The Ethical Killing of Animals...

[308win]

It is interesting that the no voters with the exception of the poster who hit the wrong selection haven't explained their vote.

 

[Hooptie]

mercy shots are 100% acceptable. I've had to do it before in the field. Buddy brings a duck down with lucky 20 gauge shot, its flopping with what appears to be a shattered back, he was out, I had a .22 on me, so the story goes.

 

[kwelz]

I am not a hunter. While I feel there is nothing wrong with hunting, for me personally it is not something I would enjoy. That being said, I have had to put down a couple coyotes that were causing problems. As others have said here the rule is one shot and make sure it is a kill shot when you take it.

Honestly I am appaled that anyone has answered No to the poll.

 

[ilbob]

Honestly I am appaled that anyone has answered No to the poll.

I considered my answer carefully before voting "yes".

I did not initially like the use of the words "imperative" and "prevent", as some might consider that to mean one would never shoot an animal unless one was 100% sure the animal would not suffer unnecessarily.

I decided that was an unreasonable position, and decided that it was moral to not deliberately cause undue suffering to an animal, but if it happened anyway unintentionally, the act of shooting the animal would not be immoral.

I could see where the wording of the question, especially the use of the words "imperative" and "prevent" might cause some to vote "no", since there is no way that one could 100% "prevent" unnecessary suffering, if only for a few seconds.

 

[MinnMooney]

For that two hours, I imagined the animal suffering because of me. In reality, it die

from a post by JWarren :

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.

Strange how two people can have very similar experiences and then compound it by having extremely alike thoughts and life-changing behavior.
I'm 59 and with age comes a sort of wisdom from lots of experiences. I've weighed those experiences thoughout my life and think I'm a better person for it.
ALL living things deserve a death that's quick and painless. That, of course, doesn't happen very often - especially in the wild. As a thinking, caring human with the ability to dispatch an animal quickly, I do so to the best of my ability.

Like 'JWarren', I don't put the animal in a position where long suffering happens. This deer season I've passed on the only 4 deer that I've seen - an 8-Pt'r and 3 does (all very easy shots) - because they all presented shots that would have only been "put-down" shots. Yes, I realize that I could have caught up to the deer quickly and dispatched it but I passed. Like 'JWarren' I won't take a shot at anything unless I can be fairly certain that the animal will in, all likelyhood, be killed quickly with the first shot.

I'm in my 13th day of a 16 day Minnesota firearms deer hunting season and for the first time in 20 years I may end up without venison in my freezer but my morals won't change due to desperation. I won't shoot a deer that is facing away from me even during the last hour of the last day.

 

[Joe Demko]

I answered no. Imperative from whom? Just how much suffering constitutes unnecessary? Your poll is phrased in such a way as to skew the results toward the answer you want. I answered no because the real issue is if I feel any obligation to live up to your standards. I don't. You're nobody to me.

 

[K3]

I answered no. Imperative from whom? Just how much suffering constitutes unnecessary? Your poll is phrased in such a way as to skew the results toward the answer you want. I answered no because the real issue is if I feel any obligation to live up to your standards. I don't.

+1

I posted above some of my thoughts on taking shots at animals. I don't think anybody here would purposely make an animal suffer. But one man's definition of suffering and ethical isn't the same as another's, and unless we're talking about a sick SOB, one is not necessarily more right than the other. Is the hunter that has taken 2 shots at a trotting deer 250 yards out unethical while the uber-sniper shooting tethered deer from a blind the king of ethics? This subject has the potential to turn into one heckuva pissing match.

 

[macFarlaine]

I do not for one minute a responsible hunter would want any animal,bird to suffer.Unfortunately there are those out there the will go to any length to bring home the meat or a trophy.I stand by my first post if you are not sure of a kill don't squeeze the trigger.It happens that from time to time you have to take a second shot to dispatch,but knowing you tried to kill with your first rests well with me.Killing for killing sake has no place in any form of hunting,neither has sitting on the fence with regard to the phrasing of the question.

 

[MinnMooney]

"k3" - Way Off The Point !!

Is the hunter that has taken 2 shots at a trotting deer 250 yards out unethical while the uber-sniper shooting tethered deer from a blind the king of ethics?

This is an entirely separate issue!

You missed the point of the question. Methods of "hunting", meaning Fair Chase or fence-enclosed game was not a part of the original question.
TRYING YOUR BEST to dispatch quickly and with as little suffering as possible was the intended question.
Yes, this could get into a "Pissing match" if you try to put words in the original poster's comment that were never intended.

 

[eliphalet]

Just one example but.
If a critter is in the hen house or after any of his animals in the middle of the night, and the farmer/rancher/owner goes out with a shotgun and shoots the offending critter and it runs off in the dark, he has no obligation to track it to assure it has a quick and painless death.
Hunting is another matter but was not what the question ask.
I didn't vote

 

[K3]

This is an entirely separate issue!

You missed the point of the question. Methods of "hunting", meaning Fair Chase or fence-enclosed game was not a part of the original question.
TRYING YOUR BEST to dispatch quickly and with as little suffering as possible was the intended question.
Yes, this could get into a "Pissing match" if you try to put words in the original poster's comment that were never intended.

To me, they are one and the same. Ethics or not?

Like I said, most people won't purposefully cause an animal to suffer. I can't think of anybody who would not TRY THEIR BEST to dispatch an animal quickly.

Hunting methods are directly related to suffering as far as I am concerned. The chunk sitting in a blind has a better chance at a prefect hit in the vitals than the man who glasses and stalks and can't realisticaly get any closer than say 250 yards. To me, the glass and stalk guy is a more ethical hunter than the chunk in the blind, but if people want to sit in a box and shoot at baited deer from 50 yards, more power to them. I say that it is not really humane to bait them into a pen, despite the higher probability of a perfect shot. My point was that it's all a matter of opinion as to what constitutes ethical and even humane to some degree.

I've had a deer run off on me after being hit behind the shoulder. Took a while to find him, over 2 hours, and he was still alive. My intent was to kill him instantly, but evidently he had other ideas. I did not feel bad though.

I think the original question is a baited one. I don't know what describes it best, maybe red herring? Projection? Not sure.

 

[Lightsped]

I would prefer not to shoot anything that is living. I don't even kill bugs and stuff like that. I catch them and throw them outside.

It's not that I am an animal lover or anything like that (I have nothing against them), but I don't see myself as qualified enough to judge whether or not to take another life.

The only time I would feel fine with taking another life is if my (or someone I cared for) life was endanger......

 

[Joe Demko]

The original poll is essentially asking whether or not you think it's okay to torture animals. It's loaded because choosing "no" is the same_due to the phrasing_as saying you think it's okay to torture animals. I chose no, even though I don't think it's okay to torture animals, because I refuse to be manipulated into giving the answer The Annoyed Man wants us all to give.

 

[K3]

The original poll is essentially asking whether or not you think it's okay to torture animals. It's loaded because choosing "no" is essentially the same_due to the phrasing_as saying you think it's okay to torture animals. I chose no, even though I don't think it's okay to torture animals, because I refuse to be manipulated into giving the answer The Annoyed Man wants us all to give.

Bingo!!!

The question is like asking if you think it's OK to bugger little boys.

It seems to me that someone didn't like the fact that a lot of people have no problem dispatching a feral cat, ie vermin, and started a thread to stir the pot.

 

[Sindawe]

A qualified Yes. Animals outside our own species, no question in my mind that when they are dispatched is should be done as quickly and humanely as reasonably possible.

There are a few members of our species I would have no issue with in their suffering a lingering, unpleasant demise.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

It's not that I am an animal lover or anything like that (I have nothing against them), but I don't see myself as qualified enough to judge whether or not to take another life.

Do you eat meat? If so, then you seem to be qualified enough to hand that judgement off to someone else to make the decision for you. Even if you are a vegatarian, some would argue plants are killed to feed you. Unless your diet consists entirely of fruit found on the ground, your choices have resulted in the death of something.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I said no, because morals depend on the person. I would say as a matter of ethics it is universally accepted as the correct way to hunt, but you can't universally define what is and isn't a good shoot. I'm not going to condemn a trapper that checks his traps every day instead of every minute, even though he might have caused more suffering.There are many people that believe that animals don't have feelings or pain and thus can't suffer. I never leave anything to die if I can help it, but I'm not going to line up a guaranteed kill shot on most pest critters. I don't think that fish feel pain and enjoy a good fight. I believe in conservation and not wasting animals that we are blessed with, but I don't cry over wounded coyotes. I've helped friends look for wounded deer in the dark for hours because it is the right thing to do, but I'm not convinced that deer feel pain as much as react to stimulus. That doesn't mean that I don't find it disturbing when people intentionally try to cause unnecessary harm. I don't shoot to wound, kick my dog, or leave stuff to die. Whether the animal feels pain or not, we are stewards of them and should remember that acting in a cruel way reflects on the person doing the cruelty.

 

[Pat McCoy]

I agree with "yesitsloaded". Morals have to do with matters of right and wrong, whereas ethics have to do with questions of two possible "right" choices.

No moral obligation exists here, however my personal ethics require a clean shot with minimum suffering.

 

[MakAttak]

I chose no, because, as much as I hate to side with those who are simply picking no to spite you, I have to agree. Your question was "Is there a moral imperative to prevent unneccessary suffering?"

Some would say ANY suffering on the part of the animal is unneccessary. I think it is moral to only take shots that will LIKELY kill the animal quickly or instantly IF YOU ARE HUNTING FOR SPORT.

Should you be hunting for food, your families life takes precedence over compassion for animals. Yes, you should still make every shot as deadly as possible, but, unlike sport, ANY good chance for getting food is a MORAL IMPERATIVE, no matter the pain of the animal.

 

[everallm]

I was always told to eat what I killed....Until my RSM said that sometimes that might be a bad idea.....

 

[M_Olson]

i interpreted "yes" to mean pretty much exactly what yesit'sloaded said, so thats how i voted. the way i read the question, it was asking about my personal morals/ethics. basically, its not right to torture an animal on purpose, and of course always go for a kill shot, but if it doesnt work out that way, im not gonna lose a whole ton of sleep.

 

[TXJon]

This thread is making me nuts. It drove me out of the shadows and got me to register.

The original poll question is loaded in. a couple different ways.

First, if you are not comfortable with potentially causing suffering, you shouldn't shoot any living thing, ever.

Second, the most ethical shot IMO is the shot that gives the best possibility of a kill. A head shot is a low percentage shot, comparatively. A missed head shot can blow off a nose, jaw, back of the neck, etc. The head is small and moves a lot, the brain is even smaller.

A shot to the heart/lung/liver/spine area offers a much larger, more stationary target, and is just about 100% fatal, although it might take the animal longer to die.

The poll question really hinges on the word "unnecessary", and that is a subjective thing.

I hunt, I raise some livestock, and I think killing should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible. But you also have to consider why the killing is taking place. I will pass on a low percentage shot on a deer. If there is a coon in my chicken coop, I'll try my best to get some buckshot into him wherever I can, and I don't really care if I can find him later.

And although you didn't ask this, in my opinion, a .22 is not a good choice for feral cat elimination. A live trap, followed by whatever permanent solution you prefer is much more discreet and effective.

 

[woerm]

Moral imperative: end/reduce/avoid suffering

voted yes.

If you have to kill an animal you should always be a humane as possible.

r

 

[JesseL]

I had a long post ready to go, and then realized MakAttak already said it almost verbatim.

I would just add that anyone trying to eradicate a dangerous animal should take the best shot they can get, even if it's less than ideal.

 

[Mr White]

There are a few members of our species I would have no issue with in their suffering a lingering, unpleasant demise.

When I started reading this post, I came up with what I thought was the great answer. I got to the bottom of page one only to find that Sindawe had stolen my great answer!

Damn you Sindawe!