The Ethical Killing of Animals...

[Slugless]

So how many of the "yes" respondents hunt coyote for fun?

 

[Biker]

I don't hunt anything for "fun", so to speak. If I'm gonna do a killin', there has to be a reason.

Biker

 

[The Annoyed Man]

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"

Yes, there are some good comments. And you are right. I reacted angrily to what I saw as a rude reply, and I shouldn't have. I apologize. I shouldn't have reacted that way. And as I said, I am NOT looking for an amen choir. Look, in my opening post, I said:

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.

I'm NEW at this, and yes I have opinions, but I am also seeking to understand it better, and that's why I'm interested in the opinions of others, even if they disagree with me. I'm trying to learn here. I just don't want to deal with rudeness, and I'm trying hard not to be rude in return, but I admit that I'm feeling a little bit defensive here.

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?

My answer - for ME - would be yes, if I had good reason to believe that the hunter who shot it had abandoned the search for it or was not interested in searching for it, I would finish it off. My question to you would be, would that be an unethical thing for me to do in the world of hunting ethics? I sincerely want to know.

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.

At what range, on what kind of game, with what rifle and caliber? I would probably prefer a head shot, but I also know what my own limitations are as a marksman. I'm not averse to shooting an animal though the heart/lungs if that will ensure the kill, but I'm also going to hope that it dies fairly quickly. If it is still alive by the time I get to it, I'm going to shoot it again, and regret that it took so long for me to get there. But for sure I'm not going to abandon the search for it because it's "too far to walk" or some such nonsense. Also, if I shot an animal that got away from me and I could not find it, I would sincerely hope that someone else does find it and dispatches it.

Are you proclaiming us all insane?

Absolutely not. I have no reason to have anything but the utmost respect for you, and I am struck by how much it matters to you that you be able to recover your hits, even when you don't always succeed. That is admirable.

I hope that I've been able to get my part of the discussion back on track, and again, I apologize if I offended anybody with my questions. That was absolutely not my intention.

 

[Acheron]

There's no need to make an animal suffer needlessly. If you shoot it, aim to kill in one shot. If you miss that shot and only wound the animal, make sure to finish it off as soon as possible. Don't leave it suffering for twenty minutes in a slow, agonizing death. The hunter has a moral responsibility to ensure that the kill is as quick and painless as possible.

 

[ilcylic]

Half the reason I never go on a road trip without some kind of firearm, even when I'm going to unfriendly places, is because the country is full of animals. I've been fortunate enough to never hit one, (though I've come very close a number of times) but if I do hit one and don't kill it outright with my car, I want to be able to end it quickly.

Akodo: I didn't think anyone was talking about "laws". Is this country so completely buggered that people can't discuss what is moral without regard to what is legal?

As far as I'm concerned, regarding your statement, and Herr Demko, "unnecessary suffering" would constitute something such as gut shooting a deer and then tracking it, and watching it die slowly instead of putting another round into it.

No, clearly, there's no objective definition of "unnecessary suffering" which can exist, if for no other reason than that it's impossible to objectively measure pain. But I think it's pretty bloody obvious that not doing what you can to end the suffering of an animal you are actively trying to kill yourself as quickly as possible counts as unnecessary. Plus, it makes the meat taste bad.

The poster who spoke of his father going out to finish someone else's work was operating above the call of moral imperative. Just as some people choose to do great works of charity, he was under no obligation to track that deer down and put it out of it's misery. It is my opinion that it was a very nice thing to do, but it was not required of him. If anyone, it was morally required of the person that shot it, and that the absence of action in that regard by the person who did the shooting makes that shooter a bad person. And just to be specific, I don't think there should have been a legal requirement. But I'm perfectly willing to state that while some choices should remain up to the people involved, it is perfectly possible to make the wrong choice from a moral and ethical standpoint.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

So how many of the "yes" respondents hunt coyote for fun?

I do, and add prairie dogs to the list, also.

When hunting for meat, or varmint hunting, I try to ensure the quickest, most humane death for my quarry. I owe it no less, having taken its life in my hands.

On the other hand, I've blasted a coyote who was killing my chickens with two shots of steel T shot at 70 yards. He ran off and died later. I really had no choice, and at the moment I really didn't care.

 

[Zoogster]

There is grey areas where letting the animal suffer is actualy the legal thing to do.
Self defense against someone's pet for example.
If you shoot a dog that is posing a threat to you or attacks you, and the shot severely wounds it, but does not kill it. It could be yelping, dragging itself smearing blood on the ground, and have a massive gaping wound, or even a severed spine that will likely result in it dying soon or being put down shortly after a lot of pain.
Yet you were only legal in shooting to stop the threat. The threat is ended, and shooting further would not be a wise legal action.

So you are legaly required to allow that animal to suffer, no matter how likely the wound is a fatal one.

The same goes for animals you do not have a tag for that you defend yourself against. A bear, or any game that requires self defense. You are allowed to defend yourself, not end the suffering of the wounded creature. When it is injured, in pain lying there dying and you are no longer in danger that is the end of your shooting.
If it is a wild animal, is going to die, and you are in a private location you may choose to kill it anyways, and dispose of it, but that was not a legal option.

So no, it is not always a blanket yes or no. It is however a moral obligation to minimize the suffering of something.
For that reason I won't bother voting either way.

 

[JohnKSa]

the idea of lung shooting it, and then leaving it to die slowly

A lung shot is usually considered to be a humane way to kill an animal, and it's standard practice, when hunting, not to follow up an animal for several minutes after it's hit. Which means that by your standard, many hunters are causing unnecessary suffering.

I think that any decent person does their best not to cause unnecessary suffering. I also think that many people are uninformed when it comes to killing animals humanely and don't have any idea what is and isn't causing unnecessary suffering.

The first time I shot a pest bird in front of my wife she was appalled. I hit it in the head with a single shot from an airgun and it went into the seizure that is typical of an animal with most of its CNS intact but that has had its brain destroyed. By any reasonable standard the bird was dead, but it was still moving. The fact that I didn't immediately use a follow up shot made my wife think I was allowing the bird to suffer. I didn't waste a follow up shot because my experience told me the animal was already dead, we were just watching residual random neural activity.

Similarly, uninformed people are often incensed that people shoot game animals with lung and chest shots instead of brain shots. Lung/chest shots present a large target that has a very high likelihood of being lethal although the target doesn't usually die immediately. Brain shots present a small target that can move abruptly even when the animal is stationary, a target that is not always easily visualized (brain does NOT equal head) and can result in severe but non-lethal wounds if the target is missed by even a very small amount. At first blush the high-percentage shot appears to be causing unnecessary suffering but in reality, it's cutting down on the likelihood of wounding an animal that may then escape and starve to death or suffer for days.

 

[Slugless]

A lung shot is usually considered to be a humane way to kill an animal, and it's standard practice, when hunting, not to follow up an animal for several minutes after it's hit. Which means that by your standard, many hunters are causing unnecessary suffering.

So why do people who claim "humane" killing styles shoot coyotes and, yes, prairie dogs that pose no harm or threat to livestock or livelihood? [Chicken killers gotta be put down as best can] They're shooting for the boilerworks, right? I've seen the videos that people post of prairie dogs twitching and thrashing in their death agonies. Those videos are sick.

Killing an animal for fun isn't humane. The definition of humane is "kind and sympathetic". What part of killing an animal who's minding its own business is kind or sympathetic? Sympathetic is live and let live.

If you shoot it, eat it. Pests, sick, or dangerous animals are exempt.

The same goes for animals you do not have a tag for that you defend yourself against. A bear, or any game that requires self defense. You are allowed to defend yourself, not end the suffering of the wounded creature. When it is injured, in pain lying there dying and you are no longer in danger that is the end of your shooting.

That's not my experience. The bear received a coup de grace to the head to stop the screaming. The game warden didn't bat an eye.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

JohnKSa, I get the part about lung and chest shots, but let me ask you a few followup questions then. Assuming that in most situations shooting through the heart/lungs is the best target and standard practice, what do you do when you make the shot, the animal runs, and you find it, say 10-15 minutes later (I have no idea if that is actually a realistic possibility), still alive, but dying? Do you wait for it to die, or do you put an end to it? If you put an end to it, what is the best way to do it? And lastly, is there ever a good argument for not putting an end to it, say like spoiling too much meat, or something like that?

Again, I'm trying to learn as much as I can here before I actually have to apply any of it in the field.

 

[JohnKSa]

what do you do when you make the shot, the animal runs, and you find it, say 10-15 minutes later (I have no idea if that is actually a realistic possibility), still alive, but dying?

There are many experts who recommend not following game for a half hour or more.

The rationale is that if you pursue a wounded animal, it will become alarmed and the fight/flight reaction will give it additional stamina. It may run for a much longer distance than it would otherwise, live longer and ultimately presents a better chance that it will not be recovered and the meat will be lost.

The animal doesn't understand what has happened. Without the adrenalin dump from the fight/flight response it will likely go a short distance and succumb very rapidly.

If an animal is encountered after being shot but while it is still alive, it would of course be immediately dispatched. Both in the interest of being humane and also to prevent it from running away and possibly being lost.

So why do people who claim "humane" killing styles shoot coyotes and, yes, prairie dogs that pose no harm or threat to livestock or livelihood?

Your assumption that coyotes and prairie dogs do not pose a threat to livestock & livelihood is incorrect.

Coyotes certainly pose a thread to livestock and pets. I live in a suburb of Dallas--not exactly a rural area. My next door neighbor heard a commotion in his back yard and went outside to find a coyote attempting to escape from his yard with his pet dachsund in its mouth.

You can talk to any rancher about the threat that coyotes pose to calves and what prairie dog holes can do to cattle or horses that step into them.

I've seen the videos that people post of prairie dogs twitching and thrashing in their death agonies.

Again, the presence of motion does not automatically indicate agony or even consciousness. Often brain shots result in seizure like activity due to the residual random activity of the destroyed brain being transmitted to the muscles.

Furthermore, a solid hit with a centerfire rifle on a prairie dog does not result in "twitching". The temporary cavity caused by the bullet strike typically exceeds the size of the animal. That is a recipe for a certain and immediate death.

 

[MDHunter]

Exempt??

So why do people who claim "humane" killing styles shoot coyotes and, yes, prairie dogs that pose no harm or threat to livestock or livelihood? [Chicken killers gotta be put down as best can] They're shooting for the boilerworks, right? I've seen the videos that people post of prairie dogs twitching and thrashing in their death agonies. Those videos are sick.

Killing an animal for fun isn't humane. The definition of humane is "kind and sympathetic". What part of killing an animal who's minding its own business is kind or sympathetic? Sympathetic is live and let live.

If you shoot it, eat it. Pests, sick, or dangerous animals are exempt.

Coyotes have been known to spread rabies and other disease, kill a large number of deer in winter (not necessarily for food), and have even tried to grab babies off porches in at least 3 different states I recall reading about on this forum. They are varmints, and if people opt to shoot them when they have the chance, more power to them.

As for prairie dogs, they tend to breed at a pretty high rate, and can destroy farm or range land if left unchecked.

And when an animal is twitching, that may be the nervous system's reaction, the animal could be past the point of feeling anything. Hear of spasms?

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

T.A.M.,

A heart/lung shot is normally fatal within a few seconds. The lungs fill up with blood, the animal suffocates, end of story. An elk shot in the lungs will normally run less than 100 yards on adreneline alone, and then drop. A killing shot to the spine is a good idea anyway (ask my dad, who almost had his leg broken when a bull elk was in its final throes).

Slugless, I kill coyotes on sight. Have you ever had an old dog who couldn't move out of its house because of arthritis? Coyotes will eat it without killing it. I know, that's what coyotes do, but killing coyotes is what I do.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Slugless,

Texas coyotes may be harmless but I've seen the results of calves pulled down by coyotes and coyote/dog crossbreed. When coyotes attack they start at the belly and pull out the entrails, often eating them while the calf is still alive.

But I'm being as reasonable as my PMS will allow tonight. My brother traps coyotes to gas. Instead I will have him send them to you. If what is a great pest in Indiana in harmless in Texas he goes to New Mexico once a year anyway and it wouldn't be that far out of his way.

Selena

 

[MDHunter]

Heart/Lung Shots

I get the part about lung and chest shots, but let me ask you a few followup questions then. Assuming that in most situations shooting through the heart/lungs is the best target and standard practice, what do you do when you make the shot, the animal runs, and you find it, say 10-15 minutes later (I have no idea if that is actually a realistic possibility), still alive, but dying? Do you wait for it to die, or do you put an end to it? If you put an end to it, what is the best way to do it? And lastly, is there ever a good argument for not putting an end to it, say like spoiling too much meat, or something like that?

Again, I'm trying to learn as much as I can here before I actually have to apply any of it in the field.

To add to JohnSKA's reply -

If you hit an animal in the heart/lung area, and wait for 15-20 minutes to approach it after shooting, it will usually be dead. They may run off right after the shot, and may go 100-200 yards, but they will typically be dead shortly after they fall to the ground. It may feel some pain for a minute or two as it is bleeding out, but in my opinion this is less stressful to the animal than the combination of pain AND fear it feels if you rush to get to it before it dies. That's one reason many hunters wait 15-20 minutes before approaching deer or other animals after the shot.

If you do approach an animal and it's still alive, approach as silently as possible, undetected if at all possible, and finish the animal off with a shot to the head or spinal cord.

And in my opinion, saving a little meat is not a good reason to not give the animal a finishing shot, if you approach and it's still alive. I believe our responsibility at that point is to kill the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Michael

 

[Slugless]

Your assumption that coyotes and prairie dogs do not pose a threat to livestock & livelihood is incorrect.

Sorry, I did not make that assumption. Selena, thank you for being reasonable but you misread my post. I know exactly what canines do to calves and mules, thank you. When they do pose a threat, kill away.

Coyotes have been known to spread rabies and other disease, kill a large number of deer in winter (not necessarily for food), and have even tried to grab babies off porches in at least 3 different states I recall reading about on this forum. They are varmints, and if people opt to shoot them when they have the chance, more power to them.

As for prairie dogs, they tend to breed at a pretty high rate, and can destroy farm or range land if left unchecked.

Prairie dogs and coyotes form an integral part of the ecosystem. If it's your farm or range, kill them. I'd rather them shot than poisoned.

I'm talking about going out into the countryside, calling in a yote and killing it. It is not a varmint until it poses a threat. The definition of varmint: "A troublesome animal or person." If it's on it's own territory, not yours, not near your baby or your livestock it troubles no one. Rabies? Try killing all the animals on this continent that potentially have rabies.

My neighbor's son was 2 years old when a coyote came sniffing around their porch one winter. It's now a nice decoration. I got no problem with that.

I'm not going to change your mind about what you do. More power to you (and I'm not being sarcastic). We'll agree to disagree.

My point is that some people claim they kill animals "humanely" when they go out of their way to kill animals that don't need killing. That's not humane.

 

[JohnKSa]

If it's your farm or range, kill them. I'd rather them shot than poisoned.

I'm talking about going out into the countryside, calling in a yote and killing it.

How much "countryside" do you think there is that isn't someone's farm or range? Ain't much in TX, that's for sure!

That kind of hunting is almost invariably done with the permission/blessing/at the request of the landowner for just the reasons I described.

My point is that some people claim they kill animals "humanely" when they go out of their way to kill animals that don't need killing.

Personally, I think you're going out of your way to find a problem where none exists. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but to be frank, most of what you have posted on this thread seems to be based on a lack of information about varmint hunting in specific and hunting in general.

 

[TXJon]

JohnKSa, I get the part about lung and chest shots, but let me ask you a few followup questions then. Assuming that in most situations shooting through the heart/lungs is the best target and standard practice, what do you do when you make the shot, the animal runs, and you find it, say 10-15 minutes later (I have no idea if that is actually a realistic possibility), still alive, but dying? Do you wait for it to die, or do you put an end to it? If you put an end to it, what is the best way to do it? And lastly, is there ever a good argument for not putting an end to it, say like spoiling too much meat, or something like that?

Something else to consider is that a big part of "suffering" is understanding what has happened and the likely result of the injury. Deer don't have that. I believe they feel pain, and growing weakness, then die.

When you immediately pursue your deer you are adding fear to that. In my opinion the most humane course is to make a good shot and let the deer die on its own. Give it half an hour or so before you go after it.

Don't try to shoot deer in the head. Don't expect any animal you shoot to fall over dead, it just doesn't work that way. It takes a little time, and it's not pretty.

 

[Slugless]

How much "countryside" do you think there is that isn't someone's farm or range? Ain't much in TX, that's for sure!

I'm thinking about out west where I have property - BLM, Federal Lands,

most of what you have posted on this thread seems to be based on a lack of information about varmint hunting in specific and hunting in general.

I don't hunt much. Obviously I don't varmint hunt because of my feelings.

I think you're going out of your way to find a problem where none exists. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but to be frank...

Point taken. Thank you, no insult taken.

 

[SpeedAKL]

If you're going to kill an animal, you'd better have a valid reason to do it (hunting, pest control, protection) and at least minimize the pain.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm thinking about out west where I have property - BLM, Federal Lands,

I don't know much about government owned land, how it's regulated or what (if any) livestock activity is allowed on it.

So, what about varmint hunting in areas where the fauna doesn't really pose any sort of a threat to livestock or livelihood (to quote a certain THR member ). I tend to agree with you that if the critter isn't posing a threat or nuisance that it's not really correct to label it a varmint.

I would say that the exception to that is feral animals which don't belong in the ecosystem at all. Feral cats, dogs, hogs, etc. would still qualify as varmints in my opinion.

If you're going to kill an animal, you'd better have a valid reason to do it (hunting, pest control, protection) and at least minimize the pain.

I agree. I would add "nuisance" as a valid reason in at least some cases since the law usually does.

By the way, it SHOULD go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Just because the vast majority of people who kill animals are very ethical/moral about it doesn't mean that they all are. It would be foolish to pretend that every person who shoots at animals is concerned with being humane. On the other hand, there are always a few in any type of activity who make the rest look bad. One can't reasonably indict the whole group for the actions of a few--particularly when those few are considered pariahs by the rest of the group.

 

[Twud]

Man I hate cats. I have 2 horse farms that I hunt where the owners let their cats run free. There must be 20 or 30 around 1 barn alone. Occcasionally I take my Jack Russell over to thin them out. She makes quick work of them. If I see one stalking song bids while hunting it gets 100 grain Nosler through the chest. Same goes for dog packs running deer.

 

[Raph84]

To 45Broomhandle.

I read an interesting story that is somewhat the flipside of the story that you relayed. The story was in a bow hunting magazine and it was talking about the ethics of taking an animal you do not intend to eat.

Apparently this author was enjoying the outdoors and waiting for his prey to wander by (deer iirc). Suddenly his calm was damaged by a very annoying squirrel (he related the variety but for the life of me I can not recall, the important thing is a very vocal/annoying, but not very tasty species).

He tries not to let this get the better of him after all he is an outdoorsman and enjoys nature and this pesky critter is just an extension of the nature he enjoys so well. Unfortunately after a long while of putting up with the incessant chattering his frustrations get the better of him, and he grabs an arrow, and lets fly. Right through the middle it hits, done and done.

The second he realizes he has killed this creature he is immediately sorry and ashamed of what he has done. He realized that it was completely contrary to what he believed should be his code as an outdoorsman to love nature as it is and only kill for food. To right his wrong he dressed the squirrel started a fire and choked down the worst squirrel lunch ever.

I took a lot from that story, because even a good man can make a poor decision in the heat of the moment, but it is what he did to redeem himself that made him an ethical hunter/true outdoorsman.

I have never been a hunter, but to me that story gives me the moral core that outdoorsman should hold to.

 

[JKimball]

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.

bensdad,

You make a good point. I voted yes, but I like to hunt birds. I agree that too often they are wounded and get away or are not found. But is my position consistent if I feel I've done something immoral when that happens?

I will say that I count those birds towards my limit. But it still bothers me.

 

[eliphalet]

Y'all forgot fun, I think hunting is fun. I like having fun, I don't need anyone's permission, or really care how you feel about it. From the PETA folks to guys that shoot, eat burgers, but don't hunt or kill unless they eat it. It's legal I like doing it and among several other things it's fun!
I don't need to defend or justify it, nor will I try, live and let live IMHO.