From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re:  Re: swan hunting
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:58:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.195213.9015@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>smithm@plugflow.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith) writes:
>
>> There is nothing pretty about death
>>no matter how it happens, but happen it will, and to everything. When an 
>>animal dies it opens up more resources to the rest of kin and competitors.
>>Argueing about the way in which that animal will die is a mute point, because
>>die it will. It makes no difference if say that deer dies quickly by the 
>>bullet from a gun, an arrow, predation, or by more "natural" means of
>>starvation, disease, parasitism, or accident.
>
>
> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236) replies:
>
>>>Granted it may not make a difference to the natural world, but don't you
>>>agree that the amount suffering and the method of death make a big
>>>difference to the deer?  ... just like the amount of pain you suffer and
>>>the method by which you die, though irrelevant to the natural world,
>>>are probably very important to you.
>
>
>I think you're missing the point, Bob, but I would certainly agree with
>your statement, as well as Matt's.

If I interpreted Matt correctly, then I'm not certain how you could agree
with both of us.  He appears to say that the inevitability of death makes
the manner of death irrelevant.  With respect to the natural world, this
may be true.  With respect to the deer or to an ethically concerned
human, it's not so obviously true.

>  If a deer (or person) had their choice
>of how they must die (for as Matt accurately points out, we all must), I would
>surmise that a quick death by bow or bullet would be far preferable to slow
>starvation, being slowly consumed by parasites, or being torn to pieces while
>still living by a pack of wild canines.

If a deer (or person) is facing an imminent choice between these two
alternatives, then it seems safe to say that the quick death is preferable.
However, if the deer (or person) faces a choice between a quick death or
a continuing life to be terminated at some unknown future time in some
unknown way, then most of us (including deer) seem willing to take our
chances ... even though that eventual death may be far worse than a quick 
death inflicted now.

>  I've personally witnessed the last
>one, and it wasn't pretty.  The fawn died hard, bawling piteously for several 
>minutes as a pack of coy dogs hamstrung it, then proceeded to eat the tender 
>parts between it's haunches without bothering to kill it first.  Unfortunately,
>I was about 75 yards away at the time, and since I was hunting with a bow, I
>could not intervene to end the fawn's suffering due to the distance (nor was
>I willing to get out of the safety of my treestand and wade into a pack of
>feeding canines, for obvious reasons). 

There seems to be a lesson here that went overlooked.  With the proper
equipment, an expert marksman, as you no doubt are, would have been able
to fire a shot or two from your treestand and thus shortened the
suffering period of the dying fawn.  Because of an interest in a
particular methodology (i.e.  bowhunting), you may have missed a great
chance to reduce some naturally occurring suffering.  

This is a point I've struggled to make in other threads: if hunters are
sincerely interested in promoting animal welfare and reducing animal
suffering, then why get so bogged down in these peripheral aspects of
the activity.  Forget bows, muzzleloaders, spears, knives.  Go out there
with the proper gun, target those already suffering or likely to die
anyway, take short-range low-risk shots, and kill as instantaneously and
painlessly as possible.  This obsession with these extraneous aspects
can make hunting appear very suspect to non-hunters.  Be prepared to
deal with situations like those you've described.  Then you would have a
valid claim to be directly contributing to reduced animal suffering in a
way that even an AR person can appreciate. 
 
>Let's face it; sometimes "Mother Nature" can be a cruel bitch.  (And Russell, 
>in case you're lurking around out there; please don't bore me with any of your
>"personification of nature" arguments...) 
> 
>Glad to see we agree on something, Bob.  ;-)

And who said that miracles never occur?  :-)

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals