Peter: -
When sheep or cattle are commercially slaughtered for meat, _every_ animal dies
within seconds, if not minutes. There is no sense that the same can be said for
ducks who are shot by recreational hunters.
I don't know anything about the killing of foxes and rabbits so I can not
comment on that. I do know a bit about the killing of flying-foxes, and from
that the killing of ducks.
The NSW Dept of Primary Industry standard operating code for the humane control
of pest animals requires that : "When it is necessary to kill an animal, humane
procedures must always be used. These procedures must avoid distress, be
reliable, and produce rapid loss of consciousness without pain until death
occurs."
They also acknowledge: "the challenges presented by field conditions should not
lessen the ethical obligation of the operator to reduce pain and distress to
the greatest extent possible during euthanasia"
[http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/57253/gen-001.pdf]
One would hope that recreational hunters would aim for the same standard.
Unfortunately when a hunter shoots a bird "[t]here is evidence that a high
proportion of shooting attempts result in a high rate of wounding instead of
direct kills, and that these wounds cause pain and suffering to the injured
birds (Norton and Thomas 1994). "
Some of these woundings relate to the interaction of the body size of the bird
and the characteristics of shot. Birds that have larger surface to target
ratios are more likely to suffer injury in the form of imbedded pellets but not
death. "An Australian study of 40,000 ducks found that 9% of the relatively
small grey teal had embedded pellets while 19 per cent of the larger mountain
ducks had pellets." [F. Norman (1976) “The incidence of lead shotgun pellets in
waterfowl (Anatidae and Rallidae) examined in south-eastern Australia between
1957 and 1973”, Australian Wildlife Research 3, 61-71 ]
We also know that hunters, in common which much of the population in any skill
based activity, are not as good as they think they are. "A 1987 Canadian study
involved firstly asking hunters to estimate their cripple rate and then, from
concealed hides, observing those same hunters and estimating cripple rates. The
Canadian Wildlife Service staff observers counted 5 to 8 cripples for every 10
birds bagged (which also includes wounded), but hunters admitted to only about
2 cripples for 10 bagged." [Nieman, D.J., Hochbaum, G.S., Caswell, F.D. &
Turner, B.C. (1987), `Monitoring hunter performance in prairie Canada',
Transactions of the 52nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference 52 ,233--245.]
None of this makes hunters bad people, it may make them people who are not able
to consider what they are doing in a rational manner. In that, they can join
the rest of the human race. We all want to continue to do what we think is fun
and we are blind to the harm our fun causes because if we were not, then it
would be more difficult to maintain a positive self-regard.
Notwithstanding that, it is time that the government acted to ensure that
shooting stops.
Quotes and sources taken from Animal Welfare Implications of Flying-fox control
in Orchards by Shooting by Carol Booth, May 2007
I also suggest that people who are interested in further scientific information
about the mechanics and outcomes of duck hunting review this page:
http://www.animalliberation.org.au/ducks.php
Anyone interested in the outcomes of the shooting of flying-foxes as a means of
control in orchards is welcome to check out
http://www.hsi.org.au/index.php?catID=263 You will find a report on why
shooting should stop, the results of autopsies on 58 animals taken from an
orchard and information about the fates the further 147 animals effected by the
shooting in that orchard. Of the 205 animals effected by this shooting, 196
died. The remaining 9 survived only because of the action of the people
conducting the study.
storm
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Shute
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2009 11:02 PM
To: ; ;
Subject: Duck Hunting
I'm more concerned about the shooting and even the disturbance of species that
are threatened or in low numbers because of the drought. The two issues (that
and the cruelty) seem to become easily confused.
It's cruel, but no more than fox or rabbit shooting, or even slaughtering sheep
and cattle for meat.
Peter Shute
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry
|
