From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.221442.21930@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <viking.718076141@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>   Basically, Robert, I don't so much disagree with much of what you say. We
>differ in our solutions. If any deer are wounded only to die and go to waste,
>it's too many. 

I would put it a little differently: If any deer are wounded only to die a
slow painful death, then it's too many.  With this statement, the ethically
relevant aspects of an unnecessary and excessively painful death are
elevated to the prominent position they merit.  I'm not too concerned about
the "waste" issue; scavengers have to eat too.

>But your solution appears to be a ban on bowhunting, whereas

Though I haven't yet mentioned a bowhunting ban, I have not seen any
convincing reasons to oppose such a ban.  

The main case for bowhunting seems to be that it provides excitement and
recreation for a subset of hunters.  From the animals' standpoint, it
offers no "advantages" which are not already available from gun hunting.

So assuming that there does exist a serious wounding problem in the 
bowhunting world, let's examine three potential solutions:

     1.	A ban - I would not be at all disappointed by a ban.  Hunter
	recreation is not a persuasive rationale for continuing a
	practice that so easily leads to excessive and avoidable
	suffering.  Who pays the terrible price of hunter mistakes?
	The animals do.  That's not fair and it's not sporting.

     2.	Use of SCC - This is Benke's solution.  I've discussed this in
	another post (to Tim, Dan, or you - I get the feeling I'm 
	addressing the same issues in several places, due to the parallel 
	discussions).  If necessary, I'm willing to go into more
	detail as time permits.

     3.	Better training for bowhunters - This is of course the 
	hunter-proposed solution.  But there are reasons for concluding
	that an inordinate and unacceptable level of suffering is
	inherent and can never be adequately eliminated from
	bowhunting - without the use of SCC or something similar.

>mine is to become a better bowhunter and try to convince others to do likewise.

Perhaps this will help.  However, there are two published studies which
document INCREASED wounding rates for the more experienced and successful
bowhunters:

	McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.I., and Wentz, W.A.  Non-
	reporting, Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer
	Bowhunters - 1981.  1985.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 
	13(4):395-398.

	Stormer, F. A., Kirkpatrick, C. M. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1979.
	Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-Tailed Deer.  Wildlife
	Society Bulletin 7(1):10-16.

There's also a study suggesting that crippling is not correctable by
increased training or field experience:

	Gladfelter, H.L., Kienzler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. 1983.
	Effects of Compound Bow Use on Deer Hunter Success and
	Crippling Rates in Iowa, Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1):7-12.

The basic problem stems from the fact that less experienced and
less skilled are more likely to miss completely.

[...]

Dan Sorenson wrote:
>>>	I suggest the latter.  I don't hunt with a bow because there is
>>>simply not enough time for me to become proficient with it to the extent
>>>that I am proficient with a rifle.  Both have inherent weaknesses that
>>>only practice will overcome.  As we learned in the Indian wars, arrows
>>>are just as deadly as bullets, 
>>
I wrote:
>>Did we really learn this?  It seems like many Indians were inordinately
>>anxious to convert over to guns when given the opportunity.
>>
Jeff wrote:
>Dead is dead, whether by arrow or bullet. The increased range and (later)
>more rapid fire were probably more influential than relative killing
>efficiency.

But Dan's statement was that "arrows are just as deadly."  To which my
first thought was:  given a choice of whether I would rather be shot at
by a bowhunter or a gunhunter intent on killing me, I would select the
bowhunter.  Bullets are deadlier - not in the sense that you're more 
dead, but in the sense that you've got a greater chance of dying.

---
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