From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:26:31 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >  [detailing bowhunting "practice" deleted]
>
>   Okay, but there are always the unpredictable movements of the animals
>   and the less forgiving nature of arrow inflicted wounds.  (i.e.  less
>   forgiving than bullet or drug-tipped arrow)
>
>My contention is that these unpredictable movements are of little
>consequence when shooting at unalarmed deer under 20 yards.

This is your contention, but is it based on personal experience?
...speculation?  ...actual studies? 

What do you mean by "of little consequence?" ...that they seldom happen?
...that they can be corrected for? ...that they do often happen but
don't affect the outcome?  Where's the evidence?

Remember that it does not take much movement on the deer's part to
convert a fatal shot to a non immediately fatal shot? How many inches
do you claim a deer can move in half a second?

>   >  I feel hunters care far more
>   >about deer than nonhunters and antihunters.
>
>   I'm sure you'll appreciate that I disagree with this statement due the
>   inclusion of antihunters.  WRT nonhunters, it might be true in some
>   cases but not necessarily universally so. 
>
>My reason for stating this is that most nonhunters view deer as an
>abstract hazard that wanders roads and damages gardens.  Also, there
>was a poaching ring that was caught last year in Wisc.  The only
>people I knew who even cared about it were hunters.  Most other folks
>just saw a few fewer deer.

Well if I had heard about it, I would have cared about it (though I'm
not exactly clear on what you mean by "cared" or how this care was or
was not expressed).  When poaching occurs in my area, rest assured that
I care.  Others do too.  You might take a look at THE GAME WARS by Marc
Reisner.

>
>   >  Most responsible hunters
>   >are working hard to prevent high wounding rates.  The easiest way is
>   >to help other archers become proficient with their equipment.  
>
>   Actually there is an easier way, one that even handles the unpredictable
>   movement by the target animals to an extent which no degree of
>   proficiency could ever achieve.  That way is described by Benke in his
>   book.  And that way is supported by others including the Mississippi
>   bowhunters and Dr. Keith Causey, Auburn University Professor of Zoology
>   and Wildlife Science (who has 31 years experience as a wildlife
>   scientist and bowhunter). 
>
>Please elaborate...

I have in other posts, since you posted this.  If there are still more
questions, I'll try to address them.

>
>   >A less preferred way is to mandate proficiency.  ...
>
>   I agree that this would help.  But your observations described earlier
>   indicated a 16% wounding rate (10 shots, 5 kills, 1 cripple, 4 misses). 
>   That rate is much better than the rates which I've been citing.  
>
>   So when you speak of "dramatically reducing wound rates", are you
>   referring to a dramatic reduction below the 16% you've observed?  A
>   dramatic reduction below this seems difficult to achieve.  Or are you
>   assuming that my values are more realistic and that a dramatic reduction
>   below 50% could be achieved?  These are the types of numbers where I
>   would be more inclined to use a dramatic word like "dramatic."
>
>I am claiming that a reduction to 10-15% could be obtained.  Improved
>tracking skills could further reduce that number.

But a reduction FROM what?  IYO what is the wounding rate now and why do
you think that?  Does it approximate the 16% that your recent testimony
suggests?  If so, a reduction from 16% to 10-15% does not strike me as a
dramatic reduction.

Secondly, why does the issue of tracking skills keep surfacing? If the
shot is on target and immobilization is rapid, then what are keen tracking
skills needed for? Maybe it's related to the particular terrain where
bowhunters typically hunt? 

It seems to me that if death or immobilization occurs quickly, then the
tracking skills needed to find a deer within, say a 100 yard radius, are
not that demanding.  If necessary, you just assemble a coterie of
hunting buddies and sweep the area.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

On the other hand, if death and/or immobilization do not occur quickly,
then good tracking skills are helpful.  If a hit deer can still cover
great distances, then something went wrong and this is not supposed to
happen with the modern broadhead arrow. 


>I would welcome any other suggestions.  
> 
> Benke's solution is to use SCC-tipped arrows.  With this technique, the 
> crippling rate effectively drops to about as close to zero as you'll ever 
> get.  
> 
>As I mentioned in a previous post.  I do not want to eat venison 
>filled with some strong traquilizer.  

Sorry Tim, I must not have seen that previous post.  Maybe it arrived
during one of our infamous and too frequent blackouts. 

I appreciate your concern about drug-tainted meat, but I think in this
case your fears are unfounded for these reasons:

	1. Danger from SCC is far less than that from insecticides
	   and other toxins that abound.

	2. Many thousands of bowhunters and their families have been
	   eating SCC-killed venison since 1960 and there's NEVER been
	   a problem.

	3. Since 1967, million of pounds of meat from South Africa's
	   Kruger National Park (where SCC is used) have been processed 
	   and sold to the public.  At least a few million people have
	   probably eaten it and there's NEVER been a problem.

	4. SCC is widely distributed throughout the body and much of
	   it is removed in field dressing and processing.

	5. Thirty minutes of cooking at 212 degree F results in 50%
	   breakdown of the SCC.

	6. The oral toxicity of SCC is very low.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.