A day out ratting

footman · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:02

Tefal said:
iirc almost all "hunters/predators" have the instinct to kill as quickly as possible, not out of ethics but because killing slowly risks injury, the prey escaping, or something else coming along and nicking your dinner.

Yes true, but I was referring to humans.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:05

footman said:
Yes true, but I was referring to humans.

yeah i was just pointing out that it's not a specific "human" instinct just a general predatory instinct.

Humane is more about just being kind/caring towards others, not so much just killing them quickly.

Rainmaker · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:11

A true countryman/sportsman/hunter will ALWAYS do his or her utmost to ensure as humane a death as possible for their quarry. That's not in dispute; it's the reason my rabbits get 'chinned' and my birds are shot. What seems to be in dispute is what actually constitutes 'humane'.

For some, nothing short of leaving all the vermin alone to proliferate in peace would suffice. For most, the act of not leaving them half dead in a trap or slowly bleeding out internally from poison, is humane enough. I'm with the latter camp.

sunama · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:13

-Ad- said:
I for one should be lynched as I have a mouse trap that just traps the mouse inside then he starves/ becomes de-hyrated to death..... O THE HORROR

LOL

We used to have some big rats walking around our house in India, like they owned the damn place. It got so bad that sometimes our family were watching the telly, with all the lights on and a rat would walk passed us.

Large rat traps were deployed and one by one these brave rodents were getting caught, having hot water poured over them till they died and then their bodies were disposed of.

Unfortunately, because our rat problem was so bad, we couldnt afford to have the rat simply starve to death.

I know this sounds odd coming from me, given that I hate rats, but even I would feel that it was a little cruel to starve the rat to death. Hot water usually killed the rat in less than 30 seconds.

sunama · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:15

danza said:
Since when was it un PC to kill rats?

Are you suggesting that we're not far off supplying them with jobs and housing with benefits?

Lol.

Some people in this thread would probably think housing the rats, with jobs and benefits would be the right thing to do.

It makes me wonder if these people who adore rats, have ever had (uninvited) rats run riot in their homes?

Rainmaker · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:17

sunama said:
It makes me wonder if these people who adore rats, have ever had (uninvited) rats run riot in their homes?

In the vast majority of cases, they'd be the first to put down poison and/or call pest control to deal with them. Oh the ironing.

Topper · 2 Feb 2009 at 11:59

Its not really the dispatching of a few rats and possibly in some way helping the already natural process of keeping the rat population at a reasonable level (predation, famine, disease etc) that bothers me, its posting pictures of it on a forum. If you caught a salmon and posted a pic most people would say "oh, nice fish" and presumably you'd release it or keep it for eating. Fair play, thats fine. Chasing wild animals with dogs and watching them kill those animals then posting a pic is just wrong. You are not going to eat them (are you?) (nothing wrong with rat meat apparently) you are just killing something and justifiying it by calling them vermin. If a population gets a massive food injection, that population will grow and become a serious problem. A few rats in a feild? Not the same is it.

platinum87 · 2 Feb 2009 at 12:01

Rainmaker said:
A true countryman/sportsman/hunter will ALWAYS do his or her utmost to ensure as humane a death as possible for their quarry. That's not in dispute; it's the reason my rabbits get 'chinned' and my birds are shot. What seems to be in dispute is what actually constitutes 'humane'.

total nonsense, if you hunt you wound your prey with your gun, and then you finish it off with a knife, the only exception would be if they prey is dangerous, i.e. a bear etc.

I participated in a deer hunt, where they guy shot it in the leg, then went to slit its throat, while it was trying to struggle, i believe it passed out in about 4-5 seconds.

=VTA=MANFACE · 2 Feb 2009 at 12:01

Cindy has nice teeth.

So does Meg.

Rats don't stand a chance.

Rainmaker · 2 Feb 2009 at 12:17

platinum87 said:
total nonsense, if you hunt you wound your prey with your gun, and then you finish it off with a knife, the only exception would be if they prey is dangerous, i.e. a bear etc.

I participated in a deer hunt, where they guy shot it in the leg, then went to slit its throat, while it was trying to struggle, i believe it passed out in about 4-5 seconds.

Eh?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Why would you intentionally wound an animal with a gun of all things, just to slit its throat? It sounds like whomever you went deer stalking with was a rather terrible marksman. You do NOT intentionally shoot things in the leg just so you can slit their throats. A deer (or pretty much anything else) should be taken down with a head shot, or else a heart/lung shot. Then and only then would you bleed it out and dress it.

Bubo · 2 Feb 2009 at 12:43

sunama said:
I know this sounds odd coming from me, given that I hate rats, but even I would feel that it was a little cruel to starve the rat to death. Hot water usually killed the rat in less than 30 seconds.

I think most people, and probably most rats, if given the choice of either being boiled alive, taking a minimum 30 seconds to die as you say, or any other form of death which does not invlove prolonged excrutiating pain, most would choose the least painful death. I see the pro rat-death lot in this thread seem to use the fact that a dog will pretty much instantly kill a rat as a means of saying how to them it is a humane way of killing a rat, whereas you seem to have got off scott free for admitting to boiling an animal to death. "Usually 30 seconds" is by no means a quick death. Didn't you have spades in india? Cricket bat surely. Boiling something to death seems to be one of the most bizzare methods of killing something available unless you are a lobster and are going to be eaten afterwards.

Chimerical · 2 Feb 2009 at 12:47

Bubo said:
I think most people, and probably most rats, if given the choice of either being boiled alive, taking a minimum 30 seconds to die as you say, or any other form of death which does not invlove prolonged excrutiating pain, most would choose the least painful death. I see the pro rat-death lot in this thread seem to use the fact that a dog will pretty much instantly kill a rat as a means of saying how to them it is a humane way of killing a rat, whereas you seem to have got off scott free for admitting to boiling an animal to death. "Usually 30 seconds" is by no means a quick death. Didn't you have spades in india? Cricket bat surely. Boiling something to death seems to be one of the most bizzare methods of killing something available unless you are a lobster and are going to be eaten afterwards.

Agreed, 30 seconds boiling to death is a pretty nasty way to go. Lobsters are supposed to die much quicker than that.

Moley · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:02

Topper said:
Chasing wild animals with dogs and watching them kill those animals then posting a pic is just wrong.

Why? You may find it distasteful but that doesn't make it wrong.
I find a lot of things distasteful but don't try to tell other people they are wrong.

You are not going to eat them (are you?) (nothing wrong with rat meat apparently) you are just killing something and justifiying it by calling them vermin.

Well that statement is quite revealing isn't it? Seems that you think people need to justify killing rats by labelling them as something they are not.

Do you really think rats are not vermin?

Spie · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:19

Rats are vermin. Look at the diseases they carry - http://www.ratbehavior.org/WildRatDisease.htm

platinum87 · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:30

Rainmaker said:
Eh? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Why would you intentionally wound an animal with a gun of all things, just to slit its throat? It sounds like whomever you went deer stalking with was a rather terrible marksman. You do NOT intentionally shoot things in the leg just so you can slit their throats. A deer (or pretty much anything else) should be taken down with a head shot, or else a heart/lung shot. Then and only then would you bleed it out and dress it.

my point is that you should use a gun to wound the animal, and then close in for the kill with a knife, and he certainly didnt miss.

^TANK^ · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:38

platinum87 said:
total nonsense, if you hunt you wound your prey with your gun, and then you finish it off with a knife, the only exception would be if they prey is dangerous, i.e. a bear etc.

I participated in a deer hunt, where they guy shot it in the leg, then went to slit its throat, while it was trying to struggle, i believe it passed out in about 4-5 seconds.

You obviously went with amateurs

, head shots are a must! with the appropriate caliber to do the job.

^TANK^ · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:40

Spie said:
Rats are vermin. Look at the diseases they carry - http://www.ratbehavior.org/WildRatDisease.htm

Humans can carry diseases whats your point :confused:

.

Rainmaker · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:40

platinum87 said:
my point is that you should use a gun to wound the animal, and then close in for the kill with a knife, and he certainly didnt miss.

Everyone I know uses a gun to kill things. Intentionally wounding is the worst thing you can do and should be avoided at all costs. What happens if (when) you wound/maim the animal and it escapes, only to die a protracted death of infection or blood loss? Exactly how much fieldsports experience do you have, out of interest?

EDIT: Your 'friend' didn't miss the deer, but he certainly missed what he SHOULD have shot (heart/lungs).

^TANK^ · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:41

Rainmaker said:
Everyone I know uses a gun to kill things. Intentionally wounding is the worst thing you can do and should be avoided at all costs. What happens if (when) you wound/maim the animal and it escapes, only to die a protracted death of infection or blood loss? Exactly how much fieldsports experience do you have, out of interest?

I honestly think he doesn't give a ****.

Knubje · 2 Feb 2009 at 13:42

Interesting topic which is always going to bring out the complete extreme opinions in the spectrum; the hippies and the bloodsport/hunting crowd

I'm not one for animal cruelty and do agree with animal rights. I love all animals domesticated and working. I love wild animals that don't cause us problems in terms of health and sanitation. I also appreciate that some animals aren't kept well in order to feed us, but hey, we are lucky enough to be sheltered from the more gruseome aspects. If we had to go back to basics I'm sure I could slaughter a pig/chicken/cow in order to feed myself/family.

So going on to the whole Rat issue. These are wild rats, known for spreading disease and a "pest". I'm sure if you were living 600/700 years ago when the Bubonic Plague wiped out 1/4 of the World/Europe(?)'s population, you probably wouldn't grumble if some guy posted a thread (likely

) saying he'd killed a load of rats.

I for one don't see the issue with the OP. If might be considered barbaric and inhumane, but they are just rats. More of a nuisance than anything else, didn't belong to anyone and had no specific purpose other than the usual "being vermin".

It's not like he went out into a field of fluffy kittens and started a mass kitten genocide.

I don't see what the fuss is about really

I wouldn't do it myself but I also wouldn't feel the need to clamber on my moral high horse and start spouting crap about animal cruelty on a controlled animal.

A day out ratting

Godfather