Persistence Hunting

[Deleted member 40728]

If this guy was hunting wolves like this (impossible I know, but hypothetically), how many would have the same opposition?

I think that would be awesome. At some point we would probably get to see if he had the endurance to out run the entire pack lol.

 

[FI460]

I've received responses from 3 non-hunting friends on this. One claimed he wasn't concerned with ethics as long as it was a legal method of take, as he figured one way of dealing death was as ethical as another. The other two prefaced their responses with the belief that hunting is largely unethical due to a lack of necessity. I didn't push that point as I wanted to focus on persistence hunting.

None of them had issue with persistence hunting. All 3 of them held bow hunting in higher regard than rifle hunting due to technological advantages/ necessity of skill. The first reaction of all 3 was generally positive as this method is a more traditional method.

Generally, I'm most concerned with the optics of the activity from outsiders. This doesn't appear to be riling people in my small sample.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I also think that the pursuit of fair chase and ethical kills (defined by the reduction of suffering to the greatest extent possible) are at odds.

I think this is an important realization, and something a lot of people don't think about. It's why I don't get too excited with the term Fair Chase.

 

[shrapnel]

Let him run. I don’t see this becoming a mainstream hunting pursuit. It is better than the guy that wanted to set up a rifle in a tower and have people manipulate the rifle from a computer at home and shoot a deer.

 

[COEngineer]

How’s this different from hunting with hounds?

Serious question, would not this fall within the same ethical area.

I don't know much about hound hunting, but I think, at least with lions, the intent is to get the lion to climb a tree, not chase it for hours. The tracking part might take hours, but how often is the cat running for hours?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't know much about hound hunting, but I think, at least with lions, the intent is to get the lion to climb a tree, not chase it for hours. The tracking part might take hours, but how often is the cat running for hours?

Bottom line for me, it seems that we have decided that Long bows -> Bolt Action rifles with medium power scopes used via spot and stalk hunting is the only universal accepted “ethical” method of hunting. Hounds, trapping, spears, darts, atalatals, bait, aiming assist rifles, slingshots, dear drives, blinds, elk calls, electronic calls, etc etc are all either too efficacious or not enough depending on where you live and how you like to hunt. All of these are illegal methods in some US jurisdiction.

Even methods within the bow to rifle continuum, crossbow, pistol, air rifle, spurn a lot of IMHO warrant less “ethics” debates.

In my mind this is 100% ethical and very much in line with other hunting methods.

Now that being said, there are obvious and important regional restrictions on methods of take.

Adding new methods, that would decrease opportunities for others is a valid and important argument, as is the argument of over harvest.

My comments have not been, oh this guy is on to something, but rather as a singular event I don’t take issue with it, similar to my opinion on the guy who killed the bear with a spear in Canada. That dude was a tool, and I think spear hunting maybe shooting holes in the hunting boat, so it should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean in my mind it’s unethical.

 

[COEngineer]

Bottom line for me, it seems that we have decided that Long bows -> Bolt Action rifles with medium power scopes used via spot and stalk hunting is the only universal accepted “ethical” method of hunting. Hounds, trapping, spears, darts, atalatals, bait, aiming assist rifles, slingshots, dear drives, blinds, elk calls, electronic calls, etc etc are all either too efficacious or not enough depending on where you live and how you like to hunt. All of these are illegal methods in some US jurisdiction.

Even methods within the bow to rifle continuum, crossbow, pistol, air rifle, spurn a lot of IMHO warrant less “ethics” debates.

In my mind this is 100% ethical and very much in line with other hunting methods.

Now that being said, there are obvious and important regional restrictions on methods of take.

Adding new methods, that would decrease opportunities for others is a valid and important argument, as is the argument of over harvest.

My comments have not been, oh this guy is on to something, but rather as a singular event I don’t take issue with it, similar to my opinion on the guy who killed the bear with a spear in Canada. That dude was a tool, and I think spear hunting maybe shooting holes in the hunting boat, so it should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean in my mind it’s unethical.

Almost all of the other things you listed at least have a chance of killing the animal quickly - running it to death is intended to maximize the suffering. I don't understand how you are lumping them all together.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Almost all of the other things you listed at least have a chance of killing the animal quickly - running it to death is intended to maximize the suffering. I don't understand how you are lumping them all together.

“Almost”

All of the various ethical issue pointed out here have are primary arguments used by anti hunters for most methods.

I believe this is a case of gross misuse of the term ethical in order to promote ones preferences.

Again not a tacit enforcement, just saying I think the arguments should be reframed.

I can’t ethically rationalize running an animal into the ground any more than I can the pain i cause one with a weapon, I’ve run 20+ miles before, at the end of that run a toddler could have beat me up pretty sure it would be ridiculous to compare that fatigue to the pain cushman felt when he got shot.

I don’t consider gross muscle fatigue to be unconscionable suffering.

 

[rwc101]

Appeal to motive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[COEngineer]

I’ve run 20+ miles before

This argument doesn't hold water for me either. 20 miles of running for fun is hardly comparable to being chased by a predator.

 

[TOGIE]

i'm really struggling with the claim being made here that the goal of persistence hunting is to maximize suffering

it just sounds like an overly biased emotional appeal


i'm also struggling to imagine that an antelope is gripped with fear that one cant' imagine during this process

buck: yo dude, you see that thing trotting at us?

other buck: oh yeah, that's weird, let's just jog over that hill, no biggie, it's like a half mile away and barely moving

20 minutes later....

buck: frick, that thing is there again, let's jog over that next hill

other buck: so annoying, okay

i know we can't anthropomorphize animals, but whatever

a dude jogging that for the most part never gets more than a half mile from a group of antelope is a little different than a pack of wolves sprinting and nipping at the butt of an elk for the better part of an hour

 

[COEngineer]

a dude jogging that for the most part never gets more than a half mile from a group of antelope is a little different than a pack of wolves sprinting and nipping at the butt of an elk for the better part of an hour

That's a fair point. There are degrees of terror.

 

[TOGIE]

That's a fair point. There are degrees of terror.

and i won't sit here and try to claim that persistence hunting does not produce more fear in the antelope than a "traditional" bow or rifle hunt on pronghorn

but to the point where it seems this animal is experiencing an extreme and unnecessary terror that becomes unethical is not resonating with me (or perhaps i'm putting words in peoples mouthes)


further, i'd like to elaborate on why i think to state that the goal of persistence hunting is to maximize suffering is problematic in my mind

for starters, all hunting involves suffering, and all the different methods of take involve varying degrees of suffering. some may or may not feel okay with all methods of take due to this, and may disagree with them. but as hunters in the boat would not go so far as to say it should be outlawed. that's a very respectful take on the situation in my book

but to call out persistence hunting as a method of take in which the goal is to maximize suffering misses the mark. if i were to put on my "anti hunting hat" i could draw a similarity and say as an anti hunter that "the goal of hunting is to needlessly bring suffering to animals and enjoy it"....... doesn't that totally miss the mark of what hunting is to all of us?

if you break it down, it's true, hunting does bring suffering to animals, can't escape it. is it needless? in a modern era where food acquisition is no longer necessary by these means then perhaps it is needless.

do i enjoy it? yes i do enjoy hunting. is it fair to characterize that i enjoy the suffering of the animal, it's sticky. yes i enjoy hunting greatly, do i enjoy the suffering of an animal that's just been shot? .... no, not really. do i feel great joy at seeing the animal showing signs of expiring meaning that i've successfully harvested? absolutely. such a sticky area.

so much more nuance to hunting in it's entirety that i feel it unfair to characterize persistence hunting as an activity in which the purpose is to "maximize the suffering of the animal" - to me it has to lead down the parallel path of a similarly unfair question which would be "isn't the goal of hunting to cause suffering to an animal?" which we know is a really complicated question that is unfair to ask about hunting without understanding the nuances of hunting itself. but it is a question we must all reconcile if we are to even begin to hunt with good conscience, because at the end of the day in an unfairly distilled manner, our goal is to cause an animal to suffer to the point of death.

but if an anti hunter were to start their argument with me that my goal as a hunter is to needlessly harm animals and cause them suffering, there is barely any point in trying to have that conversation. it's a non starter borne of a lack of nuance and totality of understanding what something is all about. it reeks of bias that can't reasoned with.

and not in an attempt to inflame, i find the argument that persistence hunting's goal is to maximize suffering comes from a similar tone of bias.

notwithstanding the fact the i'm struggling to see the degree of suffering here that some others may see

 

[COEngineer]

for starters, all hunting involves suffering

I think we have to start here. I do not agree with this statement. I have seen more than a few animals that never knew what happened - with arrows and bullets. You cannot say that about persistence hunting. Yes, I have seen animals suffer due to poorly aimed shots and even well-aimed shots, but the suffering was not intentional.

 

[TOGIE]

I think we have to start here. I do not agree with this statement. I have seen more than a few animals that never knew what happened - with arrows and bullets. You cannot say that about persistence hunting. Yes, I have seen animals suffer due to poorly aimed shots and even well-aimed shots, but the suffering was not intentional.

also a fair point

but, in a little bit of devils advocate manner, and also just to dig into it, when do we have to call hunting unethical?

if we don't place a perfect bullet that nearly instantaneously kills the animal did we just act unethically? but it wasn't intentional. but you did pull the trigger, that was extremely intentional. but i didn't mean to hit it there! but you pulled the trigger, and maybe you should've practiced more. so was it intentional? was it unethical?

these things happen way more with bows, way more with muzzleloaders. is the higher propensity of suffering thereby unethical in these methods of take? some may argue yes and perhaps have a point

yeesh, what about trapping? beavers drowning after maybe just having their leg snapped by a trap, and sometimes having to have this happen for 24 hours before you can finish something off.

in the realm of suffering, i personally would tentatively place a persistence hunt just below bow and muzzleloader, but way above trapping

in the fair chase realm? IMO bear baiting can barely register on the most-fair-chase-graph in comparison. likewise with high precision long range hunting.

i guess what i see here is a persistence hunt is a mixed bag. and doesn't necessarily fall on the top or bottom of any category of "ethics" in my mind. thereby it doesn't stand out in the realm of things that worry me as far as ethics is concerned. some may view the suffering category way higher, and that's not a wrong opinion but i don't see it.

overall, i think there are many practices in hunting that are far more worrisome as far as ethics are concerned. people may not find this guy's approach to be their cup of tea, but i would argue it's not a good path to go down to call him unethical

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

people may not find this guy's approach to be their cup of tea, but i would argue it's not a good path to go down to call him unethical

To play the devils advocate as well, would it be different ethical-wise if he chased the antelope down on an atv?

 

[TOGIE]

To play the devils advocate as well, would it be different ethical-wise if he chased the antelope down on an atv?

i hope we don't all end up advocating for the devil

part of my answer would be that i doubt it would be legal to do so, if for no other reason than illegal off of approved road ohv use.

but assuming it was legal and even possible and leaving suffering out of the equation, to me that falls into a fair chase question. a man chasing animals under his own power ranks way higher on my personal ethics scale than using a machine to do.

how much more fear would an atv bring into the equation? more of a wolves nipping at the elks butt scenario. under perfect circumstances i imagine a bit of a steer wrastlin scenario more than anything else. could certainly be wildly entertaining

uh oh, did i just bring the ethics of rodeos to the table?

 

[Wildabeest]

To play the devils advocate as well, would it be different ethical-wise if he chased the antelope down on an atv?

I’d submit that the suffering of the predator needs to also be taken into account in these kinds of dilemmas. To me, the more that the suffering is shared between predator and prey, the more “fair” the chase is, which thus impacts how I’d assess the ethics. None of it is black and white, but rather many shades of gray.

I’ve really enjoyed the discussion on this and the various viewpoints.

 

[Pucky Freak]

This persistence antelope hunter is not running antelope down to the point of exhaustion. He is trying to induce heat stroke. His attempts to date likely haven’t caused much suffering at all among those antelope. “I can do this all day long, human.” Both exhaustion and heat stroke are suffering so maybe the distinction is moot.

@COEngineer I disagree with the premise that the weapons we use don’t intend to cause much suffering. They cause much suffering as a function of our promotion of fair chase, decreased efficiency, and desire to harvest the meat. There are endless kinds of other methods we could imagine that would minimize suffering, but it’s illegal to use them. We are stuck with balancing the intentional suffering we induce whenever we promote other aims.