From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:37:16
	<RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct8.182631.6179@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.182631.6179@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >My contention is that these unpredictable movements are of little
   >consequence when shooting at unalarmed deer under 20 yards.

   This is your contention, but is it based on personal experience?
   ...speculation?  ...actual studies? 

Personal experience and the witnessing of at least 50 hits on videos.
Animals sometimes move.  But almost always straight down.  So the shot
either hits the chest/spine or it misses completely.  

   Remember that it does not take much movement on the deer's part to
   convert a fatal shot to a non immediately fatal shot? How many inches
   do you claim a deer can move in half a second?

This depends entirely on the state of the deer.  The deer I shot this
fall was completely unaware and didn't move at all.  One I shot at
last fall was more aware and dropped below my arrow (a miss).  The
deer I killed last fall was quite aware but my arrow hit it in the
spine. 

Also, the time to move is one the order of a quarter of a second not a
half.  The average arrow moves around 200 feet/second.  A 20 yard
distance takes roughly 0.3 seconds.  Subtrating the deer's response
time leaves even less time for the deer to move.

   >I am claiming that a reduction to 10-15% could be obtained.  Improved
   >tracking skills could further reduce that number.

   But a reduction FROM what?  IYO what is the wounding rate now and why do
   you think that?  Does it approximate the 16% that your recent testimony
   suggests?  If so, a reduction from 16% to 10-15% does not strike me as a
   dramatic reduction.

I mentioned in another post that I'll concede that the overall average
might be around 50%.  That includes an average of about 15% or less for
responsible hunters and an average of somewhat higher for weekend
warriors. 
   Secondly, why does the issue of tracking skills keep surfacing? If the
   shot is on target and immobilization is rapid, then what are keen tracking
   skills needed for? Maybe it's related to the particular terrain where
   bowhunters typically hunt? 

   It seems to me that if death or immobilization occurs quickly, then the
   tracking skills needed to find a deer within, say a 100 yard radius, are
   not that demanding.  If necessary, you just assemble a coterie of
   hunting buddies and sweep the area.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

You are not wrong just forgetting things.  You have claimed over and
over that their is a chance of not making a perfect shot.  There
certainly is such a chance (although we differ on the magnitude of
such a chance).  A slightly missed shot might allow a deer to travel a
few hundred yards before dying.  (Note that even 400 yards can be
covered in well under a minute by a deer).  Now a trail this long
might take several turns and go through some difficult terrain.  It
does take a fair bit of skill to follow a deer along such a path.
Unfortunately, there is no real way to practice this important skill.
I have read several books on tracking, notably a very good one by Tom
Brown.  It is a difficult art that not enough hunters take the time to
learn. 

Also, it is a sad fact that some hunters are just not very good
woodsmen.  The drive their trucks or ATV to within a hundred yards of
their stands and wait.  They just aren't comfortable enough in the
woods to go cross country following a deer.

There is also the issue of slob hunters who put little effort in
because the deer is "just a doe".


In short, hunting a lot more work than hanging a stand and firing a
bow (or gun).  Unfortunately, there are too many hunters who don't put
in the effort needed.  I will say that all the hunters I have met
through rec.hunting and t.p.a appear to have put in enough time.  For
example, Keith Boyd spends about 200 hours in a stand per year and
probably that much scouting and turkey hunting.   I suspect that he is
as competent a woodsman as any.
 
   I appreciate your concern about drug-tainted meat, but I think in this
   case your fears are unfounded for these reasons:

           [good reasons deleted]

I respect your reasons and support laws allowing hunters to elect to
use these drugs (it is illegal in Wisconsin).  However, I personally
would not use them, unless mandated which I would fight.  I take great
pride in placing my shots well.  I also find great satisfaction in
taking the time to follow the trail as long as needed.  I see no need
to use the drugs.  I have never lost a deer (knock on wood).   It just
seems to remove much of the attractiveness of bowhunting if I just
have to hit the deer anywhere.  I can do that at 70 yards which means
I might as well be using my rifle.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)