From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:31:04 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Oct7.141835.13810@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>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:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>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)
>>
>
>I think maybe you overestimate the effectiveness of a bullet. A gut shot
>deer will probably not be found whether shot with a bullet or an arrow. 

It may have sounded that way, but I don't think I am.  I wasn't claiming 
that gunhunting produced no wounding - just that it's more forgiving of
poorly placed shots and thus more likely to result in a lower wounding
rate than bowhunting (7% versus 50%, according to studies).  Gut shots
are bad news in either case.

>Same with a leg shot. I don't know how quickly these drugs work, ...

The quickness depends on the dosage (which varies from species to species)
and the dispensing mechanism.  A study by Dr. Keith Causey of Auburn
University found an average knockdown time of 13 seconds.

>and suspect that may also be dependent on shot location.

Shot location is important only to the extent that it affects entry of
the drug into the circulatory system ... where the drug must go in order
to be effective.

>
>>>  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). 
>>
>
>What bothers me about this solution, as I've stated before, is I believe 
>it would tend to spawn an attitude among the more casual bowhunters that 
>any shot is acceptable, so long as the deer is hit.

Yes you stated this before and I failed to answer.  I apologize, but with
my limited time I'm having trouble keeping up with all the followups on
this thread.

If the wounding rate were low now, then I agree that this might be a
small concern, though it doesn't speak highly of our perception of the
ethics of some bowhunters.  Even poorly placed shots would lead to a
relatively quick death and that would be an improvement from a suffering
and cruelty standpoint, which is really the only ethical way to look at
it.  The reason that this is even a small concern, rather than no
concern at all, is that some shots (e.g. in the eye, etc.) could cause
undue amount of distress before the paralytic action of the drug took
effect.

On the other hand if the wounding rate is high as many studies suggest
(and I regard 50% as high), then there would still be a significant net
reduction in deer suffering even with a sizable rise in the number of
"unacceptable" shots taken. 

> Maybe it's my own 
>predispositions, but I have that attitude troubling. I just can't believe
>that even a drug tipped arrow doesn't have a possibility of inflicting a 
>nonlethal injury.

As long as the dosage and dispensing mechanism are right and the drug
enters the circulatory system, this is unlikely.

>>>
>>>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.
>>
>
>This is already done on some wildlife management and military lands. I
>think it's a good idea, but hate to mandate anything. Why not do the same
>for gun hunters? 
>   IMO, the compound bow has brought more people into bowhunting than is
>desireable. It is much easier to become proficient, and I have no objection
>to people using them. What bothers me is that many people use it only to 
>extend the deer season, and don't practice enough or take the time to 
>learn the difference between shooting a deer with a bow and a rifle. I 
>wonder if wounding rates would show an increase that correlates with the
>virtual explosion of bowhunting's popularity?

The studies on my list were conducted from 1963 through 1989 and the
wounding rate does not seem to steadily increase, which is what I would
expect if that were the case.  Rather the rates seem to oscillate around
50%. 

>
>Jeff Achenbach

---
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