The Ethical Killing of Animals...

[XavierBreath]

I'm going to jump in over my head here. First, I am not a hunter. I do fish, for enjoyment and food. The enjoyment comes from being with friends and my kids in a common activity that can feed us, not from killing. I have never hunted, although many folks I know and like do. My freezer gets stocked every year with free venison and I love venison chilli and sausage. I have nothing against hunting, fishing......or killing. It is the way of the world. Life begins and ends.

When we begin to talk of moral imperatives, ethical obligations, and these types of responsibilities, there is the axiom that a person has a right to hunt. When the moral imperative or ethical responsibility is questioned, the axiom is threatened.

If we are to do away with all suffering why are we not also doing away with all predators? Why of course, because starvation from overpopulation would result. So why not do away with all animals so there will be no suffering from predation or overpopulation and starvation? Because they are good to eat, that's why. We require the regeneration of other species for the preservation of our own. Thus, we will never stop the suffering of the "animals".

Now, here is my question......and it is a genuine one based on ethics and morality, I think. There seems to be a premise that the injured animal will die. How many hunters have taken deer with healed wounds, or an arrow or bullet from two weeks ago, or last season? How many people have killed an animal that was lame from a trap? Heck, I once trapped a coon on my front porch that looked like it had been hit by a car! These animals obviously escaped, healed and lived. How can we be so certain that such an animal will die? I concede that the chances of death are increased, but so are the chances of escape and life, along with much less probability of ever being seen by humans again.

As one who has spoken to those who were shot, hunted down and escaped.......Veterans, each one, with a couple of exceptions, was grateful that they escaped and lived. One group is praying for a quick kill, ostensibly trying to reduce suffering from a sport they voluntarily partake in, or a war they cannot avoid, but also to provide nutrition for themselves, or in the case of war, to advance the mission in regards to the demands of their society, prevent their own death or a buddy's death. (I concede that the reality of war is to injure your enemy and place a greater strain on his society by weakening the resolve and resources through injured veterans returning needing medical and rehab attention)

For the hunted person or animal that is wounded, escape and life is still a possibility until death overcomes them. For the person who is facing death, any chance at life is a ray of hope. Life leaves the injured not only when enough blood is lost, but also when hope is lost. This is an intangible element of the equation. The trapper who checks his traps every three days rather than every day increases the trapped animal's odds of escape and life along with the suffering. The hunter who takes the unsure shot increases his odds of a miss or minor injury and therefore escape and life as well as lessons learned for his prey. Also, all other things being equal, the trapper who checks every three days vs every day will run more traps. The hunter who takes less certain shots will shoot more frequently and miss more frequently. What does this do to the prey that lives through avoidance of the predator? It provides greater chances of life through learning from past encounters. Of course, the trapper who checks daily or the hunter that does not take uncertain shots does not want his prey to gain this learning. It decreases his odds.

Further, by injuring an animal who may later die and never be found, are we not providing food for other predators? The carcass will not go to waste, it will feed coyotes, wolves, bears, buzzards or worms. It simply goes to waste to the hunter. So is the argument really one of moral imperatives against wasting ammunition?

I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone, that is not my intent. Perhaps I am way off base in ascribing learning through encounters with predators, including human predators, to prey. I don't think I am. As a person who has quite literally been hunted, I find these to be compelling questions. If you do not, then I mean no offense. I make no judgements. I do think looking at the ethical/moral question from the viewpoint of the prey places it in an entirely different light. The real question is whether we are acting in the prey's best interests or our own as the predator.

 

[Mannix]

Great post, Xavier. I don't agree with you on all points(Then again, how interesting would this forum be if we all agreed with each other?), but it was thought provoking.

To me, atleast, my goal is to keep the suffering of the animal to a minimum. I, like several other who have posted, have taken stupid shots and had animals suffer more than that had to as a result. If I make the choice to take the shot, whether I want the animal for food or sport, I have a moral obligation to make it as quick and clean of a kill as possible. It is not about "wasting" the animal. If an animal is being nuisance, I have no problem leaving the remains to the worms. It is not about making sure the animal does not learn from it's mistakes, because the species as a whole will learn anyway. Those animals that have a fear of humans will go one and be more successful, those that do not will die younger. Evolution cannot be avoided.

 

[One of Many]

The poll assumes that the purpose in shooting an animal is to kill that animal, and that to do so as quickly as possible is the ethical way to perform that action. I disagree with the assumption behind the poll, so I have not selected either answer.

Let me provide an example.

Years ago, when I was still a young man living with my parents, our neighbor had about a dozen cats that ran free in the neighborhood. The neighbors yard was tree covered and in constant shade. The cats loved to lie in the sun and soak up the heat. They chose to do so by getting on top of our vehicles, and that left muddy cat tracks all over every flat surface of the vehicles, and on the front and rear window glass. All attempts to dissuade these cats from doing so failed; you could scare them off with a broom, and as soon as you turned your back on them they resumed their favorite position on the vehicle.

At the time I had a CO2 powered pellet pistol that fired BBs or lead pellets, and was accurate enough to hit a cat without risk of damage to the vehicle. One afternoon I sat down on the back porch with the pellet pistol, and the cats insolently sat there wondering why I was not trying to shoo them away. I shot one cat, and it squalled and left the vehicle; the rest of the cats seemed surprised, but not alarmed. By the time I had shot the third cat, all of the cats decided to leave. They never returned to sun on our vehicles again. The intent was not to kill or to do disfiguring injury or maiming, but to cause enough pain and consternation among the cats to dissuade them from their actions. The shooting worked to achieve the desired goal. Was it ethical; I believe so - they seemed to suffer no long term damage, and their behavior was modified.

If I intend to kill an animal by shooting it, I want that animal to drop as quickly as possible; If I want to eat that animal, I want to minimize damage to the meat that might occur while the animal is still alive (and potentially able to escape and die out of recovery reach). If I am shooting that critter as a varmint, I want to recover the carcass so that it does not provide a food source for other scavengers and unwanted game predators.

To deliberately inflict a wound to an animal in order to cause pain rather than killing, when no purpose exists other than sadistic pleasure, is what I consider to be an indicator of a serious character flaw; one that requires constant surveillance due to the risk to other members of society that may become victims when that person escalates from wildlife to humans, as their appetite becomes jaded.

This poll is flawed; it offers too few choices, and leads to the desired answer.

 

[Buzztail]

I voted Yes

 

[mightyike]

suffering?

What a strange thread and 'survey' A feral cat was shot and little puffy meowed to death?

Then none of the bow hunters should ever hunt an animal. And how long do your deer and elk suffer? You are all falling into an endless trap.

I doubt the bad man had bad intentions, just wanted to eliminate a predator.

How about all the prairie dogs that go down the holes when wounded? The ducks that 'flinch' and go on with the flock, falling a little behind.

This country has become over-sensitive and bizarre.....now cats suffer interminably when wounded....as do fish when caught? Suffocation fairly tough don't you think?

Any wrong word, any wrong innuendo, and the press and people 'take up arms' to 'correct the wrong' , punish the 'malefactor'.......dear God, I cannot hunt or kill anything anymore, but this cat was a nuisance. Cheers to killing feral cats.

For all of you who watch CNN and read the truth in news, my condolences. This man did the bird population a favor. Did the presumed and now mourning irreversibly damaged pet owner have the damn thing neutered? Oh, yeah, he was really a concerned 'pet owner'.....had he ever touched it? Are all the little birdies and quail I feed in my back yard my pets? If one dies am I allowed to seek vengeance and go into despair? Jesus, what has this country and forum become....Do you buy anything leather from China? Do you know how it is done over there?

Sloppy distasteful hunters are one thing. Dispatching a nuisance cat is another. There is no comparison. Killing is killing. Stop kidding yourselves. Hunters do a much kinder job than any meat you buy from the grocer.

The cat suffered? Did they hire a cat communicator? Has anyone ever seen a mortally wounded human die from trauma? It's not Hollywood in an ER when a dying person arrives.

I'm out....your threads support all anti-hunting propaganda. Life is tough, everything suffers, you make a choice.

 

[JWarren]

Good post Xavier. I understand your rationale, but I do disagree with much of your premise.

None of what you wrote begins to approach justification for a hunter taking an "iffy" shot where wounding could occur.

None of what you wrote begins to approach justification for being completely unconcerned as to whether the shot result in as little pain as possible.

In anything, your essay speaks of unintended consequences. Sure, sometimes shots are bad and the events you depicted occur. Frankly, we have enough bad shooters out there to create the scenerios described. They don't need me to swell their number.


At any rate, addressing a few things here:


Animals don't feel suffering????

BS. BS. BS.

I've been treating my youngest Jack Russell Terrier for the last 3 months due to a blood disorder. She has been a trooper and is not out of danger of dying and looks to a long and healthy life. But if you lived through the darkest days of this like I did, you would KNOW that animals suffer. Wednesday, she and I went back to the vet for more blood tests. As soon as she saw the Vet, she knew she was going to get blood drawn. She got scared and started whimpering. Remembered pain, anyone?



After reading this thread, I have come to a conclusion:

We speak so much of right and wrong in our society. We are quick to judge the words and actions of so many people as we go on our social witch-hunts.

And then we can speak of moral relativism in regards to issues such as this...


I *DO* believe that there is a moral imperative required of every creature that deems itself to be "intelligent" and is willing to act upon its environment. Sure, we can speak of the lack of moral imperative within the predation cycle, and that sounds great. It does not diminish our own "higher" cause to at least reduce suffering when we kill. I would expect us to think of ourselves a bit higher than a Coyote. Our ability for empathy *should* put us on a higher plane of awareness than other mammal. If not, it seems that millions of years of evolution has gone to waste.

I think I can sum my position up with this...

If you don't understand ethical and moral obligations of being a "higher" form of life, I can't explain it do you. If you have no desire allow principle to guide your hand in ALL aspects of living, I can't explain it do you.

Around here, our fathers understood this. So did their fathers. And theirs. And so on.

And I swear on all that have come before me, my children will understand this.



-- John

 

[joab]

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

I have shot a raccoon in the head that twitched and thrashed in their death agonies.
I did a quick field autopsy and found that the .45 bullet had entered at the base of the skull and exited between the eyes, there was no brain left in the cavity at all.
As was said earlier movement does not signify life much less agony

Try killing all the animals on this continent that potentially have rabies.

Overpopulation is one of the leading causes of rabies outbreaks
Coons are not hunted much in Florida, as a result we have a rabies scare every year
Plus the enormous amount of home damage and financial loss they cause

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.

And that coyote was harmlessly hanging out in his own territory the day before
Wild animals are not like our pets that are content to stay in our little 1/4 acre plots
Small vermin such as coons and opossums have a roaming range of about one square mile, I would imagine that larger preds have a much larger area
My mother is slowly losing all of her geese and ducks to coyotes and bobcats, who harmlessly hang out in their own territory until they get a hunger for fresh poultry
She has already lost all of her turkeys and chickens

 

[The Annoyed Man]

The poll assumes that the purpose in shooting an animal is to kill that animal, and that to do so as quickly as possible is the ethical way to perform that action. I disagree with the assumption behind the poll, so I have not selected either answer.

Let me provide an example....

{snip}

This poll is flawed; it offers too few choices, and leads to the desired answer.

Actually, I like your answer because it makes sense to me, and thank you for pointing out how the poll is flawed. It truly wasn't my conscious intention to post a poll that was flawed in that way, but I can see your point. And actually, I have used a BB gun before to run off an unwanted neighborhood dog that always crapped on my lawn. Like you, I was reasonably certain that I was not wounding, but merely "stinging" the animal to modify its behavior. But truthfully, I don't know which action on my part worked best, stinging the dog, or finally confronting the dog's owner and telling him that from now on, I was going to start throwing his dog's turds at the front of his house.

What a strange thread and 'survey' A feral cat was shot and little puffy meowed to death?

Then none of the bow hunters should ever hunt an animal. And how long do your deer and elk suffer? You are all falling into an endless trap....

{snip}

I'm out....your threads support all anti-hunting propaganda. Life is tough, everything suffers, you make a choice.

I'm not sure if you meant "my" threads, or THR threads in general, but in either case, I disagree. If it is me you are talking about, how is it that a person who is new to hunting - not having been raised in it, and not knowing very much about it - supports "anti-hunting propaganda" by asking questions and seeking to learn? If there is nothing wrong with hunting - and I don't believe that there is - then why can't people talk about the various facets of it without "supporting anti-hunting propaganda?" That's like saying that one cannot have discussions about the RKBA without supporting gun control propaganda. And if it is THR threads in general to which you are referring, well then some of the answers already posted here would prove you wrong.

I will concede that my topic and poll have evidently touched some nerves. Perhaps I was naive, but I honestly did not think that the question would tweak some people and make them angry. To anybody on whom this thread had that effect, I do sincerely apologize. It was never my intention to call into question another's character, and I am sorry if that's what you thought I was doing. I didn't mean it that way. I haven't been a member that long, but I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on this board, and I have learned an awful lot during that time. This thread was an attempt to learn more. It seems that I stepped on some toes. Again, I apologize for that, and I hope that those whom I have offended will accept my apology.

 

[akodo]

People have forgotten the universal truth.

death is messy and painful

so is life

We each must do what we think is right, but realize that each of us will be on a different spot on that slope. As others have said, if you are really about ending suffering, does it matter who causes it (your shot? the neighbor's shot? the harsh winter?) The only way to eliminate all suffering of animals is to kill every single one of them in the wild, because death stalks them all, and it is rarely pleasant

 

[TCB in TN]

My opinion will likely NOT be so popular, but when one talks morals/ethics and the life of animals then I will always err or the side of personal opinion and or cultures. Animals are NOT humans and have no "rights" while I personally want to limit suffering while hunting/killing for food etc, my beliefs are just that mine. Now that only applies to animals as I feel that all humans have God given rights and so morals as to treatment of man by man are a different story, but what would be considered "unethical" or "immoral" treatment in one culture will be different in another.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi TCB,

It's your opinion and I'll respect your right to have it.

My thoughts, when God in His wisdom gave us dominion of the beasts in the field and the birds in the air He confered on us responsibilities with that dominion. Following those duties is a moral imperitive.

Selena

 

[TCB in TN]

Hi TCB,

It's your opinion and I'll respect your right to have it.

My thoughts, when God in His wisdom gave us dominion of the beasts in the field and the birds in the air He confered on us responsibilities with that dominion. Following those duties is a moral imperitive.

Selena

I agree, and I try to live that way, I just understand that there are other belief systems out there about what is appropriate. Now growing up in the country have slaughtered my own hogs, cleaned, dressed, and butchered my own deer, having had to put down injured animals, and other actions that some who are w/o the same set of experiences would consider to have been brutal or cruel. I have also been around people from other cultures that have shared their own experiences and beliefs and while I do not believe the same as some of them, I can see how those experiences helped to form their belief systems. Now my actions toward my fellow man and the actions that I believe should be expected from others are a completely different story.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi TCB,

Very true, sometimes I wonder if people have forgotten that living and dying are just two sides of the same fence. In the real world, there is a time to heal and a time to kill, but never the time to inflict pain just because one can.

Selena

 

[JWarren]

I am a Nietzschian in a lot of ways. Oddly, one of my views regarding topics like this comes from an interpretation of his works:


Your killing, O judges, shall be pity and not revenge. And as you kill, be sure that you yourself justify life! It is not enough that you make your peace with the man you kill. Your sadness shall be love of the overman: thus you shall justify living on.

Friedrich Nietzche
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I

 

[joab]

People have forgotten the universal truth.

death is messy and painful

I think nature made death hard to watch intentionally, so maybe we would take life a little more seriously

 

[Limeyfellow]

Ordinary hunting and so on, then I would vote yes like I did. The only thing that would really change that is survival hunting where your own live is at risk of starvation. Then all the gloves are off.

 

[308win]

I trapped muskrats when a kid. I always made water sets and used a 1&1/2 leg hold. The rat would either slide into the trap or step into it if at the mouth of it den. I was always sure to make my sets only where the water was deep enough to drown the rat after it wound the chain around the stake. In three years of trapping I had one rat that didn't drown (it didn't wind the chain around the stake either never did figure out why not) and I had to shoot it. I also had one twist a leg off (an albino no less that I later caught). Many believe that trapping is inhumane; it isn't if done responsibly IMHO and while drowning may not be the cleanest it is quick if one has the skills to make a proper set.

 

[CNYCacher]

Opening day here today.

I passed up a fat doe at about 930 this morning because I couldn't get a clean shot.

 

[JWarren]

Opening day here, too.

I passed on who knows what because I just couldn't get it fit into the extensive Honey-Do list I had.

She better know that I love her!

(kidding... its all part of remodeling a house-- and she pulls more of the weight than I do.)

-- John

 

[Ready2Defend]

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

For a moral choice to be made I need to go to a transendent source: The Christian Bible. The above reference is indirect but definitly associates cruelty with wickedness, proper care of animals with righteousness.

I voted yes. BUT, I get concerned that a standard of cruelty can become a moving target, a slippery slope. I believe it is cruel to let deer overpopulate and "suffer" malnutrition through overeating limited foraging territory. I am glad to reduce suffering by taking part in deer hunts.

If the definition of cruelty is changed to include the intional killing of any animal then all hunting is excluded (and we have to become vegitarians). I believe vigilance and public debate are required to keep the definition of cruelty from eroding.

 

[akodo]

I think nature made death hard to watch intentionally, so maybe we would take life a little more seriously

and that is why lions so often pause and rethink pulling down and eating that antelope?

if nature made death heard to watch intentionally, it is only so that when the lion comes for us we run as hard and as long as we can, then kick the lioness in the face a few times before she clamps down for the killing blow.

 

[joab]

and that is why lions so often pause and rethink pulling down and eating that antelope?

Maybe they would if they had the ability to reason
That's what separates animals from humans and it is humans that we are talking about here

it is only so that when the lion comes for us we run as hard and as long as we can, then kick the lioness in the face a few times before she clamps down for the killing blow

Kind of falls right in line with

maybe we would take life a little more seriously

If death didn't look so gross maybe we wouldn't run so hard to get away from it

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Akodo,

and that is why lions so often pause and rethink pulling down and eating that antelope?

Giving animals human characteristics is something of a dangerous game. Carnivores only understand hunger and tactics. The cute pictures of the lioness bathing her cubs is not affection it's instinct. The wolf cubs chasing each other in the meadow are not playing tag, they are following the instinct(s) that will make them more effective killers when the time comes to join the hunting pack.

When a cat purrs at you, it is not affection. They want something. The loyality dogs are legendary for is simply a leftover from the alpha hunter worship from when they were feral hunters.

And in real life... Bambi doesn't really cry when his mother gets shot.

Selena

 

[Halo is for Kids]

Bigtime yes here. I'm surprised at the #'o'No's although I haven't taken the time to read the other comments. Maybe later.

 

[akodo]

Giving animals human characteristics is something of a dangerous game. Carnivores only understand hunger and tactics.

humans and lions, both animals. Sure, I don't think they are equal...I'd have no problem eating a lion burger, but we are all animals.

There is an old saying 'The skin of civilization is only 7 meals deep'

When a human is forced to not eat for a handful of days or so, he too will only think about food, and tactics only so far as it applies on to get it, and how to keep others from taking it.