From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:48:47 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Nov15164405@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.220531.9159@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>   Catching up on old discussions -
>
>   Re: bowhunting
>
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct14102059@osnome.che.wisc.edu> Tim Rigg
>
>   [...Benke description deleted ...]
>   > I am not sure what sort of folks Benke knows but I would most
>   > certainly give up bowhunting if it took me 2.2 arrows to barely hit a
>   > penned goat.
>
>   [similar responses saying the accuracy in Benke's experiment is
>    attrocious and completely unrepresentative of bowhunters deleted]
>
>   In response to all three of you:
>
>   1.  I also found it appalling to read of this.  But remember this was
>   not hunting; it was research.  That supposedly justifies it.  But
>   cruelty is cruelty no matter what higher-minded term it parades under. 
>   Sometimes it may be justified, but often it's not. 
>
>This makes no sense to me.  If this was just a study, then its
>conclusions are completely worthless due to the flaws in the method.

Huh? As I previously indicated the purpose of that particular study was
to learn what happens to wounded deer.  However the archers were not
told the purpose; they were merely instructed to aim for the lungs. 
Wounded deer were produced and then observed.  What do you mean by
"flaws in the method?"


>   2.  The lack of accuracy also surprised me.  Since I never have and
>   never will bowhunt, there's no reference point for me.  Even if I were
>   to take up archery target shooting (which I admit a fascination for),
>   the differences between inanimate versus animate targets are too great
>   for me to believe in close parallels. 
>
>But you have argued in the cited post and numerous others that the
>results from Benke's studies are typical.  They are not!  It appears
>that you are basing many of your opinions on Benke's book.  

No.  Not just Benke's book.  I made that clear right from the outset.  I
said that there existed at least 18 studies which indicated a consistent
pattern of 50% wounding rates for bowhunting and I even listed some. 
From an October 8, posting:

--      Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1984 - 58%)
--      Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1987 - 50%)
--      Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (1988 - 51%)
--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in Alabama)
--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in South Carolina)
--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1981 - 48% in South Dakota)
--      Wildlife Society Bulletin (1983 - 49% in Iowa)
--      Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners (1963 - 44%)
--      Vermont Fish and Game Department (1972 - 63%)
--      Wisconsin Chapter of Wildlife Society (1983 - 55%)
--      Deer and Deer Hunting (1986 - 56%)

>The most
>recent example indicates to me that you are using very incorrent and
>biased data.  If Benke's results were typical, I would also favor a
>ban on bowhunting.  However, his results are completely inaccurate and
>IMHO worthless.

His 50% wounding rate figure has been confirmed by many others.  Well
into the discussion you yourself even accepted it.  So why would you now
call such results completely inaccurate? Or are you here referring to
the issue of whether or not the problem is correctable (as Schuh claims)
or is not (as Benke claimed in his 1989 book)?


>   3.  John Van Etten has mailed me a copy of an article from (I believe) a
>   recent DEER AND DEER HUNTING magazine.  The article, written by Dwight
>   Schuh admits that high wounding rates are certainly possibly but
>   diverges from the Benke position in saying that the problem is
>   correctable. ...
>
>No.  Schuh says the problem IS CORRECTED.

Hold on a second here! Please quote where Schuh says the problem "is
corrected." His basic claim is that the problem is correctable, IF you
select equipment properly suited to yourself and IF you keep your bow
tuned and IF you practice sufficiently and IF you make careful shot
selections and IF you never give up on a trail (which is not really that
relevant IMO). 

This is NOT the same as saying the problem IS corrected.  He says that
every bowhunter SHOULD recover 80 to 90% of animals hit.  He does not
say that every one does recover at this rate.  Nor does he account for
the possibility that a lengthy tracking duration may be precipitated by
far-ranging movements by a wounded animal. 

The disagreement between Benke and Schuh (among others) is not over the
past or present existence of a wounding problem in bowhunting.  It's over
whether this problem is correctable.

>  ... Many years ago, bowhunting
>was quite different.

Yes, he discusses the change in philosophy.  But what's this "many years
ago ..." business? Studies show 50% wounding rates right up into the
late 1980s, which are the most recent years for which I've been able to
find data. 

>  Bows were less accurate and other equipment less
>forgiving.  Also, people considered a trip a success if they shot a
>lot of arrows at deer.  Today, bowhunters only take shots if they
>think the shot has a very high probability of success.  In short,
>Benke's methods and conclusions are outdated and incorrect.
>
>   Benke disputed this and cited three Wildlife Society
>   Bulletin studies to back up his claim.  ...
>
>Please elaborate on what point Benke refutes.

Benke named two published sources which documented increased wounding
rates for more experienced and successful hunters.  From an October 7
posting:

- Perhaps this will help.  However, there are two published studies which
- document INCREASED wounding rates for the more experienced and successful
- bowhunters:
-
-        McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.I., and Wentz, W.A.  Non-
-        reporting, Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer
-        Bowhunters - 1981.  1985.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 
-        13(4):395-398.
-				
-        Stormer, F. A., Kirkpatrick, C. M. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1979.
-        Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-Tailed Deer.  Wildlife
-        Society Bulletin 7(1):10-16.
-							
- There's also a study suggesting that crippling is not correctable by
- increased training or field experience:
-							
-        Gladfelter, H.L., Kienzler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. 1983.
-        Effects of Compound Bow Use on Deer Hunter Success and
-        Crippling Rates in Iowa, Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1):7-12.

>
>tim

---
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