FALL 1984
Bowhunters and hunters in general are often accused by the antihunter of causing the prey unnecessary suffering. Suffering is generally considered to be of two types: physical pain from injury or disease and mental suffering from fright, anxiety or grief.
The fact that hunters kill the animals they hunt is not at issue because all animals born will die. The issue then is whether by hunting the hunter reduces the animal's value of life, in terms of stress, longevity and health and, whether by hunting the hunter inflicts more suffering than would have occurred if he did not hunt.
In today's human dominated world the cause of death among wild animals is a direct result of either a conscious or unconscious human decision. How much the animals suffers is determined directly by that decision and on one can escape their responsibility in that choice. Unlike the non-hunter, the hunter - and especially the bowhunter - has chosen to come into direct, close contact with, and appreciation for, his prey and to make his decision consciously on the spot with only his own ethics and conscience to guide him.
People who have received arrow wounds, mostly accidentally self-inflicted, claim little pain for a time after the wounding, thus a well hit bow-killed animal may die before appreciable pain is noted. In hits which do not open major blood vessels, the wound from a razor sharp arrow has been shown to heal quickly. They are like surgical cuts - clean and neat, with little tissue displacement. Surgical cuts like these are designed to heal quickly. With rifle hunting considerable shock is associated with bullet impact to defer pain so that death may precede pain. In less well-placed hits, pain does occur, either until death or healing is underway.
The hunter has the option to decide whether to take the shot or not, he takes the responsibility for the amount of suffering or pain he personally inflicts. He can take only those shots that will most likely cause a quick kill, with minimum pain.
The antihunter has no less responsibility for the pain of the animals, he has merely chosen to remain far away from it so that he does not have to see it or face up to his responsibility. Through his efforts to prevent controlled hunting he unwittingly dooms animals to a certain death by some other cause. Accidents and predators take some. Only occasional accidents cause quick relatively painless death. frequently severe bruising and bone breakage results from accidents; pain certainly accompanies this. Predators may or may not be efficient. Often hide and flesh may be torn or displaced, prey may be killed or escape with several wounds to die later or recover.
Accidents and predators kill only a few animals. They are seldom enough to limit populations. Without hunting then - in this human dominated world-populations outgrow available food supplies. The antihunter dooms animals to competition for ever decreasing nutrients; they doom them to the pain of prolonged hunger, cold pneumonia and eventual slow death. The antihunter does not have the choice to shoot or not to shoot, he or she does not have the opportunity to wait for a quick killing shot. They have made the choice for the slower natural death which they can avoid seeing, but cannot avoid being responsible for.
Many studies have demonstrated that in overpopulated situations the youngest, weakest animals are driven away from short food supplies by the larger, stronger animals including their own mothers. The young, are the first to die when starvation becomes the controlling factor. The price a wildlife population pays for being labelled "game" is the increased chance of being killed in the prime of life rather than slowly starving in the first year or two of life.
What of mental suffering, anxiety, fright and grief? Many writers and film makers would have us believe that animals think as humans do. There is, however, little but imagination to support this.
Some anti hunters proclaim great fear among wild animals brought on by hunting. Hard data is scarce but radio telemetry studies of deer suggest that hunted animals generally treat hunters about the way we treat the risk of auto accidents. They are cautious and get out of the way of obvious danger but quickly return to normal activity. In contrast to this quick recovery, overpopulation causes social stress which is much more severe. Indicators of anxiety and fear such as heart rate and circulation of adrenal hormones are far more epotently and persistently affected by social stress such as competition for food, than by physical stress such as being pursued by a hunter-predator.
By keeping the populations of game within the limits of their habitat, hunting reduces the social stresses of overcrowding and competition for food, reduces the weakening effects of starvation and resultant disease and therefore may be observed to produce healthier animals with a longer life expectancy than non hunting. Hunting is clearly an acceptable alternative to, rather than a cause of, unnecessary animal suffering.