From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:21:43 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) is facing an imminent choice between these two
>>-->alternatives, then it seems safe to say that the quick death is 
>>-->preferable.

Yeah, I agree with you for the most part, and there's nothing inconsistent with
my agreement with both of you, although I kind of think you missed the gist of
what Matt was trying to say.  Matt is an accomplished hunter, and he understands
that a quick death by bow or gun is probably preferable to the other methods
that "Mother Nature" provides.  You have to remember that virtually NO prey
animals EVER die of old age, unless they're in a zoo.  Granted, if a hunter
kills them, they may die sooner than they would if they waited for a four-
legged predator to take them, but death at the hands of a four-legged predator
is far less humane.  Let's face it; humanity is not a concern of four-legged
predators.  It seems just a tad illogical to say that the suffering of an
deer is a valid concern if inflicted by a human, but not if it's caused by
another wild critter, esp. if your point of reference is the reaction of the
deer.  That's why I tend to shake my head in wonder at those who claim
hunting is cruel, and the answer (presumably for the sake of the prey
animals) is to reintroduce major predators like wolves, who kill without
any regard to the suffering of their prey.  (Those coy dogs sure weren't
worried about the slow death of their food source, but I wanted to barf.)


>>-->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.

A point that I will readily concede to you.  I imagine that if the thought
processes of prey animals were sophisticated enough, they'd surely wish
that they'd been born a non-prey animal.  But prey animals get killed by predators (human and non-human) for food; it's just their niche in the food
chain.  Like I say, the possibility of "dying of old age" isn't really one
of their options.  It's just a question of which act of violence or what
extraneous element of physical condition will mark their demise, and who they
will be eaten by, be that wolves; humans; or crows, coons, and bacteria.

>>-->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.  

Well, I appreciate the compliment about being an expert marksman, but in actual
point of fact I must beg off on this one.  I'm pretty good with a bow, but
I understand my limitations and I stay within the boundaries created by
those limitations; furthermore, the bow was the only thing I could have had
in my hands at the time.  Under the circumstances, I WAS using proper
equipment.

The first thing that you need to understand is that this happened during 
archery season, and firearms are illegal at that time.  If I'd had a rifle, a
clear 75 yard shot would have been "duck soup", but not with a bow.  I 
regularly practice out to 40 yards, but I would never shoot that far at an
animal.  A misplaced shot on the practice range has no particular negative
effect, but it does on something that bleeds and feels pain.  In actual
practice, I am loathe to take shots at deer that exceed 20 yards. I set up
my stands to accommodate < 20 yard shots, and I only take shots that are
virtually a "sure thing".  As the result of this discipline, I've only taken 2
deer with a bow in the past 9 years, but I killed them both quickly and 
cleanly with one shot, and they both were down and unconscious in under 7
seconds.

I've NEVER taken a shot with my bow at ANYTHING 75 yards away, not even a
paper target.  I KNOW I couldn't have hit the fawn, which was lying down in 
tall weeds, surrounded by ravaging coy dogs. 

I realize that this situation is not the same as hunting them; but nonetheless,
knowing that bow shots from such a distance would be ineffective wrt a quick
kill, and because each arrow with a broadhead attached runs about $10.00, there
was no point in lobbing arrows off into the weeds in the direction of the
carnage.  

Now admittedly, if this would have happened during rifle season, I could have 
used the gun to drive off the dogs, and then walked over to where I had a clear
shot and finished the fawn, and this IS what I would have done.  The dogs, of
course, would have come back to feast on the carcass, but that's OK;  they've
got to eat too.


>>-->Forget bows, muzzleloaders, spears, knives.  Go out there with the proper
>>-->gun, 

I think you've fallen prey to some common misconceptions that are spread by
folks in the AR movement.  A bow or a muzzleloader is every bit as effective
wrt making a quick, clean kill as a modern center fire rifle.  I'm not even
going to toss in an "IMHO" here.  This is something that I absolutely know
is true because of my own personal experience as well as the experiences of
many other people I associate with.  It's also something I realize that
is hard for some non-hunters to understand, and is therefore an easy subject
for exploitation on the part of the opponents of hunting.  

Primitive weapons such as bow or muzzleloader do restrict the hunter wrt the
distance and type of shots that are possible, however, something I've commented
on above, but a well-placed shot will do the job just as fast as if you
used a .30-06.  And a poorly placed shot with that .30-06 will result in
a wounded deer just as surely as a poorly placed shot with a  bow or
muzzleloader; the only difference being that the high powered rifle will cause massive tissue damage that will preclude clean healing.  A minor wound with an
arrow will heal cleanly, and a lot faster than you'd imagine, because it cuts
clean.  (I don't know of anybody that hunts with spears or knives.) :-)

>>-->target those already suffering or likely to die anyway, 

During the hunting season, you don't really see any "sick" deer.  They've just
come through the summer and early fall, which are periods of bounty, and they
are at the peak of their strength.  If there is adequate food to support the
deer through the winter months (read mild winter, animal population below
the winter carrying capacity of the land), they will make it through the winter
healthy, and in the spring, there's plenty to eat again.  If they do NOT
have adequate food during the winter, they will be in a seriously weakened 
condition, and typically will die around March.  Hunters keep the deer
population below the carrying capacity of the land, so except in places
where they aren't hunted, this doesn't happen too often. (This, of course,
is also true of areas where the only hunters are 4-legged.)

About the only deer that a hunter will encounter that are suffering or likely
to die are those that have been previously injured.  In 1989, during the second
week of Pennsylvania buck season, a hunting partner of mine saw a buck
that had it's jaw smashed by a bad gunshot, probably during the previous week.
It was obviously infected and in great pain, so he used his tag putting it out 
of its suffering, even though he knew that the infection and the subsequent
stress would have made the venison pretty useless for food. (It was;  we
field dressed the deer and he had it processed, but the venison was so raunchy
it wound up in the trash can.)  I think this is what you're talking about, but
please understand that situations like this are few and far between.  

 >take short-range low-risk shots, and kill as instantaneously and
>painlessly as possible.

As I indicated above, I already do this.  So do the other hunters I associate
with.  I absolutely agree with you on this point.  What you need to know is 
that we already are aware of these requirements.  (I'm not going to try to
tell you that everybody is scrupulous about this, but we all have bad apples
whose actions reflect badly on the rest of us, no matter which side of this
issue you're on.)

>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 easy to condemn something that you don't understand.  Most non-hunters
are not ARs, and if I'm given a chance to answer their questions the way
I have here, they are generally disabused of their concerns.  In fact,
this also applies to some ARs.  There is a very nice lady I work with who
used to belong to PETA (she's a "cat lady", and dropped out when she found
herself being compared to a slaveholder), and still is a very strong animal
advocate.  She is also a vegan, and a truly sensitive human being, and the
thought of an animal being made to suffer is abhorent to her.  We used to
go "round and round" about hunting.  Gradually, she came to understand that
I too, am opposed to cruelty to animals, and I would never make an animal
suffer intentionally (aside from smacking my tomcat on occasion when he gets
too porky and bites me or my wife because we're ignoring him).  Now, we get
along just fine, and although she isn't really comfortable with the idea
of hunting, she concedes that in some cases it's necessary (a big concession
on her part, believe me) and that it's not that bad if done properly.  And
she also realizes that we are on the same side wrt those who don't do it
properly, and who are the ones many ARs hold up as "typical" hunters.

I think the change finally came about when I convinced her that ethical
hunters are the ones who are typical, not the "slob hunters"; many of whom
are the "one day a year wonders" you only see on the opening day of gun 
season.  She has an understandably low opinion of these people (the slobs)
for their thoughtless actions, as I do;  I further hold them in low regard
for the undeserved black eye they give serious hunters.

You know, Bob, I've often talked to this lady about the fact that it's too
damn bad the ARAs and the hunters can't work together better.  It's a cinch
that as groups, we are the only ones who truly care about animals, (each in
our own way, and based upon different philosophical perspectives, of course)
and if we worked together to apply our talents to helping these critters, we
might be able to more effectively address the real devastator of wildlife,
loss of habitat caused by rampant greedy land development.   Let's face
it;  the "shop 'til you drop" crowd couldn't care less about the fact that
that big new shopping mall out at the edge of town eliminated 300 acres
of prime wildlife habitat, in spite of the fact that many of them will
readily agree with AR contentions that hunting is bad, or contribute money
to AR causes based upon emotional appeals to "save the animals".

Sorry this is so long, but I thought you deserved a serious response to your
questions.


Ken