from the 100% wounding
>rate of the above example.  This is further evidence that the "study"
>was flawed.

Reread the original posting.  The wounding rate here was not 100%
here.  But even if it were, that's not relevant to studying what
happens to those (whatever percent) who are wounded.

>
>   >The most
>   >recent example indicates to me that you are using very incorrent and
>   >biased data.  If Benke's results were typical, I would also favor a
>   >ban on bowhunting.  However, his results are completely inaccurate and
>   >IMHO worthless.
>
>   His 50% wounding rate figure has been confirmed by many others.  Well
>   into the discussion you yourself even accepted it.  So why would you now
>   call such results completely inaccurate? Or are you here referring to
>   the issue of whether or not the problem is correctable (as Schuh claims)
>   or is not (as Benke claimed in his 1989 book)?
>
>I am calling the accuracy observed in the study you described as
>completely unrepresentative.

Fine.  But again the purpose of that particular study was to learn what
happens to wounded animals.

>
>   >   3.  John Van Etten has mailed me a copy of an article from (I believe) a
>   >   recent DEER AND DEER HUNTING magazine.  The article, written by Dwight
>   >   Schuh admits that high wounding rates are certainly possibly but
>   >   diverges from the Benke position in saying that the problem is
>   >   correctable. ...
>   >
>   >No.  Schuh says the problem IS CORRECTED.
>
>   Hold on a second here! Please quote where Schuh says the problem "is
>   corrected." His basic claim is that the problem is correctable, IF you
>   select equipment properly suited to yourself and IF you keep your bow
>   tuned and IF you practice sufficiently and IF you make careful shot
>   selections and IF you never give up on a trail (which is not really that
>   relevant IMO). 
>
>Benke describes shooting many arrows and having many wounded animals
>foreach one he took home.  Schuh says that that is consistant with
>bowhunting 30 years ago but is completely unrepresentative of
>bowhunting today.

I have on my desk a 1989 study from Montana which shows about 50% rate
for elk in the 1987 season.  That's 5 years ago.

>
>   This is NOT the same as saying the problem IS corrected.  He says that
>   every bowhunter SHOULD recover 80 to 90% of animals hit.  He does not
>   say that every one does recover at this rate.  Nor does he account for
>   the possibility that a lengthy tracking duration may be precipitated by
>   far-ranging movements by a wounded animal. 
>
>   The disagreement between Benke and Schuh (among others) is not over the
>   past or present existence of a wounding problem in bowhunting.  It's over
>   whether this problem is correctable.
>
>The experience of myself and others I hunt with clearly indicates that
>recovery rates close to those of gun hunters are obtainable.  Thus,
>there is no doubt that the problem is correctable.

That would relieve my mind somewhat if it were more universally true.

>
>   >Please elaborate on what point Benke refutes.
>
>   Benke named two published sources which documented increased wounding
>   rates for more experienced and successful hunters.  From an October 7
>   posting:
>
>A hunter that has been flinging lots of arrows for years at deer would
>qualify as "more experienced and [eventually] successful".  I was
>calling for better training and testing of bowhunters.  I am not sure
>how the two are related.

I would need to read the two wildlife bulletins referenced by Benke
here.  Your point may have some merit.

>
>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