From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:06:56 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <RIGG.92Oct7113133@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.171741.5108@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>   Earlier I made a case - in opposition to a contrary claim by another
>   poster - that it's unlikely for an injured animal to recover and it's very
>   likely for him or her to suffer a lingering painful death.  This opens
>   up questions like how often do these lingering deaths occur and do they
>   offset any claimed advantages for bowhunting?   The future fate of the
>   legalization of bowhunting may well hinge on the answers.
>
>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?

[...]

>   His plainly stated "agenda" is (1) to publicize his conclusion that
>   broadhead arrows lead to unacceptable levels of suffering and (2) to
>   propose a more humane alternative.
>
>1)  I think poor archers lead to unaccpetably high levels of
>suffering.

Same question as above applies here.  If you're right, then I would
agree that improving bowhunting skills and weeding out the slobs could
effect some improvement.  But as I mentioned elsewhere, there are
studies whose results tend to challenge your statement here.

[... eliminated material just covered in other posts ...]


>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?

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."

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?

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.

>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.

>
>2)  decreasing the ratio of "weekend" bowhunters to "real" bowhunters
>would do quite a bit to reduce the wounding rate.

Maybe.  However, I have posted the names of three studies which dispute
this.  Unless you can name some countering studies or until we actually
try some measures like those you suggest, it's still falls under the
realm of speculation.

>
>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