From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:36:58 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <RIGG.92Sep30200435@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>This ia post in the thread titled "response to Rob Black".  It was
>posted earlier but Rob's newsreader decided to eat it.  I tried email
>but that seemed to bounce.  So I am reposting it.  I also think this
>subject header is more descriptive.
>
>tim
>
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
>From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
>Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
>Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
>Date: 28 Sep 92 15:42:17
>In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Fri, 25 Sep 1992 17:36:02 GMT
>
>In article <1992Sep25.173602.2470@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Sep23144540@valeron.che.wisc.edu> rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >Please see my post in rec.hunting detailing my recent trip bowhunting.
>   >In short, the deer was alive for about 20 seconds after being hit with
>   >my arrow.

[...]

>   Of course, most of these points are all obvious.  What does matter to
>   the deer is the amount and duration of pain.  The range per se or the
>   amount of sport for the hunter are totally irrelevant to the deer.
>
>true.  why does it matter so much to animal rights folks?

Because at greater ranges, there is a greater chance for a crippling 
injury.

>   You don't say whether the deer jumped the string.  It's sort of implied
>   by your statement that you didn't see the actual hit, unless by that you
>   simply meant that the action moved too rapidly at the instant of impact
>   for your eyes to follow.  If the deer did jump the string, then he could
>   have moved in any of a hundred ways and I'd say you were lucky that the
>   movement occurred in a favorable way.
>
>You read correctly.  The action was so fast that I could not follow it
>with my eyes.  I do not think he jumped the string.  I think my shot
>was a bit high because I slightly misjudged the distance.
>
>But jumping the string means one thing:  the deer dropped below the
>arrow.  I have seen numerous videos of deer jumping the string and the
>same thing always happens:  the deer drops straight down to store
>energy is his legs for a coming leap.  

Benke describes two instances when the deer executed a complete 180
degree turn and was struck by the arrow in the opposite side of the body
from the targeted side.  In both cases the range was about 15 yards and,
from what he says on the preceding page, I assume the arrow speed was
about 190 feet per second.
 
>I shoot for the lower part of the chest.  If the deer doesn't move at 
>all, I hit the heart and both lungs.  If the deer slightly jumps the 
>string, I hit the center of his chest.  If he severly jumps the 
>string, I hit the top of his lungs or his spine.  If he jumps it even 
>more, I miss him.  Jumping the string means less deer to take back to 
>camp.  It does not mean more injured deer.  
> 
> As for your efficiency point - Obviously you know (and I've been told so 
> many times that I've lost count) that arrows and bullets kill in 
> different ways.  Because of the way a bullet kills, it's much more 
> forgiving, and because of a bullet's flat trajectory, it's much easier 
> to hit the intended area.  
> 
>There is no doubt that a gun is a better weapon for beginners.  A bow 
>takes much more work to obtain proficiency.  However, both are equally 
>effective when in the proper hands.  

Whether or not both are equally effective is the issue here.  The claim
has been put forth by Benke and others that both are not equally
effective, and numerous studies have been cited to support the claim.
Since I don't bowhunt, I have to either take the word of others or go
out myself and observe.

> Here are some revelant quotes from Benke (who started bowhunting in 1949): 
> 
> My early experience with 'large game' were mystifying.  
> Sometimes I saw arrows effect quick kills with seemingly
> poor hits; and I saw broadheads fail to kill with good 
> hits, including lung shots.  Overall I'd say I lost three 
> or four animals to each one I killed.  And of all the 
> bowhunters I observed, none did any better.  [p.  8] 
> 
> [rest deleted] 
> 
>I know many bowhunters.  I have never heard ratios anywhere near this 
>bad.  I personally know of one injured deer that was not recovered out 
>of 10 shots.  I have not seen, heard or read anything to suggest that 
>this is out of the ordinary.  

[... wounded deer story related by me ...]

>I don't know enough to even have a guess.  How did he know he even hit
>the deer? Where did he think he hit it? What did his arrow look and
>smell like? What other sign did he find? 

I believe that he saw the arrow hit and then was unable to ever retrieve
the arrow.  He has since clammed up about it and does not wish to
further discuss it with me or almost everyone else.  The subject is
closed, as far as he is concerned.

> 
>It seems possible to see the same deer later.  For example, my partner 
>got a deer last year that had an unusual antler formation.  We would 
>have easily recognized that deer if we saw it again.  

In some cases I have no doubt that recognition is possible, but in
general I question it unless, as you say, there is an obvious observable
distinction of some kind. 

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