Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game The Moralityof Hunting

Blaine, this current fairy tale aside; I see your point and I understand it I believe. However would you not agree that to deliberately wound an animal just to see what happens is a rather sick way of hunting? Whether or no this deal actually happened or not there was a (as stated) a deliberate attempt not to kill asap but to wound.

BCR

I agree with everything in this thread.

Boggy,

I agree that purposefully making a bad shot, for whatever the motivation, is a poor decision. It is also not the kind of hunting I have any interest in.

If he were to repeatedly shoot animals to wound vs kill, then I would say he is "sick". I am not sure one isolated event counts as being sick.

________________________

The only significant point here, Blaine is that all of what Buffhumper said is fabrication, a lie, etc. That is the significant point here. That significant point gives total relevance to your last sentence in the quote. Drivel. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
Now, had he been honest enough to open his subject with; "Once upon a time, I went on Safari" (fairy tale mentioned by BCR), then maybe it would be worth any opinions or discussion.

If you give any credence to Buffhumper's posts, then I'd say the same here as the reply to Chinook, that being, "Et tu, Blaine"? That's the significant point, let's investigate a murder that didn't happen, a robbery that never occurred, a lie for its own sake.

Not hammering on you or anyone else here except for Buffhumper. However, I do marvel somewhat at how accurate P.T. Barnum's gospel on the human condition really was.

Old Toot

Buffhunter,

Dang, I was real disappointed to figure out your story was serious. The irony of your life-and-death struggle, sweat running down your face and all that, with the �crew� fetching you a cold beer had me layin� on the floor.

Man, would that make a great beer commercial or what?

As for the morality of shooting-to-wound, hunting isn�t all that complicated � have your mamma explain it to you.

The fundamental flaw in 'buffs drivel is that hunting isn't an issue of morality. That is the anti's argument by placing the life of an animal equal to a humans.

The sad part is apparently he doesn't even know that he doesn't know the real issue. Purposely wounding an animal for the outside chance that it will charge and "test your manhood" isn't an issue of morality, it is an issue of stupidity and irresponsibility.

By purposely placing the lives of his PH and attending crew at risk, you could place into question his real motives for gut shooting the 'buff.

I agree with the various PH's that have weighed in.....I wouldn't want that slob in my hunting camp.

Tony

Whether or not the event actually occurred is moot. What is telling are the responses to the story on both sides.

What is telling are the responses to the story on both sides. [/quote]

Yeah, we're all sick, Blaine. We all have the mob mentality here. Yeah. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Old Toot

I am trying my best to figure out why you bothered to post this thread at all. After reading, and re reading, the only conclusion I can come to, is that you are just trolling to stir up some crap.

[Quote: Buffhunter
With that I took deadly aim right up the cenerline of the bull left front leg and 1/3 way up its body (a perfect broadside shot for a buff), I then aimed 3 inches to the right and down 4 inches from the bottom of its belly. Bang!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sounds like a heart/lung shot to me, NOT a gut shot. At any rate you and everyone else here knows that is still not the best shot on any animal that is more likely to run at you then away from you after being shot. That bullet you waste trying to make the hunt more "exciting" will be the one that costs you your life one day.

RO <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Actually since River Otter brings up the placement issue, I defy anyone to call a heart shot perfect on a close buff. Not that I've ever shot one, but evidently mr morality/saviour of the world, has only shot one more than myself.

From what I've always read break bones is the ticket and any idiot knows that lining up on the front leg 1/3 of the way up goes through the top of the heart, missing all bone structure.

And I'm glad RO points out that a few inches back from that is back end of the lungs/liver at the very worst case, probably not close to the liver on such a big animal.

Jeff

Blaine:

I applaud the fact that you can critisize without having to resort to emotionalistic namecalling. Your comments on about the fact that hunting is about killing and that it brings pain (to more or less some degree), is what I was hoping this thread investigate. Everyone here has their philosophical and personal thoughts and feelings on hunting and what's "cricket" and what's not. That became increasing clear to me, when on the original LRH post (even before I mentioned the buff), so many hunters quickly offered their thoughts that long range hunting is not hunting. I was really hoping more people would provide some insight on how they arrived that certain kinds of hunting is okay and other types of hunting is bad.
Thank you for going to the heart of the tread.

__________________________________________________

To the bowhunters:

I bow-hunted for muleys for 7 years. I used a spot-and-stalk method exculsively. In that time I killed 2 does and 1 buck. I also lost another doe by doing the right thing. I hit her good and she went onto some private land. I marked the blood trail and then went down to get permission to follow-up. The ranchers wife was friendly enough, but she wanted me to wait until her husband came back and let him make the decision. We drank coffe and chatted and after a half hour or so her husband showed up and gave me permission. Unfortunately, it had started raining, and by the time I got back up to spot, the blood trail had washed away. I hunted for that dang deer for 2 days and never found her (scrub oak country).

I offer this information only as a lesson I learned, whcih may or may not help you in the future.

But as far as "killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible", it is common for bow hunters to wait a half hour or so after hitting an animal to give it time to "stiffen up" or die.

Seems to me, all that does, is increase the chance for you to get the animal, not necessarily to ease its suffering. Lying around for a 30 minutes or so with an arrow stuck in your butt/shoulder, etc, doesn't sound all that comfortable to me. I invite your thoughts and comments.

To the prarie dog hunters:

When you shoot a prarie dog, do you check and make sure it's not a female that is suckling young? Starving to death in a den, waiting for your dead mother to come and feed you, to me sounds a hell of a lot worse than wounding a buff and waiting 3 or 4 minutes to see what he will do, before finishing him off.

But to both groups, I'm not critizing, I'm just pointing out some thoughts on what is "cricket" and what is not.

RiverOtter:

You are right on. According to my "Perfect Shot" diagram, I hit the buff with a low lung shot. The idea, (this sounds cold) was to hit the bull so that he wasn't structurally hindered, yet it would leave a good blood trail and make sure that the buff would die within a fairly short time, whether he charged or not.

To Blaine:

One last thing, I agree with you on the judgement points except for the beer. I drank one beer during a 2 hour or so lull. One of the Zim PHs and an apprentice PH also drank a beer in that time frame. My PH did not drink anything but soda. So I don't think that was really a big factor.

In retropect, my BIGGEST MISTAKE, was even though one of the Zim PH's mentioned hitting off-shouder the night before, was NOT TALKING WITH MY PH AND GETTING HIS THOUGHTS. It was really his show, and I should have given him a chance to say "NOT ON MY SAFARI" or "OKAY, BUT ONLY IF THE COVER IS RIGHT", etc.

I should not have deliberately put him and his staff into a wounded buff situation, without his agreement.

And as the the other Zim PH who first suggested it to me, I and I alone made the decision and took the shot. He could have been kidding, or maybe he was an adrenlyn junkie, himself. But I alone bear responsiblity.

As far as the situation, we were in fairly open ground, Between myself, the 2 PHs, and the apprentice, we had a .416 Rem Mag (me), a .505 Gibbs (my PH), a .470 NE (the other PH), and a .458 Lott (the apprentice). So we certainly had enough fire-power.

Still I learned something from the incident. And I would like to hear from others on how they view hunting and they believe that hunting is a natural state of affairs.

For myself, I think the human race is alive today only because of our predatory nature. Having a willingness to face danger and hardship in order to kill in selfdefense or for food, is what enabled us to evolve in what we our today. I think, we owe it to ourselves, to take a critcal look at why we hunt and how we hunt. I don't think anyone owes an apology for their desire to hunt and if we are not carefull, we will wind up like the smokers. First they were harassed, and then, instead of standing up for their rights, they tried to be apologetic and compromise. The final result, was that they "accepted" the stigma of being a smoker, suffered indignities (having to go outside in 10 degree weather, etc.), and eventually lost their rights to smoke in more and more places (I work in Boulder, CO, the most liberal (read oppresive) city in the USA).

I would hate to see that happen to America's hunters. So much for the soapboxing.

Please feel free to comment.

Perhaps Buffhunter should try bull fighting. It seems more up his alley.

First, as "buffhunter" admits, he was clearly wrong in putting the PH and any other persons in the hunting party at risk. Shooting a dangerous game animal to wound rather than kill is essentially reckless endangerment. He is lucky no one was hurt otherwise his little tale here would have served as damning testimony.

Second, while animals do not have rights, they do warrant moral consideration. This is why there are laws prohibiting the torture of animals. What would you do if you drove by a ranch and saw horses starving to death in a corral? What if you found a boy torturing a dog to death? If we buy Blaine's logic, we have no moral obligation to intercede since animals are mere property.

As Jose Ortega y Gasset stated, "good hunter is uneasy in the depths of his conscience when faced with the death he is about to inflict on the enchanting animal." He went on to say, "I believe that this has always happened to man, with varying degrees of intensity according to the nature of the prey - ferocious or harmless - and with one or another variation in the aspect of uneasiness. This says nothing against hunting, but only that the generally problematic, equivocal nature of man's relationship with animals shines through the uneasiness. Nor can it be otherwise, because man has never really known exactly what an animal is. Before and beyond all science, humanity sees itself as
something emerging from animality, but it cannot be sure of having transcended that state completely."

We hunt because it is fundamental to our nature. I disagree with "buffhunter." We have flourished as a species for three reasons unassociated with hunting. We are a cooperative, social animal. We are, by far, the most intelligent species. We care for our young. Sharks are nearly perfect hunters, but they have remained essentially unchanged for millions of year. Many species that were better hunters than us are now extinct.

There was a time hunting was necessary for survival. That time has long since passed. People can live long and productive lives without ever hunting. Those of us who continue to hunt do so because we recognize it as part of our nature.

Over the centuries, we have evolved ethically. We no longer believe slavery is ethical. We no longer practice human sacrifices. How we hunt as changed as well. We, as a society, set bag limits, seasons and impose other legal rules on hunting. We also have ethical rules. These rules, like fair chase, do not exist in a vacuum. We establish them as a community to protect the spirit of the hunt.

"Buffhunter" uses a rhetorical device. He says essentially, "You will poison a rat while condemning me for making a deliberately bad shot on a buffalo."

My response: Motive matters. We poison rats to protect human health. We also use rats and other animals for medical experimentation. This is morally justified because this use serves a greater purpose of advancing human science. Humans have rights; animals do not. Still, any reputable research institution will treat animals as humanely as possible. This is our moral obligation.

Yes, bow hunting results in a slower death. It is also much harder to kill an animal with a bow than with a high-powered rifle. Why use a bow? Because we are hunters, not just killers. Why try to find the balance between our need to hunt, a moral consideration for the animal and a relatively level playing field where the hunt's outcome is largely determined by skill. This is an imperfect process, and as Ortega y Gasset note, still one where we may have doubts at the end of the day.

Every hunter, if he hunts long enough, will wound an animal. What I condemn is not merely what "buffhunter" did, but why. He wounded an animal for his personal amusement, thinking a blood trail and track might be more exciting. He did so with the security blanket of an armed PH and his own high-powered rifle. This makes the "man among boys" rhetoric ring hollow to me.

I have no quarrel with a hunter who takes a buffalo with a rifle, a bow or even a spear in a fair chase environment. Wounding an animal in the hope of greater sport, however, strikes me as disrespectful of the animal and of the hunt itself.

I read the story. I reread the story. I don't see an intentional wounding. It was a mortal, but not a break down shot. Many people prefer those on nondangerous game and won't take anything else. The buff was going to die and probably in not very long.

So it was a less than wise shot considering the species. It was also a poor decision to purposefully take a shot like that and endanger the PH and trackers. Then again a guy could easily and unintentionally screw up a good shot and hit a buff in the very same manner. The PH knows that and so do the trackers and yet they still choose to go afield with people they really don't know all that well.

Buffhunter brings up some good points and I think we as hunters should wrestle with some of those thorny issues for our own good. We've been backpedaling from the antis for a while now.

Some of us use the word "harvest" in place of kill as if somehow it changes the facts of what happen when bullet or arrow meets flesh and bone. Call it what you will, it's not changing any minds. In the end a creature is dead, the hunter caused the death, and that my friends is killing. Even the fuzzy thinking antis can figure that one out.

We as hunters cannot guarantee with any certainty that we will cause a painless end to our quarry's life. Many strive to that end and some have good success but the reality is that the end of an animal's, and many human's life is traumatic. That's just the way the world works.

Sometimes we wound game and it causes undue suffering, that is also no secret. I've seen people time and again try to snuff threads with discussions about it for fear the antis will find out and use it against us. It shouldn't be news to anyone that they already know so denying it is not in our best interest. We need to deal with it.

Whether we go afield with lethal intent or not it doesn't change the fact that the animals we hunt will die and it most likely will not occur with them being in a bed surrounded by loved ones while they slip off to a peacefull end.

What bothers some of our fellow humans about what we do is the death and pain that is inevitable when we choose to take a life. I think that's partly because many of them are deluded or ignorant about just how the real world works and what the options are for an animal who's life is going to end. The other part is that we choose to inflict trauma and death as part of a recreational pursuit. Apparently a lion tearing the entrails out of a conscious wildebeast is acceptable to them because she's doing it to survive. Personally I don't think that part matters much to the wildebeast.

Whether we get joy, a feeling of accomplishment, or just a full belly matters not to the animal we've just killed. Why it should matter to someone that's not part of the intimate hunter-prey relationship, nor even a witness to it playing out does mystify me a bit but that's what we have to deal with.

I just have a hard time thinking we're going to get anywhere with a smokescreen.

Every day people die in automobile accidents. It is a reality of driving. There is a difference between a guy who kills someone in an accident and a guy who kills someone because he was driving recklessly. You don't think so? Explain it to the parents of a child that has been killed by a reckless driver.

Deliberately shooting a dangerous game animal to wound it is reckless. As noted, it wasn't just "Buffhunter" putting his own backside on the line. He decided to put his PH at risk as well. The PH is paid to deal with clients who may or may not make a good shot every time. He is not paid to play lifeguard while a client makes a self indulgent decision.

Rights require responsibility. A man and a tiger sit a cage. The man can agree to not kill the tiger. The tiger cannot make this promise. Our right to hunt is inextricably linked to our responsibilities as hunters. This is not about glossing over the bloody realities of killing, field dressing and processing a game animal. Hunting involves the act of killing, but hunting is something more, much more. When I was a boy, a chicken dinner involved a hatchet and trip to the chicken coop. That is killing. Going afield and beating the brush for a plump blue grouse... that is hunting.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons hunting is mistreated is because as a community, we can recite reloading data but we can't recite Ortega y Gasset. We can talk about how we kill, but not fully explain why.

This might seem like splitting hairs but a mortal nonbreakdown shot isn't any more of an "intentionally wounding" shot on a buffalo than it is on an elk. It's a mortal wound, just not one that slows them down as much.

If that shot is so terrible than the guys that make the same shot on an elk to save a couple pounds of meat at the expense of a minute more suffering on the elk's part are just as cold and calculating as Buffhunter was....but for a slightly different reason.

So the reason makes the difference. We weigh the value of an additional minute of suffering against a few pounds of meat and call saving the meat moral. We do the same against what Buffhunter wrote about and it's wrong.

To me any rifle shot that doesn't drop the animal immediately leaves something to be desired. The means are in my hands to put the animals I hunt on the ground in a blink and if I fail to do so then I didn't quite live up to my end of the deal. I don't lose much sleep over it but I try to do better the next time.

That's my personal standard. I don't try to impose it on others.

I don't read Ortega y Gasset. I don't know him and he doesn't know me. He has no idea why I hunt. He might think he does but that's as far as it goes. I can articulate my feelings and beliefs on my own. Regurgitating some other guy's ideas isn't a mark of intellect or wisdom in my book. Then again that book hasn't been published.

Just a guess, but I think what got everyone pissed at Buffhunter, was the thread in "Long range hunting", where he actually states that he "INTENTIONALLY GUT SHOT" the cape buffalo. That statement and act(if it actually occured) is SICK and WRONG!..... Then he started this thread to try and justify it in his own twisted way. In this thread he has back pedalled a bit and the shot is now a lung shot(Based on the Quote that I responded to above). IF he had stated that he LUNG shot a Cape Buffalo in his original post, he would have only been guilty of "STUPIDITY" and "SELFISHNESS" for the lives he put in higher danger; NOT intensionally causing an animal to suffer more for his own pleasure. IMHO.

A front shoulders shot does NOT kill any faster than a heart/lung shot, it merely takes away the animals mobility to get to the hunter/s (or at least slows it down substantially to allow more time for follow up shots, if needed).

To respond to the above posters who are splitting hairs over "HUNTING vs. KILLING", WHY?? Does it really make a difference what led up to the animals death if the person who takes its life is doing it legally and with the intent to give it the most "humane" death possible. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

RO

Hampstead:

Is Ortega y Gossett the portugese hunter who went to Africa in the late 1800s? The name kind of rings a bell, and I remember reading a book this guy wrote. I gave the book to a friend, so I don't have it anymore, but I do remember some of the stories. One in particular, was about finding 4 natives bound hand and foot, with their legs and arms broken. They were suberged and staked at the rivers edge so that only their heads were above water. It was the local custom the cannibals used to "tenderize" the meat for 3 or 4 days before killing and eating the guys. Since none of his staff would risk the wrath of the cannibals by carrying the guys to the nearest town (about 100 miles, if I remember correctly). The hunter had to "put them down" as the guys were insane from the terror and pain. Is this the same guy?

Anyways, I understand your points about "the responsiblity of the nobles" (noblese oblige, or something like that in latin).

However, back in the '80s, I read a book by some anthropologist, who believes the intelligence of the human race was a necessary result of our decision to become active predators, instead of just gathers and scavengers. Not sure if I believe it completely, but it is an interesting thought.

River Otter:

As to the original post on the LRH thread, some poster had mentioned "gut shooting" in reference to long range hunting and I said more or less. "I did deliberately gut shoot a buffalo once,in an attempt to get a charge, but I immediately felt bad and quickly put two shots were were I should have from the first and the buffale died after a short charge." (these words are more or less verbatim.)

No one got excited about it for a few days until thor222 or something like that started making a big deal about it. At that time I tried to explain my thought processes. In truth, the buffalo was hit somewhere in the region of its lower lung and liver, definately "off shoulder" but not in the paunch. As I stated, my BIGGEST MISTAKE was not talking to my PH and letting him decide if I should take an "off shoulder" shot.

I still feel, however, that giving a buffalo a chance to even things up (on the shooter, not the tracker/PH), is not necessarily a bad thing.

I would never have tried the shot in jess or other thick cover and I'lll probably never try that again period, but to be honest I am an adrenlyn junkie (I just don't want anyone else to suffer needlessly (even the buff) for my bad habits).

rost:

The first buff I killed was hit on a centerline up the front leg, 1/3 up the body. This was were I was told to shoot by the PH (different PH, different country). When they took the buff to the butchery (packing house), the PH's dad ( a helluva nice guy, with tons of experience on buff, and a former Sealous Scout during the Rodesian bush war), stuck around to see how the .416 Rem Mag and the Swift A-frame performed. He told me the bullet retained something like 87% of its weight (more or less, I don't remember exactly), and broke both shoulders and took out part of the heart. Theory aside, I believe him.

Still, I am glad people are starting to talkabout hunting in a realistic manner and shedding the sugar coating.

What I'm reading, is that some people are acknowleging that they use less-than-ideal weapons, because they get more challenge and self-satisfaction from hunting that way. That is good and honest talk. I believe we need to be totally honest with ourselves if hunting is to survive in this country. Just my opinon.

Jose Ortega y Gasset was a Spanish philosopher who wrote, "Meditations On Hunting." It is considered one of the finest works on the philosophy of hunting ever written. One mark of intellect and wisdom is reading and knowing what others have thought and written before you.

Quoting great men like Aldo Leopold, Teddy Roosevelt or Ortega y Gasset is not "regurtitating." It is giving credit where credit is due. These men have built the foundation of what we understand as modern hunting. We owe them far more than prideful ignorance of their work.

Only "buffhunter" knows if he made a mortal breakdown shot or an old-fashioned gut shot. In my opinion, he made a decision that was impulsive and selfish. I don't know if this was an isolated case of poor judgment or one instance in a lifelong pattern of behavior. That is something only he can answer.