From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:18:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.144003.9175@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>> 
>>   Here are some revelant quotes from Benke (who started bowhunting in 1949):
>>
>>	   My early experience with 'large game' were mystifying.
>>	   Sometimes I saw arrows effect quick kills with seemingly
>>	   poor hits; and I saw broadheads fail to kill with good
>>	   hits, including lung shots.  Overall I'd say I lost three
>>	   or four animals to each one I killed.  And of all the 
>>	   bowhunters I observed, none did any better.  [p. 8]
>>
>>	   [rest deleted]
>>
>
>How did he know he made lung shots if the deer was lost? 

He knew from the initial trail of bright crimson frothy blood.

>Anyone who is this
>bad shouldn't be hunting. Unfortunately, we presently have no legal mechanism
>to weed out the slobs, which Benke, from this paragraph, obviously is. It is
>outrageous that he would continue to hunt while shooting so poorly. I don't 
>care if he bowhunted for 50 years, the man has declared himself incompetent.

Perhaps, but this includes many of his hunting cohorts, as well as others
with whom he has discussed the problem.  For example, Fred Bear speculated
in a letter that at least two deer were hit for every one killed and also
stated that he (Bear) knew of many bowhunters who quit after crippling
losses without any take.

>I've known both gun hunters and bow hunters to wound and lose deer. IMO, 
>most could have been found had the hunters practiced their tracking skills.

Perhaps in some cases.  That depends on how far the deer was able to
move, what the conditions were, how good the trail was, ...  

But notice that by introducing the need for better tracking skills,
you're shifting toward the view that the wounds were not sufficient to
induce rapid death. 

>I've never known anyone who would admit to such a horrendous average.

Neither have I.  But why would Benke, himself a hunter, fabricate this?

>>I know many bowhunters.  I have never heard ratios anywhere near this
>>bad.  I personally know of one injured deer that was not recovered out
>>of 10 shots.  I have not seen, heard or read anything to suggest that
>>this is out of the ordinary.

Apparently this is someone else's reply which I never saw, due to a
three and a half day network outage here from last Friday afternoon
until early Tuesday morning.  Any other replies or posts during that
entire time never arrived here.  So if further responses from me are
expected, then those messages will have to be emailed.

But to whoever posted this 1 in 10 statement, I address these questions:
by 10 shots, do you mean 10 hits?  So 10 deer were hit and 9 were killed
quickly with a single shot and retrieved dead?  And one wounded deer
escaped?  We need to clarify exactly what the claim is here. 

>Individual deer can be recognizable, much the same as purebred dogs of the 
>same breed. For me, it would take more than one sighting, unless there was
>something outstanding about that individual, like a nontypical rack. Your
>relative made a poor shot. He either didn't practice enough, shot beyond his
>effective range, or hit an obstruction. Buck fever is the most likely reason.
>So what never happened to him in 20 years? A nonfatal hit? That just says 
>he is a better shot with a rifle than a bow. Operator error, pure and simple.

Operator error?  Benke lists excitement and stress (buck fever, as
you say), but then finds that, beyond this, a higher than acceptable
wounding rate is inherently built into the activity itself.

>
>Jeff Achenbach
>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

---
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