andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov17.002351.25330@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) writes: > I consider, for small-to-medium sized game, falconry to be far, far more > "sporting" than hunting with a shotgun. If you point a shotgun at something, > and shoot it, that thing is either instantly dead or instantly mortally > wounded. This is *not* true, shotgunners can and often do just wound birds. For the last two years I've spent the openning weekend of the duck season wading swamps to pick up the wounded birds the hunters leave behind. There is no "instant death" for these birds some take hours to die, some days, some may survive but unable to fly or swim properly and eventually starve. The most disgusting thing I've seen was a Chestnut Teal which looked unmarked but didn't fly when I approached. I found when I picked it up that a single pellet had hit it in the eye. In the duck season here, some estimate that for every bird killed one is wounded. Its a difficult question so this may be too high but hunters when surveyed admit to wounding (on average) one bird for every five killed. Andrew Taylor
rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) (11/21/90)
andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor) writes: >In article <1990Nov17.002351.25330@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ArchTeryx) writes: >> I consider, for small-to-medium sized game, falconry to be far, far more >> "sporting" than hunting with a shotgun. If you point a shotgun at something, >> and shoot it, that thing is either instantly dead or instantly mortally >> wounded. >This is *not* true, shotgunners can and often do just wound birds. For the last >two years I've spent the openning weekend of the duck season wading swamps to >pick up the wounded birds the hunters leave behind. There is no "instant >death" for these birds some take hours to die, some days, some may survive but >unable to fly or swim properly and eventually starve. >The most disgusting thing I've seen was a Chestnut Teal which looked unmarked >but didn't fly when I approached. I found when I picked it up that a single >pellet had hit it in the eye. >Andrew Taylor That's just my point! A bird who is hit in the wing/leg/eye etc, even if it doesn't die of the wound, will often wind up dying from the elements beucase of it's reduced ability to survive with such a handicap. I call such a would mortal...slow, but mortal. And, not to start a flame war, but...if you read my article, it says that shotguns are absolutely unsporting. At least, with a falcon, the prey either gets away or is quickly killed (although wounding is, yes possible). And I will STILL maintain, out of all adversity, that a hawk gives it's prey an even chance of getting away, wherea how much chance does it have with a shotgun,even when only wounded. BTW, I don't like most duck hunters. I know some, even closely, and their attitude tends to be that the animals are put here for the exclusive purpose of being harvested by them. Even though they are helping with the habitat destruction, they are not doing enough to stop the trend, and are putting additional pressure on the already strained populations! I know I'm going to get thoroghly flamed for this, but I have a distaste for sport hunting, sport hunters, and shootists who use animals as targets. I am not anti-hunting... just anti-sport hunting. When one hunts for food that is an entirely different story. When one hunts just to get a stuffed trophy, that is an inexcusable waste. Although I've been criticized for my rather amthomorphic comments on predators, I dare anyone who would flame me for this to come up with a single expample in nature of a predator who hunts strictly for sport as we do (I mean ALWAYS hunts for sport. Those that make the OCCASIONAL unjustified kill don't count)... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. Cody Buchmann ^.^ "Kehaar" "He tell *me* the plan...I *know* the email: rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu plan!" -Watership Down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (11/21/90)
In World War II the ratio was 10 wounded for ever person killed. And that ratio seems pretty stable in subsequent "disagreements." I would be surprised if the ratio for hunters and birds was very much different. Surely there must be some hard data. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand