The Ethical Killing of Animals...

[The Annoyed Man]

On another thread, the subject centered on a man who is on trial for cruelty to animals in Galveston, Texas, for having shot a cat which took a long time to die, and the question posited by the OP was "what is the best caliber for killing cats?" In the story, the accused's justification for shooting said cat was that it was predatory toward a threatened species of plover in a bird sanctuary. Also at issue is whether or not the cat was another man's pet, or in fact a feral cat. My position in that thread was not the popular one, but I think that I explained myself badly. I started out by saying that the accused's actions were illegal based on my (admittedly possibly incomplete) knowledge of Texas hunting laws. I do have a recently paid for hunting license, but my upcoming white tail hunt will also be my first hunting experience since I shot a rabbit as a boy with an air rifle back in 1965.

Here is a link to the news article in question.

Upon reflection, my biggest objection to the accused man's actions were on ethical grounds. He shot an animal, and then he let it suffer. It seems to me that, whether one is hunting for game, or eradicating pests, ethics would require that we do so humanely. If we are going to take the responsibility for taking another creature's life, then we ought to do so with a minimum of unnecessary suffering. I believe that, if you shoot an animal and that shot isn't almost immediately fatal, then you owe that animal a follow up shot to dispatch it. And I would submit that, even when shooting pest animals, we are to do so humanely. It is not for us to "punish" a pest animal for the "crime" of being born a pest animal by causing it a drawn out and painful death rather than a quick and merciful death.

I'm not really interested in this being a thread about whether .22 LR or 155mm is the proper caliber for killing cats. Frankly, I think such discussions are juvenile and that's why I bowed out of the other thread. What I really want to know is if people agree or disagree with the notion that the proper ethics of killing animals with firearms, whether hunting for meat or eradicating pests and varmints, require that we do so humanely and with as little unnecessary suffering as possible. I would like to also know if people think that a different standard applies to shooting pest animals than the shooting of game animals.

 

[RLsnow]

I think if it is at all possible that is what should be done. (quick and as painfree a death as possible)

Then again, im kinda soft and mushy when it comes to such things.

 

[Biker]

I voted yes.

Biker

 

[fixyurgun]

I voted yes also. I feel that anything that I have to shoot should be put down as quickly as possible. jim

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I agree that it should be done humanely, but as I said in the other thread I have a problem where I live with people who unethically let their dogs and cat run free and breed indiscriminately. I have found dens of feral cats on my property and I will kill them where I find them because they are carrier of transmittable diseases. But I will do it humanely.

 

[macFarlaine]

You should never shoot at anything unless you intend to kill it.Taking a risky shot cannot be justified.If you wing or wound said bird animal you must make an attempt to dispatch humanely,and quickly.

 

[SammyIamToday]

Morals are an individual thing, but I very much believe that if you are hunting you take only ethical shots that lead to humane death of the animal.

 

[308win]

Check the Hunting Forum for a thread with same subject. Consensus is that if you hunt you have an obligation to be as humane (competent) as you can be.

 

[JWarren]

I am STRONGLY in the "YES" camp.

The very reason I became interested in accuracy shooting was because I had a deer I shot turn up missing. It ran off a bit and got under some brush about 50 feet away. But it was dark and it took 2 hours to find it.

For that two hours, I imagined the animal suffering because of me. In reality, it died practically immediately, but for me, I lived it as if it HAD suffered.

I vowed I would NEVER take a shot that I wasn't absolutely certain of a clean one-shot kill. That was 20 years ago, and I have never taken a second shot on a deer.

As I see it, suffering is should not be part of hunting. I have too much love for all animals for that. I know... that sounds weird coming from a hunter.


-- John

 

[Deanimator]

Noblesse oblige...

 

[FieroCDSP]

As I see it, suffering is should not be part of hunting. I have too much love for all animals for that. I know... that sounds weird coming from a hunter

Doesn't sound weird at all.

 

[hoji]

Part of my job is the management of invasive{non native} species,and yes, you have an obligation to humanely destroy anything you put the crosshairs on.

The guy in Galveston took a bad shot, but I do not think it was on purpose.If you do not head shot a cat they will run and run fast.He very well may not have gotten the opportunity for a follow up shot.

 

[joab]

A big part of my job is destroying pest animals.
Fish and Game wants me to kill any animal I trap state law insists I kill any rat, pigeon, or Muscovy duck I trap
I am also mandate to do it in a humane manner or face charges

If the toll bridge owner wants to claim ownership of this animal he should be able to produce the requisite paperwork and vaccination records of the animal and face any charges stemming from damages caused by the animal.

Stevenson would have been better served with a Havahart and a backyard CO2 chamber

 

[CNYCacher]

Definitely yes.

My brother told me a story that I almost couldn't believe. It involved an old man my father nicknamed "Slaughterhouse" who hunts near where my dad hunts. "Slaughterhouse" opened up on a group of 5 deer, taking 5 shots, killing one. When my dad and brother came to see what the shooting was about, they found him over a dead deer, who had DRT.
Dad spotted a blood trail leading off into the woods. Slaughterhouse shrugged and mentioned that he he must have winged another one and went back to what he was doing. My dad and brother tracked the wounded deer for over a mile before the trail petered out to nothing. They walked back on the road, and passed Slaughterhouse's spot on the way back to their hunting spot. Slaughterhouse mentioned that there was another blood trail that they had missed. At first dad assumed that he said he had bagged two, but it soon became obvious that SH had not even tracked that deer, even though he was setting in his spot hunting for another deer!
Dad and bro tracked that trail about 100 yards to find a yearling deer shot through the front leg, said leg twisted up like a bread bag and dangling. Deer was crammed up under some brush, still alive, having suffered for the better part of two hours. Dad put a slug through its neck, dragged it back to SH spot, and presented it to him. SH refused to tag it, so dad tagged it, using his one doe tag for that year.
Then the most unbelievable part of the story happened: Dad, who is the most humble person I know, looked him straight in the eye and said "You are an *******". If you knew my dad, this would shock you.
Fast forward a few years, I have begun hunting. We pass by SH spot, and bro points him out to me. After a while, we hear a shot and go to see SH has taken a deer with a head shot. "I like to make one shot and make it count" he says.
I like to think that Dad's dislike of this man made him miss the possibility that his "*******" comment years previous had actually changed the way the guy approached hunting, because he replied "Is that new?"

 

[romma]

oops! I hit the wrong thingy! I am the knucklehead who put no!

 

[buzz_knox]

Ultimately, it's not about the animal, it's about the person. Someone that believes that unnecessary suffering isn't a concern has something seriously wrong with them.

 

[everallm]

By their actions you shall know them.

From the indifference to the suffering of a "dumb" animal it is a slippery slope humanity keeps falling down to indifference and then enjoyment in the suffering of others.

 

[1911 guy]

I believe so.

When hunting, especially for sport, it's important to limit how much suffering an animal has. "Use enough gun" is the oft quoted maxim. It applied to self defense and hunting equally. The world isn't perfect, though, and sometimes things happen we wish woulnd't.

The only time I've shot animals and not worried about whether or not they suffered was shooting groundhogs on a specific pasture. They were tearing the place up and were becoming a real danger to livestock. There was no intentional neglect, just a focus on killing them by any means (poison and guns) to limit damage to stock.

 

[Pushrod]

I would never want to see any animal suffer. When I hunt, if I can't get a clean shot that I know will not cause extended suffering, I wont take it.

 

[230RN]

I believe if you are involved in a blood sport, it is your duty to despatch your quarry as humanely and quickly as possible.

I have gotten in many discussions with trappers and bowhunters on this matter.

I never changed their minds, and they never changed mine.

I have also had discussions with folks who believe in the kosher slaughtering of animals.

I never changed their minds, and they never changed mine.

I have also had discussions with fishermen who believe that playing the fish on the lightest tackle for the longest time possible constitutes the sporting aspect of fishing.

I never changed their minds, and they never changed mine.

(All excepting emergency situations.)

 

[308win]

By their actions you shall know them.

From the indifference to the suffering of a "dumb" animal it is a slippery slope humanity keeps falling down to indifference and then enjoyment in the suffering of others.

And studies of serial killers and other miscreants have shown it to be a short slope.

 

[Chipperman]

As a Veterinarian, an unfortunate part of my job is euthanizing animals. I do so as quickly and painlessly as possible. I personally am not a hunter, but if I did hunt, I would try to do the same with my quarry.

 

[alsaqr]

Animals deserve to die as quickly and as free from pain as possible. i kill a lot of hogs and coyotes: More shots are passed up than taken.

 

[K3]

With experience, it is easy to tell which shots to take and which to pass up. Sort of a switch going off in your head if you will. Some potential shots, if you were to print the picture through the scope right at that moment, would look as if they were OK to take. In reality, at least for me, there was something about it that kept me from firing. Does that make sense, or am I rambling here?

 

[The Annoyed Man]

I appreciate all of your answers very much. I was pretty upset in that other thread, and rather than post something there that I would have regretted later, I retired from the conversation. It wasn't so much the killing of the cat that bothered me as it was the idea of lung shooting it, and then leaving it to die slowly. Although the article never says so, and although I tend to be suspicious of any NYT reporting, I was left with the distinct impression that James Stevenson had the opportunity to take a follow up shot, and never took it. And that is what had me so raw.