From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:39:27
	<RIGG.92Oct5100242@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct6.184348.6065@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:43:48 GMT

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.

   >  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.

   >  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...

   >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.

   >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.

tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals