From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.182351.15869@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.221442.21930@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>In article <viking.718076141@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>>>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>

Robert Black:
>Though I haven't yet mentioned a bowhunting ban, I have not seen any
>convincing reasons to oppose such a ban.  
>
>The main case for bowhunting seems to be that it provides excitement and
>recreation for a subset of hunters.  From the animals' standpoint, it
>offers no "advantages" which are not already available from gun hunting.
>

I guess this is a question of value. Excitement and recreation is reason 
enough in my mind. These are the same reasons people gun hunt, rock climb,
and do many other things which have a social cost that is not usually 
considered. The main "advantage" to animals of bowhunting can be seen in
the extremely low success rate for bowhunters as compared to gunhunters.

>So assuming that there does exist a serious wounding problem in the 
>bowhunting world, let's examine three potential solutions:
>
>     1.	A ban - I would not be at all disappointed by a ban.  Hunter
>	recreation is not a persuasive rationale for continuing a
>	practice that so easily leads to excessive and avoidable
>	suffering.  Who pays the terrible price of hunter mistakes?
>	The animals do.  That's not fair and it's not sporting.
>

Life's not fair, for them or for many people. The persuasiveness of recreation
as justification is very subjective. We will obviously not reach any form
of agreement on this.

>
>     3.	Better training for bowhunters - This is of course the 
>	hunter-proposed solution.  But there are reasons for concluding
>	that an inordinate and unacceptable level of suffering is
>	inherent and can never be adequately eliminated from
>	bowhunting - without the use of SCC or something similar.
>

Inordinate and unacceptable is a judgement call. I agree that any suffering
should be minimized. To what degree and at what cost is the point I disagree
on. I've already stated my feelings on SCC.

>>mine is to become a better bowhunter and try to convince others to do likewise.
>
>Perhaps this will help.  However, there are two published studies which
>document INCREASED wounding rates for the more experienced and successful
>bowhunters:
>
>	McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.I., and Wentz, W.A.  Non-
>	reporting, Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer
>	Bowhunters - 1981.  1985.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 
>	13(4):395-398.
>
>	Stormer, F. A., Kirkpatrick, C. M. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1979.
>	Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-Tailed Deer.  Wildlife
>	Society Bulletin 7(1):10-16.
>
>There's also a study suggesting that crippling is not correctable by
>increased training or field experience:
>
>	Gladfelter, H.L., Kienzler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. 1983.
>	Effects of Compound Bow Use on Deer Hunter Success and
>	Crippling Rates in Iowa, Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1):7-12.
>
>The basic problem stems from the fact that less experienced and
>less skilled are more likely to miss completely.
>

Interesting idea. I may go broke on postage if I keep ordering all this 
stuff.

>
>Dan Sorenson wrote:
>>>>	I suggest the latter.  I don't hunt with a bow because there is
>>>>simply not enough time for me to become proficient with it to the extent
>>>>that I am proficient with a rifle.  Both have inherent weaknesses that
>>>>only practice will overcome.  As we learned in the Indian wars, arrows
>>>>are just as deadly as bullets, 
>>>
>I wrote:
>>>Did we really learn this?  It seems like many Indians were inordinately
>>>anxious to convert over to guns when given the opportunity.
>>>
>Jeff wrote:
>>Dead is dead, whether by arrow or bullet. The increased range and (later)
>>more rapid fire were probably more influential than relative killing
>>efficiency.
>
>But Dan's statement was that "arrows are just as deadly."  To which my
>first thought was:  given a choice of whether I would rather be shot at
>by a bowhunter or a gunhunter intent on killing me, I would select the
>bowhunter.  Bullets are deadlier - not in the sense that you're more 
>dead, but in the sense that you've got a greater chance of dying.
>

Funny you should mention this. I considered the same question while out
bowhunting last weekend and reached the opposite conclusion. I'm convinced
the arrow would be less painful, provided death was not instantaneous, 
like a lung shot for instance. 


Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals