From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:41:11 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <RIGG.92Oct7143519@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.170142.15235@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...

>I was going to say that you didn't comment on whether you would rent a
>video or not.  

I'll consider it.

>I am sure it would provide valuable information.
>However, I realized that I have no intention of reading Benke's book.
>In the first case, I could not support it by spending money on it and
>I don't know where I could borrow a copy.  I also think I have read
>enough excerpts to have a feel for the book.  In short, I don't think
>his information is accurate.  After all, in one place he cites a 1/10
>recovery rate.  In another, he documents a 50% recovery rate.

Huh?  He doesn't document this.  He and others (including a number of
wildlife agencies) have documented that about 50% of deer hit by arrows
escape and are not retrieved.  Of these 50% that escape, he estimates
that 10% recover.

>Basically, I view it like I see most strongly opinionated "studies":
>biased.  They provide some insight but the truth lies somewhere
>between the propoganda of both sides.

What propaganda are you referring to here?  I'm interested in what 
statements have been made by BOTH sides which you regard as
propaganda.

>   To get another view on Benke's book, last night I phoned a nationally
>   prominent animal protection group.  Their view was that while Benke's
>   book was valuable for its informational content, it's a somewhat
>   unpleasant book due to discussions about arrowing animals and then
>   observing the ensuing deaths, which sometimes extended for days.  And
>   they expressed some personal distaste for a man like Benke who could
>   actively participate in these activities, even in the name of research.
>
>I am, however, getting more curious by the moment.  Just what type of
>setting was he studying that he could follow an animal for days?
>especially without affecting the outcome?  In other words, it would be
>very hard to track a wounded deer for several days without disturbing
>it.  Also, this suggests that he was able to locate and view the deer
>for several days.  

His controlled experiments were done in a somewaht confined area where
he could wound animals and observe what happened naturally.  In some
cases he permitted the suffering to continue to the death.  In other
cases, even he could not avoid intervention to terminate the agony.

>A hunter, as opposed to a researcher, would have
>killed the animal at the first encounter.

Of course ...  at least an ethical hunter would make every effort to do
so.  Is this a case of my answers not catching up yet with all the
questions?  Benke is BOTH a hunter and a researcher.  In his hunting
discussions, he describes past efforts and experiences in laboring to 
track down and finish off wounded animals.  

But it was his hunting experiences which led him to perform this
research.  And part of his research was intended to discover what
happens to wounded animals.  Do they really recover with amazing
regularity as bowhunting folklore asserts? Or do they die slow lingering
deaths as seems more logical?

>   >However, they do make one point quite
>   >clear: quick human kills are quite possible with archery equipment. 
>
>   I don't doubt this at all - if the heart or a major artery is hit.  But
>   on most animals, these areas comprise 25-30% of the the body.  What I am
>   questioning is how often the other 70-75% of the body is hit, since I
>   have reason to believe that terrible suffering and agony occurs in these
>   cases. 
>
>There is no doubt that some arrow-hit deer die horrible deaths.  My
>contention is that such cases are a minority and can be further
>reduced without effecting responsible hunters.

I appreciate that this is your position and firmly-held belief.  But
merely stating it does not make it true.  Where's the evidence?  If
you can produce some, I am willing to send it Benke for his comments.

[...]

---
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.theory,ba.politics,alt.individualism