From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:43:31 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct9093716@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.182631.6179@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct7113927@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >My contention is that these unpredictable movements are of little
>   >consequence when shooting at unalarmed deer under 20 yards.
>
>   This is your contention, but is it based on personal experience?
>   ...speculation?  ...actual studies? 
>
>Personal experience and the witnessing of at least 50 hits on videos.
>Animals sometimes move.  But almost always straight down.  So the shot
>either hits the chest/spine or it misses completely.  

Re: these videos - are they representative?  That is, for each video, X
hits were done and all were included?  Or (as seems more likely) was
there significant editing to produce selective compilations of specific
hits for instructional purposes?

>
>   Remember that it does not take much movement on the deer's part to
>   convert a fatal shot to a non immediately fatal shot? How many inches
>   do you claim a deer can move in half a second?
>
>This depends entirely on the state of the deer.  The deer I shot this
>fall was completely unaware and didn't move at all.  One I shot at
>last fall was more aware and dropped below my arrow (a miss).  The
>deer I killed last fall was quite aware but my arrow hit it in the
>spine. 
>
>Also, the time to move is one the order of a quarter of a second not a
>half.  The average arrow moves around 200 feet/second.  A 20 yard
>distance takes roughly 0.3 seconds.  Subtrating the deer's response
>time leaves even less time for the deer to move.

Okay I had thought you changed the distance to 30 yards and I was
assuming an arrow speed of 180 feet per second.  The deer has 0.2
seconds less time than I was assuming. 

>
>   >I am claiming that a reduction to 10-15% could be obtained.  Improved
>   >tracking skills could further reduce that number.
>
>   But a reduction FROM what?  IYO what is the wounding rate now and why do
>   you think that?  Does it approximate the 16% that your recent testimony
>   suggests?  If so, a reduction from 16% to 10-15% does not strike me as a
>   dramatic reduction.
>
>I mentioned in another post that I'll concede that the overall average
>might be around 50%.  That includes an average of about 15% or less for
>responsible hunters and an average of somewhat higher for weekend
>warriors. 

We now seem to be in agreement that the bowhunting wound rate is around
50%.  How do you arrive at your figure of 10-15% as an achievable goal?
I realize that your proposed approach is to weed out slobs and improve
the skills of the others, but what makes you settle on 10-15% as the
point that could be reached?  Observation of bowhunters you know?
Educated guess?  Gut feeling?

>   Secondly, why does the issue of tracking skills keep surfacing? If the
>   shot is on target and immobilization is rapid, then what are keen tracking
>   skills needed for? Maybe it's related to the particular terrain where
>   bowhunters typically hunt? 
>
>   It seems to me that if death or immobilization occurs quickly, then the
>   tracking skills needed to find a deer within, say a 100 yard radius, are
>   not that demanding.  If necessary, you just assemble a coterie of
>   hunting buddies and sweep the area.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. 
>
>You are not wrong just forgetting things.  You have claimed over and
>over that their is a chance of not making a perfect shot.  There
>certainly is such a chance (although we differ on the magnitude of
>such a chance).  A slightly missed shot might allow a deer to travel a
>few hundred yards before dying.  (Note that even 400 yards can be
>covered in well under a minute by a deer).  Now a trail this long
>might take several turns and go through some difficult terrain.  It
>does take a fair bit of skill to follow a deer along such a path.
>Unfortunately, there is no real way to practice this important skill.
>I have read several books on tracking, notably a very good one by Tom
>Brown.  It is a difficult art that not enough hunters take the time to
>learn. 

I will grant the possibility that some deer are never retrieved but
nonetheless die relatively quickly.  However in some cases, dogs have
been used to find wounded or lost deer, so we know that such quick
deaths are not always the case.  This is exactly what happened in
Mississippi to bring about the legalization of SCC in that state. 

>
>Also, it is a sad fact that some hunters are just not very good
>woodsmen.  The drive their trucks or ATV to within a hundred yards of
>their stands and wait.  They just aren't comfortable enough in the
>woods to go cross country following a deer.
>
>There is also the issue of slob hunters who put little effort in
>because the deer is "just a doe".
>
>
>In short, hunting a lot more work than hanging a stand and firing a
>bow (or gun).  Unfortunately, there are too many hunters who don't put
>in the effort needed.  I will say that all the hunters I have met
>through rec.hunting and t.p.a appear to have put in enough time.  For
>example, Keith Boyd spends about 200 hours in a stand per year and
>probably that much scouting and turkey hunting.   I suspect that he is
>as competent a woodsman as any.
> 
>   I appreciate your concern about drug-tainted meat, but I think in this
>   case your fears are unfounded for these reasons:
>
>           [good reasons deleted]
>
>I respect your reasons and support laws allowing hunters to elect to
>use these drugs (it is illegal in Wisconsin).  However, I personally
>would not use them, unless mandated which I would fight.  I take great
>pride in placing my shots well.  I also find great satisfaction in
>taking the time to follow the trail as long as needed.  I see no need
>to use the drugs.  I have never lost a deer (knock on wood).   It just
>seems to remove much of the attractiveness of bowhunting if I just
>have to hit the deer anywhere.  I can do that at 70 yards which means
>I might as well be using my rifle.

I see the words, but can't appreciate them.  If the idea is to kill for
food, the gun at 70 yards is just as good and probably more efficient in
that it could save you alot of time.  If the idea is to demonstrate that
you have the talent of a great woodsman sufficient to approach to within
25 yards of a deer, then you can do your shooting with the trusty
camera. 

>
>tim

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