From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:24:32 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Oct8.222038.3252@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.173104.5757@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>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:

[...]

>>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.
>>
>
>So am I correct in assuming that heart, lung, muscle shots would be most 
>effective, and gut shots comparatively slow acting? 

Not exactly, though it's a very good question.  In field research, two
deer were hit in the abdomen and went down within 10 seconds, even
though the circulatory system isn't much in the abdominal area.  Benke
reports his findings, but the exact medical explanation for the rapid
way in which SCC in the circulatory system subsequently acts to block
the neurotransmitters between nerve and muscle cells must be left to
medical people.  He speculates that there may be a way in which SCC
somehow short-circuits the neurosystem, but doesn't claim to know the
detailed medical aspects of how SCC operates. 


>If that is the case, 
>the only benefit I can see here would be in the case of a leg shot, from 
>which I expect the deer would recover. This may, I admit, be a biased view
>based on my revulsion by the gut shot.

Benke's experiments show that SCC will kill a gut-shot animal very
quickly.  This is a key advantage, because the terrible pain and slow
death characteristic of traditional gut-shots is well known.  Supposedly
a year or two ago, an 34 year old Idaho elk hunter was accidentally
gut-shot by another hunter.  The pain was so bad that he begged his 14
year old son to finish him off.  The son, unable to do it, went for
help.  The man's life was saved, but afterwards he remarked that the
entire experience did make him more aware of what some animals must go
through and that he was reconsidering his attitude and approach to
hunting. 

>>>   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%. 
>>
>
>Thanks for checking.

You're welcome.

>
>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.