From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:02:42
	<RIGG.92Sep30190220@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct2.165521.3131@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:21 GMT

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 were 5 deer shot and recovered very quickly.  One was wounded and
   >probably died.  The other four shots were misses for one reason or
   >another.
   > [Lots deleted]

   Your record here and as described when we discussed this several months
   ago is significantly better than all the results I've seen listed in at
   least 18 different studies.  This is somewhat puzzling because "as these
   are hunter reported data, it is felt they are conservative." (quoted
   from the Texas study conducted by Boydston and Gore, which I listed
   previously). 

   In one case where dogs were used to ferret out the crippled (in Kerr
   WMA, if my memory is correct), the wounding rates were even worse than
   those reported by hunters - thus lending support to the Boydston and
   Gore thesis that hunters would tend to understate the problem. 

   Since I've posted a number of these studies in replies to Jeff Achenbach,
   then I recommend that you and others send for copies and determine for
   yourself why there is such a discrepancy.  That's what I plan to do.

There is one reason why my experience if different from these studies:
I take extensive measures to insure my success.  I am a member of an
archery league that shoots every week at 28 cardboard targets with
broadheads.  The distances are unknown and the kill zones are not
marked.  The shots are though hole in the brush, over creeks, up hills
and down hills.  I also shoot archery touraments about every other
weekend.  I have become a fairly accurate shot.  All bowhunters I hunt
with go though similar measures.

There is no doubt that a well-placed broadhead will bring a quick
humane death to just about any game animal.  However, many folks do
not take the time to insure such shots.  I was horrified to see a guy
buying a bow from WalMart the week before bow season.  It is quite
unlikely that he would be sufficiantly accurate to insure a good shot
in the woods.

So what should we do to prevent such problems?  This is one area where
our efforts would be much better spent working together for a common
goal rather than fighting each other.  I feel hunters care far more
about deer than nonhunters and antihunters.  Most responsible hunters
are working hard to prevent high wounding rates.  The easiest way is
to help other archers become proficient with their equipment.  

A less preferred way is to mandate proficiency.  I have a tough time
with this but supprt a test of a bowhunters ability.  The ideal test
would be to have all would-be bowhunters shoot a course similar to my
league course and then require some minimum score to obtain a license.
There are many logistical problems with this but it would succede in
dramatically reducing wound rates.

I would welcome any other suggestions.

tim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals