From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:17:41 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct5093421@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.173658.3482@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[... trying to keep these shorter ...]

>I do not understand the significance of this.  My rifle has a greater
>chance of wounding beyond 75 yards or so.  Other folks use rifles that
>are quite accurate out to 200 yards.  The point is that responsible
>hunters know and respect the limitations of their weapons.  Do you
>propose we hunt with heat seeking, laser quided missles?

Of course not.  The key point about range, which we're dancing around,
is obviously that at greater ranges, it takes a LONGER time for a given
projectile to reach the target.  This means there's a greater
opportunity for movement by the animal and therefore a greater chance
for a crippling injury, even if your aim is dead on and you are superbly
versed in the limitations of yourself and your weapon of choice.

Earlier I made a case - in opposition to a contrary claim by another
poster - that it's unlikely for an injured animal to recover and it's very
likely for him or her to suffer a lingering painful death.  This opens
up questions like how often do these lingering deaths occur and do they
offset any claimed advantages for bowhunting?   The future fate of the
legalization of bowhunting may well hinge on the answers.

So greater range increases the chance for greater suffering, and that's
why it's a concern.  If populations need to be controlled this way, it
would be much better to dart/arrow the animals with a dose or overdose
of fast acting tranquilizer and then, if necessary, administer a final
dose when the animal is found - much like the vet does when I take in my
elderly terminally-ill dogs and cats.  In fact this would be more humane
than gun hunting also, where the crippling rate is usually cited as being
around 7%.

[...]

>I can not believe this.  I am beginning to wonder just what agenda
>Benke is trying to promote.

His plainly stated "agenda" is (1) to publicize his conclusion that
broadhead arrows lead to unacceptable levels of suffering and (2) to
propose a more humane alternative.

>
>   >There is no doubt that a gun is a better weapon for beginners.  A bow 
>   >takes much more work to obtain proficiency.  However, both are equally 
>   >effective when in the proper hands.  
>
>   Whether or not both are equally effective is the issue here.  The claim
>   has been put forth by Benke and others that both are not equally
>   effective, and numerous studies have been cited to support the claim.
>   Since I don't bowhunt, I have to either take the word of others or go
>   out myself and observe.
>
>Please go out and observe.  Many hunters would welcome an interested
>observer.  Many of Benke's claims are so far removed from my personal
>experiences that I am begining to question their accuracy.

Remember that Benke is not the only one who's attributing high wounding
rates to the broadhead arrow.  If he stood alone, his proclamations
might be more easily dismissed (though still not necessarily false).  He
is backed up by other studies (with year and bowhunting wound rate
parenthetically following each report) such as: 

	Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1984 - 58%)
	Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1987 - 50%)
	Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (1988 - 51%)
	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in Alabama)
	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in South Carolina)
	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1981 - 48% in South Dakota)
	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1983 - 49% in Iowa)
	Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners (1963 - 44%)
	Vermont Fish and Game Department (1972 - 63%)
	Wisconsin Chapter of Wildlife Society (1983 - 55%)
	Deer and Deer Hunting (1986 - 56%)

and more.  As I indicated previously, I'm trying to get copies of some
of these.  The only one I currently have is the Texas study.  Some of
these are referenced by Benke, while others aren't.  But he names which
are absent from this list. 

>
>tim

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