The Ethical Killing of Animals...

[Noxx]

I'm pretty well set in my mind on this. When you take it upon yourself to be a god to other creatures, and dispense life and death at your judgment, the very least you can do is make any death a quick one.

All creatures suffer, all creatures fear death. While this should not prevent a man from killing for food, or to eliminate a pest, it should always be considered when taking life.

 

[v35]

Personally I believe that we are ultimately responsible for all of our actions. I am not sufficiently versed in theology to explain why, or even if it's a theological question, but for me it means killing for sport, killing for meat, or for defense, one ought to be held accountable to whomever sits in judgment of those actions. That may mean God or Allah or Buddha to you but even if you're not religious it simply means doing the right thing, following your own moral compass, and accepting whatever consequences may arise from those actions.

I elect to eat meat, because it's delicious, and I accept that's how I'm built. I wouldn't attempt to impose my choice upon others though, and if you choose to live a vegan lifestyle, have at it. Same with guns and gays and abortion and all the other hot topics that get headlines. If you don't like guns, you don't have to have 'em in your house or carry one on your hip. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Live and let live. But if you're into torturing animals, I wouldn't be your friend.

[strike]I wish there were more politicians who held these beliefs but it seems all have allied themselves with one or another extreme. [/strike](oops - political! delete! delete!)

I voted for the moral imperative even though I believe those morals come from within one's self. Moral behavior may be codified in law but moral beliefs ought not be imposed by anyone.

I tend to be suspicious of any NYT reporting,

Probably a good idea. I don't read that socialist rag. But I'll fight to the death for your right to read it!

 

[#shooter]

I will go out on a limb here and say there is no moral imperative to limit suffering if you intend to kill an animal. A moral imperative to limit suffering implies a moral obligation to do the least amount of harm. Killing something ultimately does the most harm thus there is a moral imperative not to kill in the first place.

As a hunter I don’t take the “ethical shot” (heart/lungs) for ethical reasons, I take the ethical shot for practical reasons. The vitals provides a large target area and faster kill time which means I have less tracking to do. As a bonus the vitals also limit bacterial contamination when compared to a gut shot.

 

[MT GUNNY]

Yes, Even pests deserve a quick death, circumstances permitting.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I thing we should found PEKA. People for the Ethical Killing of Animals. I would join. We can host target matches with animal targets and all hits in the vitals count as a bullseye. Ranges will be from 20 to 200 yards. It will be a hunter education/animal conservation group that supports the ethical taking of game. We can speak on the hazards of store bought meat and the cruelty those animals go through while advocating the ethical taking of free range game that has lived in the wild and is leaner, better tasting, and cheaper per pound if you butcher your own.

 

[Gator]

It seems to me that, whether one is hunting for game, or eradicating pests, ethics would require that we do so humanely.

Of course. To do otherwise is simply evil.

.......

P.S. I sure hope the previous post about live targets in a shooting competion was a poorly written attempt at humor.

 

[MakAttak]

Gator- I don't think he meant LIVE animals, but rather Animal shaped targets...

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Indeed. Shooting live animals for money is an entirely different event known as a canned hunt to those of us who hunt.

 

[tkkr]

The cat wasen't on the owners property even if it was owned, it was out in the open.

 

[#shooter]

I would say even when eradicating pests there is no moral obligation to limit suffering. The objective is to kill the pest. The most reliable way to do so is a vitals shot. When dealing with pests, hitting the vitals is more about killing efficiency than concern for the well being of the pest.

I agree with previous posts that the question is skewed due to its wording. It also implies that animals suffer. Suffering is more a human condition and humans can suffer without even having physical pain or damage. Just because the animal feels pain does not mean they are suffering as well.

 

[308win]

Just because the animal feels pain does not mean they are suffering as well.

No, they are just having a bad hair day.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I always believe that quick and as painless as possible should be the norm for any animal, with the exception of the 2 legged variety, and even then, only a select few in the world, because they chose to be truly evil.

 

[garymc]

Is the use of pepper spray inhumane? It only causes agony, even if only for a few minutes. How about the farmer using rock salt to sting watermelon thieves? It's only meant to cause pain. What monsters. (OK, for the idiots who can't recognize facetiousness, that was.) At first I agreed, then read about the fox in the chicken coop and agreed maybe a pest being defended against doesn't have the rights of prey being hunted as a choice. After a while this becomes an interesting diversion and then eventually a waste of time. I still have a qualified agreement (not sure about the "imperative" part) as long as it is moral and not a legal question. I think the trial over this question is ridiculous.

 

[Lashlarue]

The case is local to me, and the big question is not if the cat was dispatched as painlessly as possible, but that it was the pet, among many feral cats of the toll collector on the San luis pass bridge that goes between Galveston Island and Freeport.The killer an avid bird watcher and conservationist was protecting an endangered species from the cat who was trying to make it his evening meal.

 

[swingpress]

I voted yes to your poll. I agree it is our moral responsibility to prevent needless suffering.

On the other hand, I disagree with many statements you use to back up your position in your elaboration.

Our moral responsibility, in my mind, is to prevent needless suffering, or cruel suffering. It is not our moral responsibility to provide "instant" kills as many of the tactics that bring about "instant" kills are risky: neck/head shots, "exploding" ammunition, you get the idea.

There is something to be said for a reliable lung shot over an "instant" neck shot.

Not that all neck shots are the result of errors in judgment.

 

[akodo]

It seems to me that, whether one is hunting for game, or eradicating pests, ethics would require that we do so humanely.

I happen to agree, but it is irrelevant.

For starters, this is a country founded on freedom. Really, the only thing that should be prohibited is when your activities infring on another person's freedom.

I think it is unethical to sleep with another man's wife. However, I do NOT believe adultry should be illegal.

Taken to an extreme, this means a person should be able to raise up animals just to torture. Freedom is funny that way, it can be unpleasant to have to tollerate someone who believes in a different god than you, who believes in a different family structure, work ethic, etc etc.

Now, for the second half.

I think most folk would agree with your general sentiment. However, everyone stands on a different spot on the slope and says "I am fine, everyone below me is wrong!"

Take the bow hunter or handgun hunter. They are specifically choosing a lesser powered shorter range less effective less quick tool to do their killing with in the interest of making hunting more challenging for them. You have to be damned skillful to take a deer with a bow, because you have to be a lot closer to get a good clean kill. Except really, you could get a 399 AwesmeMag with a 2-20X Nikbob scope, and yet still choose to only shoot deer you can stalk to within 20 yards of.

Then you get into hunting in general, why do it at all, because the animal will suffer for some period of time, no matter how short, and a hunter can never ever guarntee he will land an instant kill shot every time.

Or what about those guys who raise pheasants and release them in the fall. How is that different than a guy who raises pitbulls to fight eachother?

Or catch-and-release fishing? Isn't that unusually cruel to the fish?

Or fish in aquariums in general? Honestly, I always felt a bit sorry for this fighting fish I see in the pet stores, you know the big colorful ones in the tiny little aquariums the size of a grapefruit.

 

[akodo]

here's an other branch to throw on the fire.

A poster related a story of his dad tracking another man's wounded deer and dispatching it.

How far does that go? Are you morally ablidged to stop the suffering of an animal if you weren't the person who wounded it?

Or in this example of the feral cat killing local songbirds. The man chose to kill the cat because it was about to pounce on an endangered bird.

Do you take a risky shot at a feral cat, knowing you stand a good chance of wounding the cat, causing it to run away and die an agonizing 3 hours later? How does that 3 hours stack up against 40 birds that same cat will kill in the course of a week, each bird suffering 5 minutes. Isn't taking the risky shot the morally correct thing to do, as it ends the greatest amount of suffering?

What about all wildlife in general. In the wild, most animals die in very unpleasant manners. Lions and wolves will both start eating on an animal's entrails before it is dead. Starvation is a hell of an unpleasant way to go I imagine. Does that mean we should use our firearms to immediately and 'humanely' dispatch any and all animal life we encounter?

Does an endangered animal have greater rights than a common animal?

 

[greenflash107]

You should never let any animal suffer! It doesn't matter if it's a wild animal that you are hunting, or a domestic animal that has to be put down for what ever reason. Quick is the only way.

 

[Gator]

Shooting live animals for money is an entirely different event known as a canned hunt to those of us who hunt.

Check!

 

[45Broomhandle]

Just My Opinions

I voted YES, because that's my sincere belief. Also, it is my VERY sincere belief that the organization CLAIMING to be pro-ethical treatment of animals are nothing but lying hypocrites.

Since I became an adult I've killed animals for only TWO reasons: food or protection. Neither is a "sport." Decades ago, when I lived in the wilderness I HUNTED animals for food. When I live in a "civilized" area with grocery stores, I have no reason to either hunt or fish. Neither endeavor is "recreational" or "relaxing" to me.

I've never had to kill an animal for protection. I simply backed away from dangerous encounters. And, they never attacked me for my intrusion. After all, I was invading THEIR back yard. If they visit my neighborhood seeking food, I would be dangerously protective, reacting just as they do. Wouldn't you?

Best regards, ~ ~ ~ 45Broomhandle


Yes, there IS a place for all of God's creatures: right next to the potatoes and gravy.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi akodo,

A poster related a story of his dad tracking another man's wounded deer and dispatching it.

How far does that go? Are you morally ablidged to stop the suffering of an animal if you weren't the person who wounded it?

Actually that would be a self interest situation more than a moral one. Having a wounded deer running around would tend to make the rest of the deer pop more nervous and cautious thereby reducing the chance of a successful hunt.

Growing up, I was taught that on some occasions the greastest kindness to an animal is a well placed bullet through the brain. Every once in a while I still see the picture of a certain dog that had been dumped by city people that was in the last stages of starvation. It had been in a fight with something meaner that it was, it's paws bleeding and raw, covered with ticks and feverish. I'm sure the former 'owner' would be appalled but the single shot from Uncle Lee's pistol was a relief and release.

Selena

 

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

Oh boy....

Allow me to explain myself a little further. First, I an NOT some nutty animal rights activist. I hold a hunting license. I have - albeit a long time ago - killed animals. I didn't lose any sleep over it then, and I don't lose any sleep over it now. I eat meat. I think that meat animals, fur bearing animals, etc., were all put here on this earth for our use. I am more than a little put off by nutroots who place a higher value on animal life than on human life.

Second, I am NOT trying to oblige someone to live up to my standards. Joe Demko, you say the issue is whether or not you are obliged to live up to my standards, and that is not the question I asked. You're reading something into the question that isn't there. You say I'm nobody to you. Although I believe that was a cheap shot, believe me, I'm fine with that. I don't know you either, and given how you responded, I'm sure that I don't want to know you. And I don't have any opinion about your opinions. But you've got one thing waaaaaaaaaay wrong, and that is the incorrect attribution to me of motives I don't hold, and thoughts that aren't mine but are rather your projections of what you think I think.

I thought this was a discussion board, not an amen choir. To me, that means that reasonable people can discuss things, disagree about them sometimes, and all without getting nasty with one another. Perhaps I was wrong.

All I am curious about - and this is at the heart of why I started the thread AND why I put in a poll form - is whether or not the respondents feel an obligation to diminish an animal's suffering as much as possible when killing them. I make no value judgment about the respondents as individuals. I just wanted to know what they think, nothing more, nothing less.

Third, regarding my choice of words like "moral imperative," "prevent," and "unnecessary"... For "moral imperative," you could just as easily substitute "an ethical obligation on the part of a hunter," but it doesn't matter. I was using words that made sense to me. I know what I think about these things, and I made no effort to hide my own opinions. but opinions are like noses. Everybody's got one; and I made no effort to manipulate anybody's answer. I don't particularly care if you agree with my opinion or not. I'm just curious to know what you think. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sheesh!

Apparently, this thread of mine is a waste of time too. If some moderator wants to put it out of its misery, that would be fine with me.

 

[akodo]

I thought this was a discussion board, not an amen choir. To me, that means that reasonable people can discuss things, disagree about them sometimes, and all without getting nasty with one another. Perhaps I was wrong.

Umm, when I look at those posts, I see a fair amount of discussion, as well as some amens.

Seems to me an amen choir was exactly what you were looking for, sorry if a few of us do not cooperate.

In my eyes, asking/suggesting to the mods to close seems a lot like "I want to take my ball and go home"

I think Joe made a good point, your terms, your word choice, your moral standard, yet you fail to respond to other reasonable questions, such as where on the slope of 'be humane to animals' is it all right to stop?

Do you think it there a moral imperative to prevent unnecessary suffering when someone else has shot and wounded an animal? To what degree do we interfere with the harshness that is mother nature because death is messy and painful out there?

I'd also like to hear your moral stance on choosing the lungs/heart shot vs the head shot, whereas one is more reliable but usually a bit longer, while the other is much more quick...except it is much more likely to go wrong and really leave a mess.

 

[45Broomhandle]

A Similar Story

Here's another "put 'em out of their misery" story.

Back in the '60s my new bride and I lived in a little tourist cabin up in the Rockies, near Woodland Park, just above Colorado Springs. Late one evening a neighbor kid, 22 rifle in hand, came knocking on our door.

The kid knew I occasionally hunted the slopes above the tourist camp for rabbits and squirrels. He asked me to give him a hand on getting a "Black-Eared Piney" squirrel out of a REAL tall pine nearby. He had shot and hit it, but couldn't get it down. He had fired several shots at it with his .22 and it didn't move.

I took my old lever-action .22rf Marlin 39A and aimed at the bark just beneath the bushy tail's belly - an old Hoosier hunting technique called "barking" a squirrel. One shot and he blasted loose from the tree, and came crashing to our feet. Not bothering to pick up his fallen prey, the kid simply said, "Thanks a lot," turned, and headed for home.

I asked if he was going to take it home to eat. Knowing I was a newcomer to Colorado he answered, "Nah! They tast like pine cones. That's why they're called Pineys." and continued on home.

Gathering up the furry, little tree-rat's corpse, I took him home, skinned and gutted him, and put him in salt water to soak overnight. Next day I parted him out and my wife fried him up nice and crispy. NO PINE TASTE!

No good deed goes unpunished??? That little rodent was delicious!

Best regards, ~ ~ ~ 45Broomhandle

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

 

[bensdad]

I have yet to meet the pheasant, grouse, duck, goose, quail, dove, (name some other sport birds) hunter who can vote "yes" on this one.

We take the best shots we get, pass on the not-so-good ones. I've missed some shots that I thought were unmissable. I've seen birds be visibly effected by my shots and keep flying. I've lost more than I can remember. I try real d#$% hard to recover my hits. I don't always succeed. That doesn't prevent me from continuing to hunt birds.

EVERY wing-shooter I know would have to admit to the same story. Are you proclaiming us all insane?