From: rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:14:47
	<RIGG.92Oct9103340@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct14.171553.741@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:15:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.171553.741@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   In article <RIGG.92Oct9103340@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >In one of your first posts on the subject, you quoted him as saying
   >that he and his partners experienced a 10% recovery rate.  It is no
   >wonder he can no longer bowhunt.

   There have been a lot of posts on this subject. I scanned back through
   the ones I have and could not find a claim made by me that quoted a
   10% recovery rate.

I'll retract my comment then since I also don't have it on file anymore. 

   Here are some statements from Benke paraphrased from pp 7-19:

	   From the late 1940s to 1969 he used variously tipped arrows
	   on a thousand or so small game animals, plus 75 to 100 larger
	   animals.  ...

	   ...  Overall he lost 3 to 4 animals to each
	   killed.  And of all the bowhunters he observed, none did any
	   better.

Why do you suppose this number is so high?  We have agreed on a 50%
recovery rate. However, he gives a rate of 20%.  Was it the more
limited equipment and understanding of 50 years ago?
 
	   A turning point for Benke occurred at a public bowhunt in 1968 
	   or 1969 in Aransas National Wildlife Refuge.  3500 bowhunters 
	   killed 126 deer, but only six bowhunters (including Benke) bagged 
	   their limit of two.  The two killed by Benke were both spine hits
	   followed by lung shots at close range.  Benke and border patrolman
	   Paul Sanders sat and watched and waited for the first buck to die.
	   Instead he'd thrash around for brief periods and then lie 
	   panting.  Then he'd thrash around again.  

	   [Note it's eyewitness accounts like this which led me to question 
	   how you KNEW that deer shot but lying out of your sight had actually 
	   died quickly if you're waiting back for the recommended 15-30 
	   minutes before making an approach?  If the deer is not in sight,
	   how do you know when death occurs?]

The deer I mentioned was in sight.  I watched him the whole time.

	   On that Aransas hunt, Benke's count of two kills (as described
	   in the preceding paragraph) and one wounded was considered a
	   great success.  Sanders however put arrows into the bodies of
	   seven bucks and failed to kill a single one.  And an even
	   greater string of woundings was documented by a wildlife
	   biologist.  Later Sanders and Benke observed firsthand the effects
	   of broadheads on a trapped badger and several penned in goats.
	   They shot, observed, and decided that they had been "flimflammed"
	   by the bowhunting "experts."

This is indeed an interesting experiment.  Will you bail me out when
the local authorities discover I am uniguely butchering goats?  I
would love to conduct such an experment but the logistics prevent it.
Note that my desire to do this experiment is to confirm my hunting
experiences.  I have little doubt I could dispatch the animals
quickly.  Was Benke intentionally trying to wound them?  Was he using
a compound bow?

	   He then continues, in a passage he previously quoted, with a
	   brief discussion of how it's hard to convince hunters who
	   haven't yet experienced or witnessed high wounding rates and
	   suggests that they buy animals, shoot them less than perfectly
	   and watch what happens.

This experiment I would not want to perform.

	   As of 1969, Benke had shot 31 whitetails.  Seven were killed
	   and four more were found dead later.  

A few hours later or a few weeks later?

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