I have the same deal with spiders. If they’re outside or stay in their corners where I don’t see them (or can pretend I don’t see them) I let them live. But if they crawl out into the middle of the room and my wife sees them, well then it’s just too costly to let them live. My wife has no problem killing spiders, but she considers it something a man should do for his wife and I agree. Kind of like holding the door.
Ethics of killing animals and their status as Game vs Predators vs Fur-bearing vs Varmint/Pest.
- Thread starter mcb
- Start date
- Status
Choctaw
Member
Well, just this morning I was drinking coffee and watching the news when a spider had the audacity to prance across the living room floor. If you relax the rules for one then it will never end. I regretfully put my mug down, stomped the spider and sent her to the arachnid version of Hades. It just had to be done.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
I really see no reason to intentionally allow an animal to suffer needlessly, other that what hso states.
Thus, I don't understand, how a sportsman who has a conscience, ethics and morals, can be accused of being self-rightous, just because they do everything they can to make quick and humane kills, regardless of the species. IMHO, in most areas of our country, it's gonna cost you monies to hunt wild hogs on property you don't own. If they were such pests, one would see many more farmers paying hunters to come shoot them, as opposed to charging them to hunt. High fence ranches would not charge you for hogs wounded and not retrieved. Like other game animals they are worth something.....money. Even if and when they are destructive and invasive, should we allow them to suffer? I have seen many posts here over the years about gut shooting wolves and 'yote and letting them drag them,selves off into the brush to die after a long and painful period of suffering. What's that all about? Are these folks sickos or are they just letting their emotions play with them? Does it give them some form of satisfaction that an animal that may or may not have been the cause of them going home empty handed suffer in pain because they had to face the buddies after a unsuccessful hunt? Or is it a excuse for their poor shooting at an animal whose kill zone is much smaller than an average deer? Hogs, wolves and 'yotes are only doing what God's plan is for them. Wolves and 'yotes, like us are predators and must kill in order to survive. Unfortunately they don't get to use long range firearms, just their teeth.....yet they do better on average than most human hunters. Maybe why some are so jealous of them, eh? They do not judge how much value an animal has because of it's beauty or the horn on it's head, just that it will feed them and theirs. Rats and mice are destructive and I kill as many of them as I can, but I do try to do it ethically. I don't pull a leg or two off and then let them crawl into their hole and suffer, just because the chewed a hole in my blind chair.
Like others here, I love to hunt. Was reading hunting books before I was of age to buy a license. Was shooting tweety birds with my BB gun before I could legally hunt game a firearm. Learned marksmanship shooting rats at the local dump. But even at 12, it bothered me when a poorly wounded rat would cry out in pain as it suffered. Or as it was eaten alive by it's kin. Have always loved to hunt, but have never enjoyed watching death, much less animals suffer. Love to eat the game I shoot, but have enough respect for them that I don't feel the need brag about how I blew their brains out or how I "Whacked 'em and Stacked 'em". While I'll text my kids/wife with a "BBD!", I don't feel the need to send a "just gut shot another coyote!". It's an ethics thing. Not saying my ethics are better or worse than anyone else's. Just answering the OP's question honestly, without making excuses, or clouding the discussion by bringing up Spiders.
Terry G
Member
I don't kill what I don't eat. It's that simple for me. I'm not saying I wouldn't kill to protect my Family, but as far as Game goes that's me. I live in the woods so we get the usual critters that are a nuisance, Opossums, Field Mice, Raccoons, and birds of prey. I've only had occasion to kill one Raccoon that had rabies. The rest we deal with. My Wife has a Cat Colony, outside Cat's but not Feral. They pretty much share Cat food with the Coon's and Possums and we don't mind. I hunt Deer, Pheasant, Duck, Geese, and Grouse. Sometimes Grey Squirrels when the get too numerous. If you hunt Coyotes or Fox that's up to you. I don't. I thought I was going to get lynched when I told some fellow citizens I was against Wolf Hunting. Geez, traps, ATV's, Dog Packs, pregnant Females. If their killing your Cattle, go ahead, but sport? No.
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
I don't quite have the heart for killing animals as when I was young. I would rather dissuade the creature if at all possible. I hunt deer and that's about it. I don't have a problem with taking any animal, but mostly keep that to those that are being a pest. Like the 11 mice I killed in the roller trap over the winter. Who would I have guessed my basement was so infested after the loss of my Siamese cat. Never saw a trace of them when he was in his prime. And unlike my friend who's wife makes him catch them live and then release them so they can return to his house; mine will never return.
The cameras tell me I have a fox, possum, rabbits, wood chuck, and loads of squirrels. I let them be, unless they cause a fuss. Lastly I know when I chomp on a steak or a chicken, that they were once alive. Doesn't bother me, but realize where they come from.
The cameras tell me I have a fox, possum, rabbits, wood chuck, and loads of squirrels. I let them be, unless they cause a fuss. Lastly I know when I chomp on a steak or a chicken, that they were once alive. Doesn't bother me, but realize where they come from.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,186
You ever catch a fish and after it’s initial suffering on the way to you and removing the hook, not end it right then and there but throw it back where, hopefully, over time, it might heal from the trauma you imparted to it, needlessly?
If so,
is an accurate statement, even for you.
If you used live bait, you would have been double evil.
Not even going to bring up all of Gods creatures that were injured or killed by the method of travel on the way to and from the ruthless activity for no reason other that they happened to be in your path.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I mowed the yard yesterday, five acres worth of genocide. There's no way you can take on the feelings of every living creature and function as a human being. One cannot exist without inflicting suffering on something. What's the difference between a cockroach and a Roosevelt elk? Perception. Nobody gives a damn about the suffering of a cockroach. Why not? The truth is we all judge the value of a critter's life and decide how much suffering it deserves based on that value. Whether it's purely our opinion of it and the way it lives, its physical size or how much cost and effort is required to hunt it. I guess we all have to draw the line somewhere and live with the result.
1942bull
Member
That is my position. Eliminating suffering to the it is degree possible defines a person as good an decent. Not caring about an animals pain and trauma is callous. Var it’s and pests are what nature made them be. We might despise and kill them for good reason, but that good reason does not mitigate shooting them at less than your best level of skill.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,357
Well, I care about the suffering of the cockroach. I would no more intentionally injure it and watch it die slowly than I would an elk.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
You know what a horrible death insects die from pesticide?
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,357
I don't use it, at least partly for that reason.
I have no doubt, though, that I have caused numerous horrible deaths. I try to minimize that. How any of it relates to hunting ethics kind of escapes me.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,186
It was spun off from a hunting game animal range thread. From the OP,
Ethics of killing animals and their status as Game vs Predators vs Fur-bearing vs Varmint/Pest.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
For me personally as we get down to creatures most people don't care at all about, ie cockroaches and other undesirable pests, its as much about my own self expectation as the creatures' suffering. I do not allow myself to find any pleasure or joy from watching another creature suffer, especially at my own hand. If I see a cockroach I am going to stomp on it without hesitation but if I lift my boot and the cockroach is still partially alive due to the tread of my boot only partial crushing it. I am not going to walk away and let it suffer I am going to stomp again as needed.
But the original thrust of this thread was really more about hunting and how a particular creatures status/label affected the effort a hunter put into ensuring a quick and human kill. Some hunters seem to be willing to take low percentage shots on creatures that have certain labels, some hunters are not.
But the original thrust of this thread was really more about hunting and how a particular creatures status/label affected the effort a hunter put into ensuring a quick and human kill. Some hunters seem to be willing to take low percentage shots on creatures that have certain labels, some hunters are not.
JCooperfan1911
member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
- Messages
- 2,709
God put animals here for men to consume.
As long as conservation efforts are in place, I see no reason why killing one animal is okay while killing another isn't.
As long as conservation efforts are in place, I see no reason why killing one animal is okay while killing another isn't.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
The thrust of this thread was not about deciding to killing or not killing but about once you have decided to kill how willing are you to allow a creature to suffer and is tolerance to suffering influence by their status, Game vs Predators vs Fur-bearing vs Varmint/Pest.
JCooperfan1911
member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
- Messages
- 2,709
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Unlike many of the folks here, none of the animals I hunt and kill do I consume. I only hunt problem animals for landowners, primarily hogs, but a few predators and varmints. I want the animals down and dead as quickly as possible. My goal isn't to punish them. They don't know that they are pests. They are just doing what they do. If an animal is poorly shot, I will reshoot it. If we are team hunting hogs, I am often the guy cleaning up downed but alive hogs. We operate on the concept of when in doubt, shoot them again.
I do not subscribe to the notion I often hear from various hog hunters that the animal isn't worth 'expensive' hunting ammo. "Expensive" is usually defined as being actual hunting ammo. They use the cheapest ammo they can find, maybe expanding, maybe not. Ammo expense really isn't a significant factor in my hunting, but I don't necessarily see any benefit of shooting more expensive ammo unless it performs better (accuracy and terminal performance). I have experience with 15-20 different bullets/weights over the years (and continue to try new ones) to find one that gives me a better result. Even at today's hugely inflated prices, my ammo expense is still much less than my fuel/wear and tear costs for traveling between the properties I hunt. I still use factory hunting ammo for dispatching pests.
I find that the notion of "quick ethical kill" is certainly subjective. Ideally, that should be a shot that does significant (immediately lethal) high CNS damage. Most animals being hunted don't receive that sort of death and so most assuredly are in pain and do suffer...for a brief period. Most hunters are comfortable with chest/boiler room, double lung, heart/lung shots where the animal dies (usually) inside of a minute. However, many game hunters are perfectly content to shoot a deer or hog, let it run off, and then wait 10, 15, 30 minutes for it to bleed out before going to search for it, acknowledging that chances for recovery outweigh the ethical need for making sure that the animal dies quickly. Various rationalizations are offered such as not wanting to "push" the animal or "wounded animals are dangerous, best to let it bleed out in peace."
I have had people straight up tell me that ethics vary based on animal type. I think most all of us are guilty of this at some level. We will gladly use nerve agent poisons on bugs or warfarin on rodents, but then talk about the ethics of how we kill larger pests.
If we were truly ethical in our dispatching of pests, the animals' deaths would be absolutely immediate, death occurring before the onset of pain.
I do not subscribe to the notion I often hear from various hog hunters that the animal isn't worth 'expensive' hunting ammo. "Expensive" is usually defined as being actual hunting ammo. They use the cheapest ammo they can find, maybe expanding, maybe not. Ammo expense really isn't a significant factor in my hunting, but I don't necessarily see any benefit of shooting more expensive ammo unless it performs better (accuracy and terminal performance). I have experience with 15-20 different bullets/weights over the years (and continue to try new ones) to find one that gives me a better result. Even at today's hugely inflated prices, my ammo expense is still much less than my fuel/wear and tear costs for traveling between the properties I hunt. I still use factory hunting ammo for dispatching pests.
I find that the notion of "quick ethical kill" is certainly subjective. Ideally, that should be a shot that does significant (immediately lethal) high CNS damage. Most animals being hunted don't receive that sort of death and so most assuredly are in pain and do suffer...for a brief period. Most hunters are comfortable with chest/boiler room, double lung, heart/lung shots where the animal dies (usually) inside of a minute. However, many game hunters are perfectly content to shoot a deer or hog, let it run off, and then wait 10, 15, 30 minutes for it to bleed out before going to search for it, acknowledging that chances for recovery outweigh the ethical need for making sure that the animal dies quickly. Various rationalizations are offered such as not wanting to "push" the animal or "wounded animals are dangerous, best to let it bleed out in peace."
I have had people straight up tell me that ethics vary based on animal type. I think most all of us are guilty of this at some level. We will gladly use nerve agent poisons on bugs or warfarin on rodents, but then talk about the ethics of how we kill larger pests.
If we were truly ethical in our dispatching of pests, the animals' deaths would be absolutely immediate, death occurring before the onset of pain.
PonyKiller
Member
Perhaps I'm the simple type. If you pull the trigger intending to kill it, kill it quickly. This is the modern age, we do not typically kill out of necessity, we kill for sport, and as such your intention should be as such, killing quickly is the name of the game. Whether game animal or not once you squeeze the trigger intention matters not, you were either effective or not, you owe it nothing the decision to kill has been made.
If you are in a situation where you are dealing with a predator or are being approached/ attacked dead is dead, you won in predation there are no degrees of "won". You are predator or prey, those are the stakes, don't feel sour about winning in that case.
If you are in a situation where you are dealing with a predator or are being approached/ attacked dead is dead, you won in predation there are no degrees of "won". You are predator or prey, those are the stakes, don't feel sour about winning in that case.
Choctaw
Member
Much like Double Naught Spy, I don't eat the pigs I kill. We kill them out of necessity and it is not sport. I try to use the best tools I have to accomplish the job which means using good hunting ammunition.
On game animals if I can't get a good placed shot I won't take the shot even if it comes to loosing the prey.
Other animals like coyotes, hogs, rats, I will take a shot with whatever is in my hands at whatever distance I think I can hit them. I figure I'm making life better for the game animals & the human animals by taking them out.
Other animals like coyotes, hogs, rats, I will take a shot with whatever is in my hands at whatever distance I think I can hit them. I figure I'm making life better for the game animals & the human animals by taking them out.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
Cockroaches?
Mowing the lawn?
Roadkill?
Stepping on ants on the sidewalk?
What in the Good Lord's name does any of this have to do with one's personnel hunting ethics? Cockroaches and many other insects carry disease. Why we spray for mosquitoes, cockroaches and other bitying insects. They are a threat. Do we spray them with the intent to make them suffer? When you mow the yard, do you chuckle to yourself as you pull the rewind/turn the key and think of how much you will enjoy the toads/frogs and other small creatures you will chop up? Do you intentionally cross the centerline/go in the ditch to hit some poor critter on or close to the asphalt just for the heck of it? Good grief, I hope not.
The question asked was the ethics of one's hunting intent. How much one considers the consequences of their shot before they take it, depending on the species. This has nuttin' to do whether or not folks enjoy hunting, but how they feel about taking an animals life intentionally. How much they are concerned with the pain and suffering that animal does after the shot. Now, even tho I have seen many posts here on this forum from hunters that claim they have never missed, and have had only bang flops, much less ever wounded an animal and not retrieved it, I'm a tad skeptical. But still, that is a non intentional consequence. I have read many threads here where a hunter wounded a deer, did not recover it and felt badly about it. To the point of loosing sleep and even considering giving up hunting. Never see that posted from a wounded 'coon or 'yote. Just last week I saw where a mama coon had been hit on the road and scattered about her were the 6 small bodies of her babies, that did not understand she was dead. They too got hit before they had the chance to enjoy life. Odds are they would have died from starvation or depredation if they had not been hit, so one wonders.....did other drivers run them down on purpose to make the end come quicker? Still, I myself felt a sadness in my heart for them. While I have trapped and shot 'coons all of my life, I still wished mom would have made it across that road.
Kinda the question asked by the OP. Do our hunting ethics change with the value or worth we put on an animal. How many folks try and make quick clean kills with every shot they take, or do they sometimes feel they need to punish that animal by making it suffer, because we feel it somehow has inconvenienced us. Do we gut shoot the wolf/coyote because we feel it may be the reason we did not get a deer this year, or do we take it in the same manner we would have taken a deer if given the chance? Sadly, I see this in many of the hunting threads on this forum. Does a deer than cost $10,000, shot over a bait pile, from a blind/stand placed by a outfitter/rancher deserve to die quicker than a meat doe shot in the back forty on a free bonus tag? One costs more, but in many cases the effort to take the doe is much more than the $10,000 pen raised deer, yes or no?
Teaching Hunter Safety, we discuss the 5 stages of a Hunter. This is basically the just of this thread. Which one are you? Which one is any of us?
Mowing the lawn?
Roadkill?
Stepping on ants on the sidewalk?
What in the Good Lord's name does any of this have to do with one's personnel hunting ethics? Cockroaches and many other insects carry disease. Why we spray for mosquitoes, cockroaches and other bitying insects. They are a threat. Do we spray them with the intent to make them suffer? When you mow the yard, do you chuckle to yourself as you pull the rewind/turn the key and think of how much you will enjoy the toads/frogs and other small creatures you will chop up? Do you intentionally cross the centerline/go in the ditch to hit some poor critter on or close to the asphalt just for the heck of it? Good grief, I hope not.
The question asked was the ethics of one's hunting intent. How much one considers the consequences of their shot before they take it, depending on the species. This has nuttin' to do whether or not folks enjoy hunting, but how they feel about taking an animals life intentionally. How much they are concerned with the pain and suffering that animal does after the shot. Now, even tho I have seen many posts here on this forum from hunters that claim they have never missed, and have had only bang flops, much less ever wounded an animal and not retrieved it, I'm a tad skeptical. But still, that is a non intentional consequence. I have read many threads here where a hunter wounded a deer, did not recover it and felt badly about it. To the point of loosing sleep and even considering giving up hunting. Never see that posted from a wounded 'coon or 'yote. Just last week I saw where a mama coon had been hit on the road and scattered about her were the 6 small bodies of her babies, that did not understand she was dead. They too got hit before they had the chance to enjoy life. Odds are they would have died from starvation or depredation if they had not been hit, so one wonders.....did other drivers run them down on purpose to make the end come quicker? Still, I myself felt a sadness in my heart for them. While I have trapped and shot 'coons all of my life, I still wished mom would have made it across that road.
Kinda the question asked by the OP. Do our hunting ethics change with the value or worth we put on an animal. How many folks try and make quick clean kills with every shot they take, or do they sometimes feel they need to punish that animal by making it suffer, because we feel it somehow has inconvenienced us. Do we gut shoot the wolf/coyote because we feel it may be the reason we did not get a deer this year, or do we take it in the same manner we would have taken a deer if given the chance? Sadly, I see this in many of the hunting threads on this forum. Does a deer than cost $10,000, shot over a bait pile, from a blind/stand placed by a outfitter/rancher deserve to die quicker than a meat doe shot in the back forty on a free bonus tag? One costs more, but in many cases the effort to take the doe is much more than the $10,000 pen raised deer, yes or no?
Teaching Hunter Safety, we discuss the 5 stages of a Hunter. This is basically the just of this thread. Which one are you? Which one is any of us?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
They carry disease and so are a threat??? So do people. So does your family dog or cat. I would argue that the vast majority of living organisms (certainly of those that are above microscopic and many below) carry some sort of zoonotic contagion, if not numerous ones. The justification for killing things because they carry 'disease' is pretty short sighted and certainly not applied equally, speaking of ethics, LOL.
Dale Alan
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 865
I swear I smell alcohol coming from this thread ...
With the logic I see here...I guess I should feel bad for slaughtering this poor thing ? I grew that baby from seed just so it could die a slow death bite by bite . I am a terrible person after all.
With the logic I see here...I guess I should feel bad for slaughtering this poor thing ? I grew that baby from seed just so it could die a slow death bite by bite . I am a terrible person after all.
Choctaw
Member
I stepped on a wheel bug and pulled weeds today. I feel pretty good about myself.
- Status
