From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:33:40
	<RIGG.92Oct7143519@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct8.194111.6800@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:41:11 GMT

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.

   >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.  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.  

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.  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
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)