# Ethical Question On Humane Hunting And Pest Control



## reppans (May 13, 2012)

​
*Would you take a pest control shot without reasonable certainty of a clean kill?*

Yes942.86%No1257.14%


----------



## reppans (May 13, 2012)

OK, nobody likes to see an animal suffer more than necessary and I understand and generally agree with the concept of practicing until you can make a clean head shot, with suitable ammo speed/weight, at your typical hunting distance, and with reasonable certainty.

What about pest control? A wood pecker drilling holes into the side of your home, rats or chipmunks borrowing under the siding of your home, birds that like to perch on branchs over your car, etc.

Now I've seen plenty of discussions on the firearm, bow and airgun forums, and the humane kill thing always goes out the window..... in a survival situation. Makes sense - if it comes down to you or the animal suffering, of course, you'll choose the animal and will take the shot every time even with inappropriate ammo/weapons. Conversely, 99% of the time, when we hunt for food or sport, it's purely optional, and so we observe the humane kill guidelines.

So that brings in pest control. It's not quite in either the purely-optional, or the survival-necessity category... just highly desirable. The slingshot seems to be one of the best tools for suburban pest control. While I do have a nice scoped .22 cal hunting air rifle, it is very difficult to use considering neighbors withing ear and eyeshot (btw, I'm fully aware of the safe background thing).

What say you folks... would you take a pest control shot without reasonable certainty of a clean humane kill?


----------



## newconvert (Dec 12, 2011)

NO! there is no good reason to make an inhumane kill. an animal is just doing what nature intended it to do. to it you are the pest. so in short anything less than an inhumane kill is just poor judgement and what leads to people judging any type of weapon as sadistic. you are talking about a weapon not a rake or broom! with power comes responsibility!

i've seen children on this site make good clean kills on real pests, seems like they used good judgement and waited until they could shoot!


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

Nope, clean kills only IMO . No reason to let an animal suffer, even if it is a pest. "if it comes down to you or the animal" would be the only exception, but not in the examples that you provided. If a woodpecker perched on my kids head and started pecking at her, I would do all I can to get him off her head, even if it causes him pain. A rat going through my garbage is an annoyance and does NOT cause me suffering and I would have ample time to ensure a clean dispatch.

If you read your thread there could only be one logical answer. I mean who would shoot at a pest other than to exterminate it, and what situation would not give you the time to attempt to do it properly.... I know no one is guaranteed to always achieve a direct hit, but at least one should do everything they can to ensure they can...

LGD


----------



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

Depends on the situation, a rat going through my garbage is a very big sanitation issue and squirrels chewing on my eves cost me money. In a pure pest control scenario I shoot if I get the shot and really could care less if it is a less than optimum hit. I don't think twice about pain and suffering when I poison moles or cockroaches. If it endangers mine and/or my families health or income I will kill it in anyway possible. Chris


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

i usually talk to the pest in the matter , and bore them to death .


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Is there some point to this Topic? It appears to me to have a lot of potential for creating dissension on the Forum.


----------



## tomshot123 (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm still on the hunt for my neighbors cat, it tried to kill my pet rabbit THREE times!!!


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

I answered no because I respect all life and don't want to see any suffer. -- Tex


----------



## Thornbottom (Apr 9, 2012)

no, don't shoot at something "just to get a shot in". if you are worried about your neighbors seeing or hearing your air rifle you should also worry about them seeing or hearing a wounded animal or bird that wasn't exterminated properly. just something to think about.


----------



## rashid100 (Jun 16, 2012)

I rather have it die on the spot than run away, die in some corner and make the place stink up.


----------



## whipcrackdeadbunny (May 22, 2010)

If it's pest control, it's not worth bigger weapons, so there's no excuse for making the animal suffer; when humans come into conflict with animals, it's just nature, the least you can do for taking out an animal that you offered food or a place to live to, is to kill it humanely. If you can't hit it properly today, wait until tomorrow, it's only a pest, not a life threatening danger.


----------



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

Come on people, PETA would love it around here. Not life threatening????? Rats have killed more people that any other animal on the face of the planet, if I gut shoot one it is still dead which is all I care about. I am a graduate of the US Army's field sanitation class and and have been deployed around the world, if you think these animals aren't dangerous your delusional. Rats and flies are directly responsible for 10s of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of deaths every year. Nature is rough and I fully except my role in it. I never try to make a bad shot or intentionally try to wound an animal but on pests I sure don't worry about it if it happens. I hunt for fun so I do not take iffy shots, there is no need I am not starving, pest control I take whatever shot presents itself. You guys really surprise me. Chris


----------



## Bostradamus (May 15, 2012)

i answered that i'd shoot it however it had to be shot, but i'd always prefer a clean humane kill...
seriously though, if i see a rat, i don't care if i shoot it up the ass, as long as i kill it!
but i'd never take a shot at a domestic animal, like a dog or cat, for any reason...


----------



## reppans (May 13, 2012)

I'm really surprised by some of the high and mighty attitude, and the concern for animal welfare, considering we are all talking about hunting with a relatively blunt instrument while there are scalpels available. Knowing the safe distances animals like to have, as accurate as you think you may be, I have a strong suspicion that there are a lot more complete misses, and unconfirmed kills, than people are willing to admit - and certainly compared to other small game hunting options.

Yes, these pests are acting as nature intended, but it is also perfectly natural for every species to fight to protect it's dwelling, hunting territory, and even "harem" from outsiders, and without regard to the injury or suffering of the lesser species. Certain pests, like woodpeckers, can cause extensive damage to my dwelling, and are exceptionally cautious leaving very few opportunities to take corrective action. If I have my slingshot in my pocket when I see/hear one drilling into my home, I will take the opportunistic shot without a second thought about its welfare.

I really have to ask this question to those of you that seem so strong-headed about clean kills and animals suffering. Considering that rabbits, squirrels and birds are the favorite prey around here (I myself do not hunt), what do you all do to confirm the gender of your prey before you release your kill shot?

If you happen to have taken a nursing female rabbit, for example, it seems to me that you will have condemned a half dozen or more offspring to a slow and painful death by starvation. And in the case of many bird species, both male and female share rearing duties. Or is this one of those little things which we choose to look the other way?

As someone mentioned above... "just something to think about."


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

High and mighty? When questions that can have two opposing choices, it is always has the potential to ruffle feathers. Judging by the votes it's obviously split, and who knows if later it turns to be an uneven balance. As long as people understand that a pole is just a choice of opinion and not a means to persuade one side to agree, everything should be fine. This is a touchy subject, like politics, abortion, and religion so we just have to be aware that we are treading a thin line when opening it up for discussion.

LGD


----------



## Jakerock (Mar 8, 2012)

I just knew this poll was going to end in tears!


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

lightgeoduck said:


> High and mighty? When questions that can have two opposing choices, it is always has the potential to ruffle feathers. Judging by the votes it's obviously split, and who knows if later it turns to be an uneven balance. As long as people understand that a pole is just a choice of opinion and not a means to persuade one side to agree, everything should be fine. This is a touchy subject, like politics, abortion, and religion so we just have to be aware that we are treading a thin line when opening it up for discussion.
> 
> LGD


...you forgot gun control .
'
'
the biggest problem i see is people who dont know what they are doing . people who just go around killing an animal just to watch it die . ( i once shot a man just to watch him die- lyric from a johnny cash song . sort of thing ) 
@ reppans- i dont hunt either, but my view is different from yours. i see no problem with legit hunting , or pest control . 

.
.
whenever this discussion comes about, i always consider the environment one was raised in, and if they thought that nature and wildlife was just like a effen disney movie . im pretty sure in another 3 months the cycle will repeat itself with this same type of thread, as usual .


----------



## pop shot (Sep 29, 2011)

reppans said:


> I'm really surprised by some of the high and mighty attitude, and the concern for animal welfare, considering we are all talking about hunting with a relatively blunt instrument while there are scalpels available. Knowing the safe distances animals like to have, as accurate as you think you may be, I have a strong suspicion that there are a lot more complete misses, and unconfirmed kills, than people are willing to admit - and certainly compared to other small game hunting options.
> 
> Yes, these pests are acting as nature intended, but it is also perfectly natural for every species to fight to protect it's dwelling, hunting territory, and even "harem" from outsiders, and without regard to the injury or suffering of the lesser species. Certain pests, like woodpeckers, can cause extensive damage to my dwelling, and are exceptionally cautious leaving very few opportunities to take corrective action. If I have my slingshot in my pocket when I see/hear one drilling into my home, I will take the opportunistic shot without a second thought about its welfare.
> 
> ...


I've never hunted with a scalpel... Is it more humane than a bullet to the head? Could I kill a raccoon with a scalpel?


----------



## pop shot (Sep 29, 2011)

And I manually confirm the sex of my game before taking a shot.


----------



## newconvert (Dec 12, 2011)

his entire response was nonsense do we wonder about the animal families left behind? i wonder if he weeps while eating a cheese burger, feels heartbreak while in the meat department, sobs while stuffing his face with a bucket of chicken? his whole argument is a double standard, a question aimed to confuse rather than to explain his lack of accuracy, hence the random shots, not a single hunter here makes random shots, all take pride in their ability to take aim and do a humane kill. when i read the argument i though oh my, empty words, semantics, no idea of his subject since he is an admitted non hunter, just a place to set his soap box and rant! if he were serious about the birds doing harm to his "dwelling" there are cheap measure a person can take to prevent the birds from having access to those places they love to bore into.people want and love moving into the country as long as the country and its creatures leave them alone!..................... creepy


----------



## Thornbottom (Apr 9, 2012)

pop shot said:


> And I manually confirm the sex of my game before taking a shot.


----------



## whipcrackdeadbunny (May 22, 2010)

Well; as there's an implication that I'm behaving 'high and mighty' allow me to confirm either way. I hunt with my catapult because I have to, I have no land, I have no gun, I have no permission; yet I need meat. Secondly, out of roughly 300 odd animals over the last couple of years, I've only ever had about a dozen get away after being shot, minus a dozen or so at the very beginning (like I said, I need the meat) this is because I've trained hard to hit my target. When it comes to deciding the sex of the animal, usually I can tell at a glance (save Rabbits), but I specifically confine my target animals to so called 'pest' animals, therefore when these animals are left without a parent, they will often be eaten by the remaining guardian (especially rabbits and squirrels) and when they're not (for example, pidgeons) I often check on the nests or dreys, and find that within a couple of days, they have usually been eaten; un-protected chicks, squeeking at the top of their lungs, will draw attention. If I don't eat them myself. Now, when it comes to pest control, the slingshot is not perfect, poisons generally are most effective, but they are not selective; and when someone has a tendency to use a catapult anyway, it's quite a natural choice.
And August West, the most dangerous animal on the planet, bacterium; then mosquitos, then fleas and ticks. Rats are way down on the list, as the black plague (which I'm fairly sure is what you're referring to) was spread by all animals with the flea that carried the plague, there's no strict evidence to say that rats were the main protaganist, this is a myth.
To me, there are two main reasons to have a clean shot, whenever you're shooting; one: It's much more dangerous to have dead and decaying bodies lying around, though there are diseases that come from rat feaces, there are many more that come from dead bodies lying around. Secondly: if you do not respect the animal you're killing, you're bound to make mistakes, mistakes lead to death; would you prefer to dispose of an animal in a hygienic and responsible way, to protect you and those around you, or would you prefer a bleeding and wounded animal to crawl into your walls, or roof, or water supply, rotting away and encouraging the worlds biggest killer, germs.
So essentially, it comes to the same point, if you're randomly shooting animals, you're not thinking it through; it's not safe.
Life is hard, these animals are here as food for larger animals, but they have their own lives, treat them with respect; everything will be much easier if you do.


----------



## whipcrackdeadbunny (May 22, 2010)

This thread was a mistake to start I feel; when it comes to morals, practically they have a place, reasonably, they must be balanced with practicality. I still get friends look at me funny, telling me I'm cold-hearted, that it's best to be vegetarian; aside from the ridiculous idea that it's healthy to live in a cold country without eating meat, they are ignorant to the problems their fiscal lifestyle creates for the environment around them. Talk to me of morals, when the world is not trying to kill you, aside from that, treat your environment with respect, you cannot live without it. (no, I'm not talking about global warming)


----------



## newconvert (Dec 12, 2011)

whipcrackdeadbunny said:


> Well; as there's an implication that I'm behaving 'high and mighty' allow me to confirm either way. I hunt with my catapult because I have to, I have no land, I have no gun, I have no permission; yet I need meat. Secondly, out of roughly 300 odd animals over the last couple of years, I've only ever had about a dozen get away after being shot, minus a dozen or so at the very beginning (like I said, I need the meat) this is because I've trained hard to hit my target. When it comes to deciding the sex of the animal, usually I can tell at a glance (save Rabbits), but I specifically confine my target animals to so called 'pest' animals, therefore when these animals are left without a parent, they will often be eaten by the remaining guardian (especially rabbits and squirrels) and when they're not (for example, pidgeons) I often check on the nests or dreys, and find that within a couple of days, they have usually been eaten; un-protected chicks, squeeking at the top of their lungs, will draw attention. If I don't eat them myself. Now, when it comes to pest control, the slingshot is not perfect, poisons generally are most effective, but they are not selective; and when someone has a tendency to use a catapult anyway, it's quite a natural choice.
> And August West, the most dangerous animal on the planet, bacterium; then mosquitos, then fleas and ticks. Rats are way down on the list, as the black plague (which I'm fairly sure is what you're referring to) was spread by all animals with the flea that carried the plague, there's no strict evidence to say that rats were the main protaganist, this is a myth.
> To me, there are two main reasons to have a clean shot, whenever you're shooting; one: It's much more dangerous to have dead and decaying bodies lying around, though there are diseases that come from rat feaces, there are many more that come from dead bodies lying around. Secondly: if you do not respect the animal you're killing, you're bound to make mistakes, mistakes lead to death; would you prefer to dispose of an animal in a hygienic and responsible way, to protect you and those around you, or would you prefer a bleeding and wounded animal to crawl into your walls, or roof, or water supply, rotting away and encouraging the worlds biggest killer, germs.
> So essentially, it comes to the same point, if you're randomly shooting animals, you're not thinking it through; it's not safe.
> Life is hard, these animals are here as food for larger animals, but they have their own lives, treat them with respect; everything will be much easier if you do.


well said


----------



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

I was not specifiically talking about the plague, but it is one of them, here are a few more. http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/diseases/direct.html

If you are a hunter wounded animals happen, period, no matter how much you try to minimize it, if you hunt enough with any weapon it will happen, get over it or stop hunting. Chris


----------



## newconvert (Dec 12, 2011)

whipcrackdeadbunny said:


> This thread was a mistake to start I feel; when it comes to morals, practically they have a place, reasonably, they must be balanced with practicality. I still get friends look at me funny, telling me I'm cold-hearted, that it's best to be vegetarian; aside from the ridiculous idea that it's healthy to live in a cold country without eating meat, they are ignorant to the problems their fiscal lifestyle creates for the environment around them. Talk to me of morals, when the world is not trying to kill you, aside from that, treat your environment with respect, you cannot live without it. (no, I'm not talking about global warming)


again well said, in the interest of no further arguing i will lock the thread and let everyone live with their own morality, hopefully there were ideas shared and learned.


----------

