If you were to turn this around, and say it was a human suffering from some terrible illness with no cure, who is in pain without heavy duty drugs such as morphine, would it be the humane thing to just shoot them or put them to sleep (ie assisted suicide) as opposed to letting them live out their life suffering and die in whatever way nature intends? How do we determine who has the right to live and who doesn't? The age old question and controversy. Where do we draw the line with suffering? How can we learn to live peacefully with other creatures as opposed to controlling them?
Also, shooting an animal is not always the painless choice. I have heard countless stories from my husbands family, all hunters, who have shot deer and then had to track them (and occasionally lost sight of them until the next day)because the deer did not die right away but got away and slowly bled to death. Often it takes more than one or two bullets to do the job. Shooting is not the only method of hunting. Bow and arrow, using a team of hunting dogs, and setting traps are all legal ways to hunt wolves and other animals (at least in Wisconsin:
http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0538.pdf ). Also, there is not an overpopulation of wolves by a long shot. They have barely recovered from endangered status in Minnesota. They are a threat to farmers as they are known to take livestock (so are fox and other natural predators). Wolves are higher on the food chain and more intimidating to humans than other predators. They are highly feared and one of the most misunderstood animals. I have personally had encounters with wolves in the wild and they are very shy timid creatures. I am more afraid of moose because I have had encounters with them too and they are much more aggressive and not afraid of humans. As far as deer, I don't know if there is an overpopulation of them or not, but more and more of them are coming into the city and having encounters with traffic etc. This is not their fault. Human populations are soaring, we are taking more and more land and building cities and houses, and they have fewer places to roam. This is true of other animals too. I know in my city, several times "problem" bears who have managed to make their way to the heart of the city have been peacefully moved outside of the city by use of tranquilizer gun. There was one instance where the bear was shot as there was not a tranquilizer available and the bear was thought to be a danger to humans. At least if an animal is being chased by a pack of wolves for example, they have a chance to escape and live. You can't compete with a team of hunting dogs and guns, especially when being tracked from a vehicle or hellicopter. Traps can also be horrific contraptions that cause terrible pain before the animal dies. And the sound of a gun firing alone is terrifying. I have actually heard the gun versus ripped apart by an animal argument from omnivore friends in the past. But I don't think it is that easy to compare the two situations, given the variables involved.
Bookmarks