Is it more humane to shoot an animal; or allow an animal to be eaten by other animals / grow old and starve to death?

Similar questions: humane shoot animal eaten animals grow starve death.

It is more tasty oops! I mean Humane Yeah thats it.... This article should sum it up better than I could. I personally think hunting prevents disease and helps keep population down to controllable levels.

Besides the dear doest know you are being humane or not they only know they are prey and they try to survive by instinct. They eat, sleep, and procreate and die, they have no philosophy on humanity besides they are food plain and simple. If god had wanted us to eat only when it is humane he would have made us omnivores.

I bet a PETA person faced with starvation would kill a deer in a heart beat rather than die or let his child starve. Many of us have been asked to put into words the reasons why we hunt. The problem is, the reasons and motivations that compel me and many others to hunt are pretty hard to put into print.

This is my first attempt at explaining what drives me to head into the woods each hunting season. What leaps to mind is a quote from my father. Someone had asked him why he loved to hunt so much; what was so great about being in the woods."If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand.

" This really sums up the feeling many of us have. A recent ad in several hunting magazines shows a fellow festooned in camoflage, with the caption "You can't explain it. But nothing would keep you from it.

" Our lack of eloquence on this subject is a major factor in the "bunny-huggers'" fight against our rights. The vast majority of our populace is open to suggestion on the topic of hunting, and could take it or leave it. The very fact that the anti-hunting crowd often makes their claims public, with little or no rebuttal from us hunters, will sway many of these neutral folks.

It's really a debate with one vocal participant, and the claims made, while illogical and faulty, are the only thoughts to ever reach many of these non-hunters. I believe it's time we delved into ourselves and offered our thoughts, however abstract, to the non-hunting public for their consideration. I started going to the woods with Dad when I was very young.

I don't really remember when I first went, but when I was nine, I got to go on a few hunting trips with him and follow him through the woods. He wisely kept these trips varied, and limited the time we spent on any one thing, as my attention span was fairly short.By the time I was eleven, I got to carry an old heirloom .410 double-barrel shotgun, with the action broken open. If I was to spot some game, then by his permission, I could close the gun and shoot.

Soon I was allowed to wander the woods on my own for short times, still following his rule of keeping the gun broken.It was at this time that the hunting seed really began to grow in me. There's just no way to adequately portray the majesty of a forest and the creatures within, when you feel like the only man who's ever stood where you stand. It doesn't matter that you're walking on a well-worn trail, and that you spy spent shotgun shells alongside it from time to time.

You feel all alone, at peace, fully alert, ready for anything. I never feel closer to God than I do when I walk in the woods, his most wondrous creations all around me, with the challenge of outwitting them on their own terms in front of me. The hunting instinct is one of the most basic instincts of mankind.

After all, we are the ultimate predator. Take a look at "prey" animals. Their eyes are usually on the sides of their heads, affording a wider field of view.

They lose some depth perception with this arrangement, but it helps them survive. Predators, on the other hand, characteristically have their eyes set close together, very useful for estimating the distance between he and his target. Beyond this, the urge to kill lies within us all, especially as children.

Without proper channelling of these instincts, children often grow into physically abusive and/or murderous adults. Can any of us honestly say that, as kids, we didn't shoot birds with our slingshots and bb guns, or set homemade traps for other critters? I say that if you can say that, then you either never had an opportunity as a child, or you're an exception to the rule of human nature.

The kill is the fulfillment of the hunt. We hunt to be alone, to observe wildlife without being observed ourselves, to face one of the greatest challenges in this world: to take a wild animal on his own turf, using our brain and little else. Forget the wild tales you may have heard about "automatic" guns and telescopic sites.

When it comes right down to it, those things are no good unless you can create an opportunity to use them. We don't swagger into the woods and slay Bambi when he meekly peeks from behind a tree. We have to use every sense, every bit of experience we have, and when we accomplish our goal, it's a milestone.

I once watched a videotape on hunting that theorized that, on the average, if you are hunting and get a chance at a deer, that chance will last 7 seconds. In my experience, that's not far off. Sometimes you'll have longer, sometimes not that long, but 7 seconds is just about average.

Think of what it takes to be alert and ready, and to make an honest, clean shot on an animal that always believes there's danger behind every tree! In those 7 seconds you must verify that it is, indeed, a legal animal, find a chance to shoot (not easy when you're in brushy country), and you must usually remain undetected by those roving eyes and swivelling ears. What a high!

The adrenalin rush I get from it is like nothing else in this world. The fulfillment of long hard hours of hunting is definitely worth it! I read a quote from a famous writer once, though I can't recall his name.

The quote went something like this: "We do not go hunting to kill. We kill in order to have gone hunting. " Without the kill, you aren't hunting.

That doesn't mean that you have to kill every legal animal you see, but hunting is not hunting if you're not there to kill. But to return to the quote, one does not go hunting expressly for that purpose. Hunting is freedom, a tie to our ancestors, peace, contentment, happiness, joy, sweat, close calls, exploring, hiking, stealth, boring, exhilarating, tiring, satisfying, challenging, and a thousand other things.It's there for you to discover, and judge for yourself if you want to take part in it.

But please, "don't knock it until you've tried it. " That's the only way you'll ever know for sure. - Russ Chastain .

Humanity is not at stake here... Of course it would be more humane to shoot the animal against having it being eaten by other animals. The question is, does it need to be humane? Nature is URL1 mames, cripples, makes animals suffer, bleed to death, and all other less-than-humane things.

In nature, there are no 'old' animals, that die from old age. They starve or get eaten when they are not strong enough to provide their own food or evade preditors. That is what nature is all about, and only humans have developed a sense of compassion and a definition of what we consider 'humane'.

So, the question really is, do you prefer the way of nature, or our 'humane' translation of how we would like the world to be? I favour nature's way, but anyone can have his/her own opinion on this. Sources: my opinion .

More humane to shoot it Although I have never had, held or shot a gun or any other weapon, it makes a lot more sense to me, that, when there is an overpopulation of deer and their food supply is low, to allow hunters to shoot the animals while they are still healthy and use the meat for human consumption. I have seen it fail, when they tried to drop bails of hay to some starving animals during some recent crisis...instead of eating the hay, the animals used it for bedding. Just last year here in NE FL, they extended the hunting season on alligators.

They had begun to overpopulate and wander into populated areas scoffing up a few pets. With the population of gaters reduced, it solved the problem of them eating pets and gave a few hunters some meat for their freezers. The most inhumane thing to do is to let the animals starve to death...a long and painful death.

Sources: My opinion HELENofTROY's Recommendations Shooter's Bible - 98th Edition Amazon List Price: $24.95 Used from: $9.73 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 2 reviews) Dangerous-Game Rifles Amazon List Price: $40.00 Used from: $24.43 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 8 reviews) .

Matter of opinion. Personally I think it depends on where you personally stand on the issue of man's interference in the enviroment. You could argue that we have altered the enviromental balance and thus we are the reason for the imbalance in animal populations and the reason some animals may starve because of lack of food.

You could also argue that nature does this on its own to correct over-population issues and it occurred long before man rose to such prominence. Personally, I think it is better to humanely put an animal down than to let is starve to death on its own. However I am fine with letting it be eaten as part of the natural cycle of nature.

I don't know that I could personally shoot an animal, nor do I think that might be the most humane way to end an animal's life.

Humane vs. Natural... The key word in your question is "humane. " By definition, humane means "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. For the suffering or distressed."

The word itself suggests "human," and the majority of humans would think it kinder to put the animal down. However, the latter choice is more natural. We may hate to watch, but it would be more "of nature" for an animal to be attacked/eaten by others, starve, grow old, die of sickness, etc.So it would be more humane to shoot the animal, but it's more natural to let it die on its own.

Sources: dictionary.com Chosen7Stone's Recommendations Wild Neighbors: The Humane Approach to Living With Wildlife Amazon List Price: $18.95 Used from: $9.49 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 4 reviews) .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.