From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:37:58 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <viking.718424466@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>>Remember that Benke is not the only one who's attributing high wounding
>>rates to the broadhead arrow.  If he stood alone, his proclamations
>>might be more easily dismissed (though still not necessarily false).  He
>>is backed up by other studies (with year and bowhunting wound rate
>>parenthetically following each report) such as: 
>
>>	Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1984 - 58%)
>>	Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1987 - 50%)
>>	Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (1988 - 51%)
>>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in Alabama)
>>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1978 - 50% in South Carolina)
>>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1981 - 48% in South Dakota)
>>	Wildlife Society Bulletin (1983 - 49% in Iowa)
>>	Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners (1963 - 44%)
>>	Vermont Fish and Game Department (1972 - 63%)
>>	Wisconsin Chapter of Wildlife Society (1983 - 55%)
>>	Deer and Deer Hunting (1986 - 56%)
>
>>and more.  As I indicated previously, I'm trying to get copies of some
>>of these.  The only one I currently have is the Texas study.  Some of
>>these are referenced by Benke, while others aren't.  But he names which
>>are absent from this list. 
>
>	Certainly these are groups I would have little problem with
>accepting research from, but I do have a question: how did they define
>"wounding" ?  I've "wounded" animals in that they required a second shot
>to kill, and it took probably 30 seconds to reach them, so I would have
>chalked it up as a wounding even though that animal would have died
>fairly shortly thereafter.  I agree, the data show a large wounding rate,
>and given the nature of bowhunting I'm not over suprised that rates are
>so high, but I'd like to think most of those "wounded" deer ran a few
>yards and dropped and didn't go to waste.

Put your mind at ease.  They will not go to waste.  Scavengers will see to
that.

However, I find myself surprised that you're "not over suprised" at the
high rates.  Personally I WAS surprised when I heard this about a year
ago.  And more importantly, I was alarmed - not by the prospect of any
mythical waste, but by the completely avoidable suffering inflicted on
animals by hunters, who I've been told care more about animals than
antihunters do.  

If the rates are really this high, where is the care and concern from
hunters? 

If the rates aren't this high, where are the studies to show it?

>  It's suprising that
>scavengers aren't in larger numbers given this large population of
>wounded prey to feast upon.

Not necessarily.  Remember that we're discussing PERCENT of animals
wounded by a specific technique, not absolute numbers.

>
><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
><z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
><viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
><ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

---
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