From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:56:56 GMT

In article <viking.718594800@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>>	Certainly these are groups I would have little problem with
>>>accepting research from, but I do have a question: how did they define
>>>"wounding" ?  I've "wounded" animals in that they required a second shot
>>>to kill, and it took probably 30 seconds to reach them, so I would have
>>>chalked it up as a wounding even though that animal would have died
>>>fairly shortly thereafter.  I agree, the data show a large wounding rate,
>>>and given the nature of bowhunting I'm not over suprised that rates are
>>>so high, but I'd like to think most of those "wounded" deer ran a few
>>>yards and dropped and didn't go to waste.
>
>>However, I find myself surprised that you're "not over suprised" at the
>>high rates.  Personally I WAS surprised when I heard this about a year
>>ago.  And more importantly, I was alarmed - not by the prospect of any
>>mythical waste, but by the completely avoidable suffering inflicted on
>>animals by hunters, who I've been told care more about animals than
>>antihunters do.  
>
>	We do.  That's why I break the law and finish a deer that I've
>"wounded" with the .50 by shooting it with the .45 pistol.  Yes, I
>carry it not only as a weapon against tresspassers who may become violent,
>but to quickly dispatch any animal not dead by the time I get to it.
>This is just a few seconds, as 100 yards is at the extreme limit of my
>black powder rifle so far as I'm concerned.  Thus, I'm not suprised at
>the high wounding rate in bowhunting as a heart shot may be the vast
>majority of the "kill" cites, and lung shots a "wounding" criteria.

From what I can tell, the wounding criteria was defined much more
tightly than you're assuming.  A lung hit resulting in a confirmed kill
and a retrieved deer would count in the kill count not the wounded
count, even if retrieval took some extra time. 

Some points to keep in mind:

1.  It's not just Benke who has reported high wounding rates resulting
from bowhunting.  There are about 20 wildlife management reports done
by wildlife manager and wildlife biologist types, who are not likely
to so loosely define the wounding criteria in a way that would inflate
the wounding claims.

2.  In some cases, dogs were used to chase down the wounded deer.  It
was just this use of dogs during gun season in Mississippi following
the bow season (which did not permit dogs), that convinced Mississippi
officials to legalize use of SCC.

3.  For comparison purposes and as a control, the wounding rates for
both gunhunting and bowhunting were studied by Boydston and Gore in four
Texas Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) from 1972 to 1985.  The gun
wounding rate was around 7%, while the bow rate was around 50%.  So
however wounding was defined, it was the same for both cases.


>Either will kill effectively and in a short amount of time, but the
>lung shots take a bit longer and the deer runs farther.  If wounding
>and killing were very closely defined in this poll, my reservations
>would be unfounded and I'd be highly suprised at the results even
>when I include the two-day-a-year hunters I loathe so much.

Independent of how wounding was defined, the comparison between gun
wounding and bow wounding partly addresses your objection here. 

>
>>If the rates are really this high, where is the care and concern from
>>hunters? 
>
>	Just to clarify, the care and concern may be where we define
>a killing-in-1-minute shot as a wounding shot.

... and here too.

>
>>Not necessarily.  Remember that we're discussing PERCENT of animals
>>wounded by a specific technique, not absolute numbers.
>
>	The deer harvest is quite large.  Since as many deer are wounded
>as are harvested, scavengers should be about in great numbers.

Remember that the wounding loss by gunhunters is much lower than that
for bowhunters (7% vs. 50%).  Using these numbers and factoring in the
reduced numbers of bowhunters compared with gunhunters will not 
necessarily lead to your conclusion about scavengers.

>
><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
><z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
><viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
><ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

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