From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:18:30 GMT
	<RIGG.92Oct7113133@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct8.190656.6455@clpd.kodak.com>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:06:56 GMT

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.

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.

   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?

   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.

   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.


   >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".

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals