From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re:  Re: swan hunting
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:57:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.165803.12400@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.195213.9015@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>>  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). 
>

I've never dealt with the situation you describe. I did once witness a small
pack (3) of dogs chasing a doe. I spent the rest of the day dog hunting, but 
never did get a shot. Do you really think these dogs would have attacked had
you put an arrow in one or two of them? I would think they're smart enough to
turn tail and run. How many were there?

>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. 
> 

It's hard to explain, but I'll try. The easiest explanation for my bowhunting
is the challenge. I hunt with traditional equipment (recurve, shot
instinctively) and need to practice year round. In order to take a deer, I need
to get within 30 yards (less than 20 is better) without the deer being aware of
my presence. The only acceptable shots are standing broadside or slightly
quartering away. The adrenalin rush of being this close to a deer and having
a branch or bush prevent a shot, or the angle being unacceptable, or any number
of things which prevent a shot is unbelievable. There is a great deal of
satisfaction in not having taken a risky shot (meaning a risk of wounding,
rather than a clean kill) after working so hard to get close. Most of these 
would be dead deer if I were still carrying my rifle. To put it more simply, the
degree of self control and woodsmanship required to successfully stillhunt deer
with a bow is immeasureably greater than to do so with a rifle. As with many 
other things in life, the satisfaction derived when you do it well is
commensurately greater.
  I am interested in preventing animal suffering by doing my best to insure 
a quick kill. I would commit a mercy killing of a suffering animal if the 
need arose (for instance, one hit by a car and dying slowly by the roadside).
If by hunting I help to control a population threatening to outstrip it's food
supply, that admittedly makes the act of killing easier on my conscience. It is
not, however, my main reason for hunting. 
   Whether to interfere with wild animals engaged in killing and eating another
animal which is apparently suffering is a very difficult philosophical question
for which I have no answer. In the case of the dogs I mentioned above, these 
were well fed pets which the owner refused to confine. A different case
entirely, in my mind. I have no experience with, and very little knowledge of
coydogs.
  Well, I guess I've rambled on again. I'll cut it off here.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals