My opinion about shooting animals in places other than the brain: I feel a coyote (or smaller animal) shot through the heart/lung area with a .22LR or .22 Magnum at "close-range", could be compared to shooting a 125 pound deer with a .243 at 200 yards. Assuming the heart/lungs are "damaged" equally, rapid blood loss should cause their brains to stop functioning, I feel that's acceptable. As a rule I dispatch my trapped land-animals with a .22 shot to the brain.

I have "needled" several skunks. I used a type of acetone/paint-thinner, it worked good. Is it more or less "humane" than the stuff vets us to put dogs and cats "to sleep"? One thing we need to look at as trappers, the DMV has his hands on the animal, and can feel it's heart-beat, breaths, and can part the hair to make a precise injection. Where I'm using a syringe on a 4 foot long pole, on a "wild" animal with 2 inches of fur. Big difference.

Dont have much to offer here on this subject, as I use different manners in different circumstances and Im not a fur trapper persay as most of you folk.

The acetone deal from another site was brought on from a arrest made of someone utilizing this method on skunks and got busted for it....that was the reasoning of not discussing it over there. I do not know this first hand but just the info from the sites owner.

I still use a overdose of ketamine to euthinize beaver in someones back yard in town cought in snares. Shooting is illegal and blunt force trauma is unethical in this scenario and caging a snared beaver is a pain the butt.

Foxes are done the old fashion way when I am fur trapping.......a wack on the bridge of the nose and then chest compressions.

Cats are always choked down.....

my question is who decides if its humane. If i use the vet bought stuff (which already discussed hard to get) and the skunk dies in 30 seconds and i use the unapproved acetone and it dies in 15 seconds, which do i use? We have to be realisic about what is available to us and then its up to us to be responsible enough to use what we feel is the most humane, but i'll tell you what, if someone showed me a legal substance that killed a skunk right as the needle touched him and that substance wasn't on the "approved humane list", if it kills the quickest, it IS the most humane for me and thats what i'll use.

Now on the subject of whether it should be talked openly about. I'll admit, there are things that do not need to be discussed in public and or a web site, but we do kill animals. I think instead of turning tail and running as to not offend mr. joe tree hugger, we have to defend our stance. dont be stupid about it, but defend it. as long as you are trapping animals, you are going to have to kill them. we can't make er sound any prettier. Please keep in mind i'm still talking about being smart. not the uneducated first year trapper telling stories in the coffee shop about how he kills his animals. If someone doesn't want to hear about killing animals, than any method we use described in great detail is going to offend them.

Tried and true, best practice, render the animal rapidly (instantly) unconscious, least offensive, legal; this seems like a good list to work from. "As far as practical" is one of those wiggle phrases to allow one to chose among several options that fit within the aforementioned list (said list is not necessarily complete). I suggest that any method for dispatching a critter should be considered in conjunction with the list before it is used. If you don't know what is happening / how it works you probably should find out before you use.

On another note, how many can accurately diagram the exact position of the heart / lungs of a animal from four different angles; for the sake of this discussion lets say to within the area of a needle point? (Don't forget these diagrams need be in three dimensions so you get the correct length needle.) And, when you miss the target organ, precisely where does the chemical go and what effect does it have on the neighboring tissue? How do you know this effect?

"when you miss the target organ.."

Tom, I believe I could closely parallel your argument analogizing the heart/lung shot with a bullet. (Which is exactly why I introduced it into the discussion. ) My question to you now is -- should injectors be more responsible for making the accurate determinations you have suggested than shooters? Or, do you think that shooting an animal through the heart/lungs is not a viable means of dispatch?

-- Hal

for larger animals a 22 short behind the ear alot less blood, for smaller animals like mink, muskrat a short blow behind the head, i don't like lung shots for larger amimals because of the large amounts of blood on the fur and the mess skinning one.

Now we are getting to the issues!

When I said that it is repeatable, that means without missing! Humane is doing it best every time. not some times!

"Humane" means "best method" (minimising pain or suffering). Not less blood, or a "bit quicker".
Mike

Sorry, "humane" does not mean "best method". Humane, in this context, means alleviation of suffering. I should remind everyone at this point that many people consider the act of trapping an animal an "inhumane" act, so obviously there is a lot of wiggle room in this definition.

Furthermore "best" implies a single ultimate method which results in the most "humane" dispatch. A very easy way to basically eliminate fur trapping would be to require that all animals captured in traps be euthanized in a carbon dioxide chamber -- should that be determined to be the "best" method.

And Mike said: "Not less blood, or a "bit quicker".

Frankly, I don't see how a quicker means of dispatch could be less humane, but maybe I'm not reading that right. However I can equate that to the CO2 chamber VS a bullet to the brain. It would not be as quick to take an animal out of the trap and euthanize it in CO2 chamber as it would be to shoot it. Frankly, I'm going to come down on the side of expediency, and shoot the critter.

Also, there are strong arguments for using methods that allow less fluids to escape from the animal's body. Take the skunk, which has become the bone of contention in this debate. Shooting a skunk in the brain will cause it to spray virtually every time. A skunk that has sprayed is terribly unpleasant to handle -- to the point that an argument could be made for simply disposing of the entire skunk. So, if we are concerned about utilizing the resource, and I think we should be, then the argument can be made that a viable means of dispatch is one that results in the skunk not spraying.

These issues surrounding dispatch are not cut and dried.

-- Hal

I could not agree more!

I dispatch with a lung / heart shot in certain occasions; so yes I believe heart lung shots are viable. I shoot 95% of the animals I dispatch and I'll be the first to admit that I dispatch few animals smaller than a bobcat or coyote; my target area is relatively large.

To answer the specific question on "injectors"; yes, they must be more precise than shooters...they are delivering a chemical into a specific cavity, while a shooter is passing a projectile through an area...three dimensional consideration as opposed to a two dimensional. Shooting (lung / heart) kills by massive and rapid hemorrhaging or destruction of the heart both of which result in loss of blood flow to the brain. The lungs / heart is “blood flow rich” and the “area” is relatively large albeit “hidden” more so than the ear. In addition shooters have options of bullet type etc that can maximize the tissue damage thereby facilitating bleed out. But I would not dwell on this issue and completely accept that users of either must be equally deliberate in their actions.

I’ll speculate a bit and suggest that acetone kills by asphyxiation when delivered into the lungs. This is probably very fast an effective. However there are two issues that I think should be considered: what are the effects of the chemical when it is not delivered into the lungs? Faster? Slower? Discomfort? Until someone can document these effects I contend that promotion of injection of solvents is flawed. Too many unknowns, too much room for error and one more “free shot” for those that would end trapping.

The second issue lies in the fact that federal law precludes acetone for this use; the use of all chemicals is governed by regulation established by the EPA. By promoting injection of acetone, regardless of if it works or not, is promoting the unauthorized use of the chemical. Is this in the best interest of trapping, trappers or the animals we trap?

"…use of all chemicals is governed by regulation established by the EPA."

Are you sure you want to go there? Is dipping traps an approved use for gasoline?

Now, I have a question that needs to be cleared up before I go any farther. Above "ketamine" has been described as a euthanizing agent. Is the placement of this chemical into the animals body less critical?

-- Hal