Killing conundrum

[Pahoo]

I have often accepted the idea of killing animals for two main reasons. I use the word killing instead of the PC term; "Harvesting" mainly because that is what it is. .....

Condition #1; Any animal taken within the state's hunting season. Legally and ethically.

Condition #2; Conservation effort such as shooting Coyotes and feral hogs.

Lately I have encountered a third that is really a grey area. Killing a wounded animal such as a deer. In Iowa, it is illegal to shoot a deer that has been hit by an automobile. On that occasion I waited for an LEO to show up and even though it took about 30-minutes for him to get there, It was too long to watch the deer's struggle and next time, I suspect I won't wait. ...

Last week one of my yard squirrels was walking awkward and looked like he had a damaged right-rear leg. He could climb and he was eating acorns but could not stand erect. I have no problem shooting my bag limit during the season but just could not bring myself to shoot him as he looked like he was getting along fairly well and had a chance to survive. Well, yesterday he was still doing fairly well when a Peregrine falcon also noticed his odd movements and quickly resolved the question. ....

I know that as ethical hunters, many of us have faced these situations and the resolve isn't always clear or positive. If you care to share your experiences then please do so.

Be Safe !!!

[rickyrick]

I believe that there are legitimate reasons to kill any animal. Most of us are ethically driven, so no need to expand on that.
I have killed lots of mammals for reasons mentioned above; I can say that I did feel some remorse, lack of a better term,for each and every one but not regret.
For me, killing to end suffering is the toughest.

[HiBC]

A veterinarian friend and I had a conversation once.It was about the vets equivalent of the Hippocratic oath.Its been years,and yes,I will mess this up.
It starts with the critter having a fate. Your hurt squirrel. Life happens.The vet can let fate occur.
There is the "do no harm" part,with room for a merciful end to suffering.

Robert Ruark,in a story about an old elephant,pointed out that there are no peaceful passings in bed in nature.Old lions are eaten alive by hyenas.Some elk or deer starve,or are fence tangled or break through ice.An old elephant..well,I can imagine.
Ruarks point,maybe,in your prime,you just had a little loving,ate a good meal,fit and strong!!Life is good!! Isit all bad that that instant is preserved by a well placed 30-06 bullet?

Wounded,suffering animals? I have ended the suffering of an animal someone else hit.Trailing entrails. I had used my tag already. I did not want this animal.I did not take it for gain.I killed it to end suffering. It was not legal.But it was not wrong. I was willing to tell it to the judge,if it came to that.
I can do that,and look into the mirror without shame.
Had I left it...I may have felt I should have ended it.
Sometimes the complex can be reduced to the simple.

[kilimanjaro]

No issues with killing the dying deer by the road, it's in pain and could cause another vehicle accident. The squirrel, to me, is functional and I would leave it.

There's a racoon around here, lost one paw in a trap. I'm sure life is hard for him, but he's getting fat on pet food. No reason to destroy him yet, to me.

[Panfisher]

I have put down a couple deer hit by cars and never even once considered if there would be any consequences. If there were I would either just pay the fine or explain to the judge and take my chances. I have had to kill my own dogs when they were suffering, I would do the same for a wild animal.

[reynolds357]

We kill deer for all kinds of reasons. I will touch on two.
1. For fun. We can say what we want, but most of us hunt today for recreation. Putting food on the table is nice, but it is not the primary reason we hunt. I eat a lot of what I kill, but that is not my primary motivation for hunting. I do not even eat the coons my dogs tear to pieces. etc. etc.
2. The coons, possums, dogs, cats, and another creature or two I will not name who have decided they think they need to eat my chickens.

[lefteye]

Related but not killing. Many years ago I was driving down a country road in the dark before sunrise to meet some friends to hunt deer. I saw a small deer with one rear leg tangled in a barbed wire fence. We didn't have a way to release it so I drove back to a farm house, nocked on the door (lights were on), and told the man what I had seen. I asked if he had an wire cutters and if it was ok to cut his fence to release the deer. He quickly found a pair of wire cutters and handed them to me. I was able to cut the single barbed wire that had caught the deer and the deer ran away very quickly. I returned the cutters to the farmer and thanked him for helping me save that little deer. It was an event I'll never forget.

[Tinbucket]

.............

[FrankenMauser]

I don't like killing anything.

And I have a hard time putting down injured animals that my wife's cats bring home, or that the mother-in-law finds lying out in the yard.

But I'd rather see a quick death, than a slow and/or painful one.

[Scorch]

People seldom behave strictly ethically, there is always a lot of emotion involved in decisions. What you believe, what you want the outcome to be, how you feel about death and suffering, etc. We typically come to rationalized decisions about killing things. Was it suffering? Was it a "good" animal, or a "bad" animal? Was it trying to kill something I consider "mine" or was it trying to kill something that is "theirs"? If our decisions were made strictly ethically, we would not kill deer if we had something else to eat. If decisions were made ethically, we would not take the strongest and healthiest animals. If decisions were made ethically, we would not kill a skunk or coyote if they were on the other side of the road. But in fact, we rationalize. Decide before you are in a given situation what you will do, and that becomes the right thing once it happens. The skunk or coyote becomes a target because we think he just might wind up on this side of the road and get the kitty, or some such rationale.

I prefer to look at the decision from a pragmatic point of view (at least in my mind). Should I kill that animal? Does it present a potential threat to me? Am I going to use it (meat/skin/pelt/etc)? I often skip deer hunting because it doesn't make sense to travel 3 hours to kill something when I can get meat at the supermarket. When I lived in Idaho, I hunted a lot more than I do now, partly out of blood lust, partly out of proximity to the game. Do I enjoy hunting? Immensely. But I understand that it is purely pleasure and atavistic behavior that drives me to hunt.

[Pond, James Pond]

Lately I have encountered a third that is really a grey area. Killing a wounded animal such as a deer. In Iowa, it is illegal to shoot a deer that has been hit by an automobile. On that occasion I waited for an LEO to show up and even though it took about 30-minutes for him to get there, It was too long to watch the deer's struggle and next time, I suspect I won't wait. ...

In Estonia hunting, indeed any firearms ownership, requires a licence. Your licence shows what you are qualified/permitted to do with your gun. One such category is a hunting classification. You ca't hunt without that.

However, the Hunting Act gives two exceptions when a firearms owner could shoot/kill an animal without a hunting category permit: if an animal shows signs of Rabies and it an animal has been injured and it is more humane to euthanise it rather than let it suffer.

I've only encountered that situation once when my wife hit a boar with the car in the winter darkness. I only had a 9mm, but was prepared to do the necessary. As it happens the boar clearly got off better than the car as there was no blood and nice even, regular hoof-prints in the snow gaily running into the tree-line...

[Blindstitch]

With the cellphone age it would be easy to take a quick video of the animal suffering to cover yourself if it comes to it. Then dispatch of the animal.

[Art Eatman]

I grew up with farming and ranching. I learned early on that all meat of whatever sort derives from a kill. So, no moral dilemma for me. If I hunt and kill, I'm a do-it-yourself person. Meat from a grocery or in a restaurant means that I merely hired others to do the scut work for me.

With that background and inherent attitude, then, a quick end for a seriously wounded animal is just part of me. End suffering ASAP.

But that's just me. YMMV, and it's none of my business.

[Doyle]

In Iowa, it is illegal to shoot a deer that has been hit by an automobile.

Yea, some states have some really stupid rules when it comes to auto-struck deer.

[huntinaz]

It's an interesting subject and I've come to sit on another side of the fence.

I have developed an opinion that human feelings and emotions don't apply linearly to animals. We have higher thought, they don't. They don't have our emotions and they feel and evaluate pain differently. However, humans are often ready to evaluate and euthanize based on our perceptions.

Nature is full of 3-legged quadrupeds, animals full of scars and with healed wounds that leave them functional but handicapped. Like the squirrel in an aforementioned post. An animal's will to survive is a powerful thing and there's not always a predator or a human to talk him out of it. The healed wounds are evidence of this.

I've seen too many injured animals to think they evaluate pain the same as I do. They don't have the human emotion of despair and their pain tolerance is on a completely different level.

My opinion is that often times humans put an animal "out of its misery" to make the human feel better and not the animal. And I think that's "ok" because it's in line with nature (the death part, not the mercy part). Someone in a previous post said something like there is a legitimate reason to kill any animal. I basically agree, we're at the top of the feed and mental chains. Humans are the only animal that tries to make the food chain "ethical" or "merciful." In reality it is neither.

In the end I'm not saying dispatching wounded animals is right or wrong, just that I think humans evaluate it in a way that is not congruent with nature. It's business as usual for the animal- they aren't mentally evaluating it.

[Erno86]

I thought it was an ethical killing of a sick moose {on PBS's Nature last night - The Twig Eaters}, when the game biologist had to dispatch a moose with his rifle, that was stumbling around in the snow; because it had brain worm.

Our moose on our northern continent of the U.S. an Canada are in deep trouble...what with brain worm, deer ticks and global warming leading to there demise.

[ShootistPRS]

The thing to keep in mind is that in nature, no one dies of old age.
A wounded animal will meet with a far less humane death than a bullet to the brain. I pause more when taking a deer or elk during hunting season than I would if it was wounded and languishing. Those animals deserve respect and letting a wounded animal slowly get weaker and then pulled apart by coyotes is not respectful. It is nature's way but If I can save an animal from senseless suffering, I'll do it. I had to slit a deers throat once after it was hit by a car. It was one of those amazing moments in life. The deer was thrashing about and as I approached it, talking softly as I did she settled down and let be hold her head. She hardly moved at all when I cut her throat. She died with all the respect I could give.

[foolzrushn]

Many good points in the posts.

There seems to be a divide in humans. Those who have some type of empathy for animals, and those who feel that animals are strictly a resource. It's not all black and white, those with little empathy for wild game will have emotions for a pet.

Perhaps humans do assign feelings to animals that really aren't there, but how would you know for sure? A good question is..will I feel bad later, because I didn't do something? Yeah, I have moved a turtle off the road...but told myself it was just because an alignment is a hundred bucks.

Funny though, how I can feel differently about a pet or wild animal than I do for more tender, tasty animals raised for food. I don't want to kill game just to kill and not use it, but I did when I was younger. And I know that a dead wild critter is just lunch for the next critter.

I detest people that torture animals to make themselves feel dominant. Don't think a dog should be chained to a post in the ground with no shelter in the winter, no water or shade in the summer etc. Doesn't bother some folks. Don't like to watch the SPCA commercials.

And to those who are sure that we are the top of the food chain....you might be wrong...it's a big place out there.

[doofus47]

I think that the amount of thoughtful observations in the above posts shows that the taking of even animal life usually involves weighty forethought. That's the way it should be considering the permanence of the action.

My dad grew up on a farm and we children inherited his matter of fact attitude toward life and death, even of animals. Everything living on this planet lives at the expense of other plants or animals. To anyone who's paying attention, there's no ethical conundrum about killing to eat.

However, humans also have higher reasoning capabilities not available to an animal and can recognize that to avoid suffering in animals when culling them is better than causing suffering. We also recognize that to allow an animal which is injured beyond recovery to suffer with no relief is sometimes equally wrong.

I'm sure the hawk never noticed that the squirrel was suffering; it just saw the slower squirrel as 'easier pickings.' Thus nature takes its course. Humans have the capability to make decisions beyond just prey acquisition. Sometimes, for their own good, animals have to be put down without the goal of eating them. I'm thinking primarily of animals husbanded by humans like cats and dogs, but who wouldn't want to end the suffering of a squirrel or chipmunk that was dragging it's back legs b/c of a broken back?

[huntinaz]

My dad grew up on a farm and we children inherited his matter of fact attitude toward life and death, even of animals. Everything living on this planet lives at the expense of other plants or animals. To anyone who's paying attention, there's no ethical conundrum about killing to eat.

Well said.

However, humans also have higher reasoning capabilities not available to an animal and can recognize that to avoid suffering in animals when culling them is better than causing suffering. We also recognize that to allow an animal which is injured beyond recovery to suffer with no relief is sometimes equally wrong.

This is where I start to split from the pack. I think since humans are the only ones with reasoning capabilities, it’s only wrong to us. Keep in mind this is all philosophical and I agree with the ends the same as everyone here, I just get there by a different route.

A good question is..will I feel bad later, because I didn't do something? Yeah, I have moved a turtle off the road...but told myself it was just because an alignment is a hundred bucks.

This is exactly what I’m getting at. Often times, when a human puts an animal out of its misery, he’s doing it for himself. The animal has its own feeling and sensations and they are poorly understood by humans. We know how we would feel and assume that’s what the animal is feeling. I think we miss the mark here. Doesn’t mean you shouldn't kill the animal, just that the animal still doesn’t have a say in the “mercy” killing.

Obviously there are a hundred possible scenarios and I’m not gonna get hung up on all of them. Like a deer with a broken back on the side of the road. The game is up, as humans we know this. Vet’s not coming, might as well get it over with. So the animal doesn’t suffer, or so we don’t have to watch it suffer? My argument in this case is both, but part of that is me casting MY desire to not suffer onto the animal, who has no say in the matter.

(In my particular case I’d be just like a coyote-I see the deer as a free meal. I want that meat. But that’s not what we’re talking about)

There seems to be a divide in humans. Those who have some type of empathy for animals, and those who feel that animals are strictly a resource.

I think similarly but a little differently, to paraphrase Hemingway, “there are those who readily identify, that is place themselves in the position of animals, and those who more readily identify with human beings. “ Now this exact subject is a little out of context than what he was talking about but there is a bunch of crossover in my opinion. And in the instance or a mortally wounded deer on the side of the road, it’s easy for any human to identify with the animal and I’m not making a moral judgment on this. Hell, I do it too. But when I step back and think about it, I can recognize that my feelings are abated just as much as the wounded animal’s. I’m doing it for me. The squirrel with the broken back is crawling away from me while I ponder it.

This is all a philosophical conversation for the benefit of the human. The scenario for the deer is thus; either it dies from its wounds or a predator comes by and kills it. I do not believe they are capable of thinking this predicament through and therefore do not “wish” for one or the other. They feel pain from the wound. They feel fear when the predator approaches (the human) and by every account I have ever seen (and it’s been a bunch) the wounded animal will do whatever it physically can to get away. Its will is its desire to live and to get away. Its MY desire to end its suffering.

And for this reason, coupled with nature being full of gimpy animals, it is NOW my practice to let wounded animals be unless I am sure the wound is fatal, or I want to eat the animal, or I don’t want the animal to live (pests), or any other reason I decide because at that point it’s my decision as the apex predator with complex thought. And we can reason it out all we want but in the end it’s business as usual to the rest of nature that lacks complex thought. Prey is born, prey lives, prey dies. Very few animals are at the top of the food chain.


Some people will say I lack empathy for animals and I would argue this is very incorrect. I just think I have a different way of processing it and I try to see my feelings as mine, and the animal’s feelings as its own, and that the notions of mercy and despair are human. I spend a lot of time in the field and have adopted these feeling by directly watching nature and being a part of it.

[Art Eatman]

Culling is an action taken to protect an ecosystem from what's perceived to be a negative change. It's generally rational when dealing with herbivores, protecting against overeating in a habitat. Sometimes deer, sometimes elephants. Not much different from a rancher selling off calves and old cows except for the method.

[Chainsaw.]

I do and always have hunted very little, I also grew up in ranch country where animals, stock, dog and horse were treated very differently by different people. I will with no apologies say this, often but NOT always the manner in which a man treats an animal with which he has no direct emotional attachment is directly proportional to the measure of his character. Ive watch many animals die many different ways and so try to pursued someone to think that animal doesnt know whats going on is absurd. That being said, I take no issue with the humane dispatching of an animals be it stock, game or simply a suffering animal. I have killed for all three reasons, life has taugh me to do it swiftly and as painlessly as possible. Is there empathy for the death of an animal, yes for me, for you maybe thats not the right word. Would I take issue in the future of dispatching a wounded, no. If I had just been hit by a car and my guts were strune across two lanes I sure are heck hope someone would put the barrel behind my ear and be done with it.

[jmorris]

Sometimes I kill animals indiscriminately just because for whatever reason I or someone else doesn't want them to be alive any more. Without any regard to any pain and or suffering they may go through until they die.

By number, most of them are insects (my wife is allergic to ants) but also poison rodents in every place anything with electrical wires is kept.

That said there are some animals, when I am hunting, the only thing I shoot in their direction is a camera because I just want the image of the magestic animal.

And ones that I love that I wish would never pass for my own selfish reasons despite the pain they were in. There's millions of humans around the world that fit into that category.

I doubt I would kill a 3 legged squirrel any faster than I would kill my friends 3 legged dog, unless he was trying to get into the attic, then he would be just as dead as the last perfectly healthy one that did the same.

[johnwilliamson062]

Nature will take care of injured animals as shown with the squirrel. Whether it be from a poor shot, car, or other occurance a predator will be along shortly and take care of them. Some years back ODNR commissioned a study of the effects of the expanding coyote population on deer. Someone had touted coyotes as a solution to the expanding deer population. The study stated there was no evidence of coyotes killing a healthy deer. Healthy was specified because there were plenty of cases of them taking wounded animals.

Part of the reasons wounded livestock is euthanized is to eliminate temptations for predators to enter areas with other livestock. Not good to train predators with easy meals.

When people euthanize a pet, it is usually long after that pet would have expired in nature.

[RaySendero]

johnwilliamson062 wrote:

..... Some years back ODNR commissioned a study of the effects of the expanding coyote population on deer. Someone had touted coyotes as a solution to the expanding deer population. The study stated there was no evidence of coyotes killing a healthy deer.

I wouldn't trust that study as far as I can spit!

I've personally witnessed coyotes trail tracking healthy deer.
Don't believe for a minute they wanted to just say a friendly hello.