From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:15:53 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct9103340@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.194111.6800@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct7143519@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >I am sure it would provide valuable information.
>   >However, I realized that I have no intention of reading Benke's book.
>   >In the first case, I could not support it by spending money on it and
>   >I don't know where I could borrow a copy.  I also think I have read
>   >enough excerpts to have a feel for the book.  In short, I don't think
>   >his information is accurate.  After all, in one place he cites a 1/10
>   >recovery rate.  In another, he documents a 50% recovery rate.
>
>   Huh?  He doesn't document this.  He and others (including a number of
>   wildlife agencies) have documented that about 50% of deer hit by arrows
>   escape and are not retrieved.  Of these 50% that escape, he estimates
>   that 10% recover.
>
>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.

>
>   >Basically, I view it like I see most strongly opinionated "studies":
>   >biased.  They provide some insight but the truth lies somewhere
>   >between the propoganda of both sides.
>
>   What propaganda are you referring to here?  I'm interested in what 
>   statements have been made by BOTH sides which you regard as
>   propaganda.
>
>Some hunting groups totally forget about slob hunters.  They portray
>all hunters as responsible hunters.  I am working to make this a
>reality but I know slob hunters exist.  On the other hand, many AR
>folks describe all hunters as blood-thirsty drunks with high-powered
>rifles.

I think you're greatly exaggerating here by saying that "many AR folks"
describe "all hunters as blood-thirsty drunks ..."

>  That is certainly not the case either.  As I said, reality
>lies between these extremes.
> 
>   >There is no doubt that some arrow-hit deer die horrible deaths.  My
>   >contention is that such cases are a minority and can be further
>   >reduced without effecting responsible hunters.
>
>   I appreciate that this is your position and firmly-held belief.  But
>   merely stating it does not make it true.  Where's the evidence?  If
>   you can produce some, I am willing to send it Benke for his comments.
>
>When did Benke do his bowhunting?  He cites an astronomical personal
>record but it was also mentioned that he started hunting in 1949 (or
>somthing like that).  Were his experiences with that equipment?  I
>doubt it.
>
>So assuming he was using a decent compound bow, what was his personal
>wounding rate?  You talked about his efforts to recover deer.  How
>extensive were these efforts and how successful were they.  In other
>words, what was his hit/recovery ratio.  

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.  His earliest blunts were .30 carbine cases for 
	5/16-inch shafts and .38s for the 11/32-inch size.  In using
	these blunts and other points including broadheads, he found
	that the arrows' killing power was greatly exceeded by their
	tangling power...

	The deadliest arrow tip for small game, he found, was the old
	Ben Pearson Deadhead, which tended to whistle and windplane
	but practically chopped small animals in half.  On larger
	game, however, it was no more effective than any other
	broadhead.

	His early experiences with large game (specifically whitetails,
	javelinas, feral goats, European feral hogs) were mystifying.
	Sometimes he saw arrows make quick kills with seemingly poor
	shots; othertimes he saw broadheads fail to kill with good hits
	including lung shots.  Overall he lost 3 to 4 animals to each
	killed.  And of all the bowhunters he observed, none did any
	better.

	Time after time, he quit, but continued to read voraciously on
	the subject.  Then after reading testimonials from people like
	Saxton Pope (HUNTING WITH THE BOW AND ARROW) and Chuck Adams
	(THE COMPLETE BOOK OF BOWHUNTING), he began doubting what he'd 
	seen over and over.  In bowhunting literature, broadheads
	quickly and humanely killed everything and there was never
	any wounded animals.  Yet his own arrows had wounded more
	animals than they killed.

	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?]  In Benke's case, after
	20 or 30 minutes, he had had enough and put an arrow through
	the heart to finally cause a rapid death.  The second buck was
	similarly finished.

	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."

	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.

	As of 1969, Benke had shot 31 whitetails.  Seven were killed
	and four more were found dead later.  He declared bowhunting
	to be a farce and quit, until hearing about SCC.  After trying
	SCC, he was amazed at the great reduction in woundings.

	In 1974 he learned that the legendary Fred Bear was also an
	advocate of SCC and in fact had patented two dispensing pods
	three years earlier.

	Benke also quotes a letter received from Bear, in which Bear 
	mentions knowing of many people who gave up bowhunting after
	crippling losses without any take.  In the letter, Bear also
	wrote, "...lessons in tracking will help but in most cases the
	job is impossible.  I think that Art Laha is probably the best
	tracker we have among bowhunters but look at the trouble we had
	with a brown bear in Alaska."  Bear then proceeds to discuss
	attempts by Laha and him to track wounded bears in the Alaskan
	snow.

>
>I am asking this because all the details just don't seem to fit.  This
>is most likely due to only knowing some of the details.  He talks
>about not finding a lung hit deer.  I can't imagine such a deer going
>more that 200-400 yards.  However, it would be possible to lose this
>animal if the proper proceedure and efforts were not taken.

Section II in the book is presented in questiona and answer form.  Besides
the lung hits described above in Aransas NWR, there is this mention of
lung hits in Section II (pp. 41-42):

     Q:	Earlier did you imply that broadheads shot through the rear half
	of the chest cavity will not quickly kill the animal?

     A:	Sometimes they won't kill the animal at all, or the animal may
	die a few days later.  I have trailed a dozen or so deer and
	javelinas with chest wounds, and there was no doubt that the
	lungs had been lacerated ... [but] the trails quickly ended and 
	these animals were never found.

     Q:	Perhaps the lung-shot animals recovered.  I've read of such 
	instances.

     A:	Perhaps they did.  But isn't it strange to be reading of animals
	recovering from perfectly placed broadheads?  If perfectly
	placed arrows - through the lungs - fail to kill, how can they 
	consistently kill with less than perfect hits?  They can't and
	this is where the bowhunting writers reach new heights in
	creativity. ... [He then goes on to evaluate explanations
	from Chuck Adams and D. Kittredge describing how lung-hit
	animals who didn't die quickly could recover.  His conclusion
	is that they don't know what they're talking about.]

>  Please
>provide any information you think is relevant about his personal
>hunting experience.  This seems as imprtant as his intentional gut
>shots of penned in deer.
>
>tim

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