From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: Recovery of wounded game (Addendum)
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:50:03 CST
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

In article <1992Dec14.073557.22636@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
>The best advice I ever got.....
>
>[Advises tracking game immediately if the animal down and/or struggling off] 

Subsequent to my original post.....

	Let me add the following points of clarification, and my
sincere thanks to the two follow-on posters and especially Steve at
Boeing.

	My comment on the follow-up of wounded game involving instant
reaction on the part of the hunter was prompted by a wish to present a
practical alternative option to that of *automatically waiting* a
while before beginning the process of tracking a wounded animal.
	Assuming the buck is down and struggling, it then staggers up
and bumps off into the bush.  The hunter has basically two options:
immediate follow-up or wait for (as some folk do, 30 minutes or more).
What does the hunter do?
	This is where the quality of situational awareness comes into
play; the best option is a question of judgement based upon (inter
alia): the time of day, density of bush, weapon used, the projectile
employed, familiarity with the area, known habits of the animal in
question when wounded, possible presence of other hunters in the area,
the hunter's tracking skills, the nature of the spoor (blood and/or
hoof), the estimated severity of the wound, nature of the earth/soil,
weather (direct sun/snow/ rain), the hunter's physical fitness, etc..
Some or all of these factors *must* be weighed up and a decision made:
do I wait a while or get going now?

	In the African situation (and I freely confess that I keep the
"wait" option in my mind and do not discount it as a matter of course)
the tendency is for the decision criteria usually to point to
immediate follow- up.  This is because the soil is very dry and stoney
and the weather hot.  Waiting will mean that blood spoor quickly dries
into tiny dark blobs that are next to impossible to pick out, whilst
splashes on rocks evapourate into imperceptible nothingness even
faster.  On a personal note too, I find that getting going almost
immediately helps to "fix" the image of a hoof spoor in my mind,
whereas waiting a while seems to somehow fuzz up the short-term
memory.  In the case of a hoof spoor, the relative presence or absence
of other, same-species animals in the area is a further crucial
factor: lots of other spoor suggests immediate follow-up for mental
and "conflicting" spoor rationale.
	On the question of elapsed time, it is very likely that if a
buck has taken off, an immediate follow-up might not be as disasterous
as one imagines.  Assuming you've picked up the spoor from the point
of impact, the pace of tracking is not constant.  At times the spoor
is very clear and one can progress at a steady walk, whilst sooner or
later the spoor will be temporarily lost necessitating a (say) 10 or
15 minute delay whilst casting around in a circles to pick it up
again.  *Overall* therefore the actual rate of progress can be quite
slow -- sufficient to allow the buck's adreneline to fade and wound to
stiffen.  It's the relative not the absolute time taken at each stage
in the follow-up process versus the total time taken that strikes me
as being important.
	Arguably this entire issue is also conditioned by habit and
accepted practice.  Over here, the tendency is to rely upon the
fitness of the hunter to outlast a wounded buck in a follow-up -- I
had a four hour and my brother a five hour tracking exercise on our
last hunt.  The ethic being that you exert yourself to the utmost to
bring down a wounded buck and not to give up after a mile or so.  In
each case, the animal was lightly wounded, was moving fast, and
tracking was a bloody slow ordeal by hoof-spoor until quick sightings
ended the business.  In neither instance would a "wait" option have
been viable -- those buck would have been lost, and torn down by hyena
after a perhaps a week of weakness and suffering.  (But I admit this
notion of stressing the physical abilities of the hunter on a
follow-up is a South African hunting-culture "value" that can easily
be challenged and debunked for a host of valid reasons.)

	To reiterate, IMO it's the old savvy, judgement and
situational awareness angles that're crucial in the case of a wounded
animal, *not* inflexible dogma or cast-iron rules.  If the signs point
to "wait", then do so and vice versa -- play with an a la carte
repertoire not a "one-right- way" solution.  (Or is that last
statement itself dogmatic heresy?)

	On the subject of running with a loaded rifle, I can easily
see that some might think this dangerous and I agree that there is a
risk.  However, there are many "Practical Pistoleros" who jump, dive
and run with loaded cocked *handguns* -- they have few accidents 'cos
they have skill-at-arms and observe basic safety drills (like don't
run with a finger on the trigger and the safety off).  Paradoxically,
how many hunters cheerfully go afield with auto-loaders of some type
or description ....  including "evil assault weapons" relying at all
times, under all conditions on the integrity of a safety catch and
their studied dedication to its application?  In advocating a rapid
reload after taking a first shot this does not mean, though I guess it
could imply, gleefully ignoring everything one's ever learnt about
firearms safety....I'm certainly not going to go dashing through a
thorn bush, leap over rocks etc. with a cocked rifle, safety off even
if my hand is nowhere near the trigger!

(My rifle BTW is a 303 SMLE -- you can chamber a round, then *open and
withdraw the bolt and cartridge halfway* and engage the safety to lock
everything.  *That's* what I call cocked and locked.  In case of need,
thumb pushes safety as hand pushes firmly against main spring to close
bolt.  After this approach to in-field safety, I hate being around
dudes with fully loaded chambers, closed and cocked bolts, with the
safety engaged!!!  And blokes in gun shops toting cocked and locked
automatic handguns in bikini holsters give me the screaming abb-dabs
-- I don't care what Jeff Cooper says.)

Phew!!  Sorry to put everyone to sleep and waste your time.
Cheers from the Dark Continent,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Newsgroups: rec.hunting