From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:45:08 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct9101830@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.190656.6455@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct7113133@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >I agree.  However, as I mentioned earlier, the kill/hit ratio is quite
>   >high for responsible bowhunters.  There should be checks in place to
>   >remove irresponsible "bowhunters".
>
>   So your belief is that the high wounding rates documented in numerous
>   studies conducted by many wildlife agencies are slanted to reflect the
>   behavior of irresponsible bowhunters?  If so, is this an opinion?  an
>   empirical observation?  A conclusion supported by some studies?
>
>Admittedly, I have no studies to back up this belief.  However, it is
>true by definition in my mind.  Anyone who does not make every effort
>to make a good shot and do whatever it takes to track that animal is
>an irresponsible hunter.  Anyone who can continue to hunt after
>losing 1 animal for every 1 he takes home should not be hunting.

Time after time Benke did quit as did many of his companions, who lost
interest and never regained it.  Unlike them, he stayed interested and
was an incorrigible reader of bowhunting lore.  After his experiences
in Aransas NWR, in the late sixites, he "finally" did "quit" - until 
hearing of SCC...

>
>My partner lost 1 deer and has taken about 6 (I think).  I have taken
>2.  We spend more time talking about that one loss than all the others
>combined.
>
>   >There are two points that need to be made:
>   >
>   >1)  wounding does not mean a slow lingering death.  I wager that at
>   >least 50% of these wounds are superficial from which the deer recovers
>   >fully.  
>
>   Okay, just to make sure we're on the same wavelength: here you're NOT
>   talking about the percent of animals hit and not retrieved, which
>   according to numerous studies, hovers around 50%.  You ARE talking about
>   the nonretrievables and stating that 50% of these recover and go on to
>   live happily ever after.  Where's the evidence?
>
>Yes.  This is my contention.

Then how do you address questions like:

 1. How can a gut shot which cuts through digestive organs possibly not
    lead to gangrene.  How could the spillage of all sorts of foodwaste 
    and bacteria into the abdominal cavity occur and yet still permit 
    recovery without any medical treatment whatsoever?

 2. For other shots, how can bacterial infections which thrive with 
    notorious ease in puncture wounds not lead to septicemia.

>
>   This (without the wager) is a very very common type of claim made by
>   hunters.  It is also not supported by the (admittedly small in number)
>   studies and it is not logical.  The only hits which I can believe
>   this about would be superficial grazing type hits, some of which it
>   is stretching the definition to even call "hits."
>
>You are the one reading all the reports.  How do they define hits?

In the reports I've seen there is no explicit definition of "hit" but
the implication is clear that a hit is the striking of an animal with
an arrow.  In many studies, as I mentioned before, "hits" are based
on what hunters say, and thus these reports are regarded as conservative
understatements of the real problem.

>
>   But for anything else, to convince me you'll have to explain how a gut
>   shot which cuts through digestive organs could possibly not lead to
>   gangrene.  How could the spillage of all sorts of foodwaste and bacteria
>   into the abdominal cavity occur and yet still permit recovery without
>   any medical treatment whatsoever?
>
>A gut shot deer will almost certainly die.

Of course.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is how long will it
take?  As the Boydston and Gore Texas study says, "... almost all
abdominally shot deer will die a slow death due to peritonitis."

>
>   And for other shots, you'll need to explain how bacterial infections
>   which thrive with notorious ease in puncture wounds will not lead to
>   septicemia.
>
>Shots that just cut the skin or just cut muscle are not likely to be
>fatal.  There is an article in this months Deer and Deer Hunting about
>wounds inflicted while bucks are fighting.  Numberous photos
>illustrate that these can be quite serious wounds.  However, most of
>these deer recovered.  Now a shot from a bow may not be sterile but it
>is certainly cleaner and easier to heal than a ripped gash from an
>antler.

Are you comparing a gash type wound with a puncture wound?  The chances
for bacterial infection for the latter are much greater than for the former.

>
>   >However, the exact ratio of wound/death is most likely quite
>   >unknown.
>
>   The relatively small number of studies show that a very high percent
>   of wounded animals die.
>
>Please elaborate on what is meant by "The relatively small number of
>studies" and "a very high percent".

There are a lot of studies showing 50% wound rates.  There are much
fewer (i.e. "relatively small number of") studies which evaluate
whether wounded animals recover or die.  In Benke's experiments, all
died. 

>
>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