From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:03:47 CST
	<RIGG.92Nov15164405@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Nov18.184847.25815@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:48:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.184847.25815@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
   In article <RIGG.92Nov15164405@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >This makes no sense to me.  If this was just a study, then its
   >conclusions are completely worthless due to the flaws in the method.

   Huh? As I previously indicated the purpose of that particular study was
   to learn what happens to wounded deer.  However the archers were not
   told the purpose; they were merely instructed to aim for the lungs. 
   Wounded deer were produced and then observed.  What do you mean by
   "flaws in the method?"

You quoted a study in which 22 shots were required to barely hit and
wound 10 penned goats.  This accuracy is so pathetic and bears so
little in common with typical hunting accuracy that it provides no
insight on the efficiency of bowhunting equipment.

The above study only indicates that animals that recieve very poor
hits are likely to suffer painful deaths.  However, no conclusions
about how common such poor hits are can be drawn.

   >But you have argued in the cited post and numerous others that the
   >results from Benke's studies are typical.  They are not!  It appears
   >that you are basing many of your opinions on Benke's book.  

   No.  Not just Benke's book.  I made that clear right from the outset.  I
   said that there existed at least 18 studies which indicated a consistent
   pattern of 50% wounding rates for bowhunting and I even listed some. 
   From an October 8, posting:

A 50 percent wounding rate is quite different from the 100% wounding
rate of the above example.  This is further evidence that the "study"
was flawed.

   >The most
   >recent example indicates to me that you are using very incorrent and
   >biased data.  If Benke's results were typical, I would also favor a
   >ban on bowhunting.  However, his results are completely inaccurate and
   >IMHO worthless.

   His 50% wounding rate figure has been confirmed by many others.  Well
   into the discussion you yourself even accepted it.  So why would you now
   call such results completely inaccurate? Or are you here referring to
   the issue of whether or not the problem is correctable (as Schuh claims)
   or is not (as Benke claimed in his 1989 book)?

I am calling the accuracy observed in the study you described as
completely unrepresentative.

   >   3.  John Van Etten has mailed me a copy of an article from (I believe) a
   >   recent DEER AND DEER HUNTING magazine.  The article, written by Dwight
   >   Schuh admits that high wounding rates are certainly possibly but
   >   diverges from the Benke position in saying that the problem is
   >   correctable. ...
   >
   >No.  Schuh says the problem IS CORRECTED.

   Hold on a second here! Please quote where Schuh says the problem "is
   corrected." His basic claim is that the problem is correctable, IF you
   select equipment properly suited to yourself and IF you keep your bow
   tuned and IF you practice sufficiently and IF you make careful shot
   selections and IF you never give up on a trail (which is not really that
   relevant IMO). 

Benke describes shooting many arrows and having many wounded animals
foreach one he took home.  Schuh says that that is consistant with
bowhunting 30 years ago but is completely unrepresentative of
bowhunting today.

   This is NOT the same as saying the problem IS corrected.  He says that
   every bowhunter SHOULD recover 80 to 90% of animals hit.  He does not
   say that every one does recover at this rate.  Nor does he account for
   the possibility that a lengthy tracking duration may be precipitated by
   far-ranging movements by a wounded animal. 

   The disagreement between Benke and Schuh (among others) is not over the
   past or present existence of a wounding problem in bowhunting.  It's over
   whether this problem is correctable.

The experience of myself and others I hunt with clearly indicates that
recovery rates close to those of gun hunters are obtainable.  Thus,
there is no doubt that the problem is correctable.

   >Please elaborate on what point Benke refutes.

   Benke named two published sources which documented increased wounding
   rates for more experienced and successful hunters.  From an October 7
   posting:

A hunter that has been flinging lots of arrows for years at deer would
qualify as "more experienced and [eventually] successful".  I was
calling for better training and testing of bowhunters.  I am not sure
how the two are related.

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