I can't think of any way for most (I repeat, most) wild animals to die in nature that isn't far more brutal than what we do. Only a very few will die of a heart attack in their sleep. The rest will die of starvation, disease or injury most of which will take days or weeks to kill the animal.
I have put down many critters from pigs to coyotes with a .22, I switched to a .45 years ago for domestic animals. I use a blow to the head for coyotes followed by cardiac compression and I feel this is a better way to dispatch coyotes than the 22 to the brain. If they move when you shoot or if you miss by as little as a 1/2" it can make a big difference. Domistic animals usually will stand still for you and allow you approach very closely. For coyotes and fox, I control their head with my catch pole and then deliver the blow, followed by the cardiac compression. Death is very swift and there is no thrashing or any of the other things that occur with a shot to the head. I will use acetone for skunks, there is too much info supporting it to ignore it. Just my 2 cents worth.
Dan

Guys, I know the antis are watching,I believe the general public could care less about what method is used just as long as it is preceived as humane,is a bullet to the head any more painless than blunt force trauma, I doubt it,but it isnt precieved as such, so it must be awful as for chemical injection, just stay within the law.

Lets face it death is a part of our trade and you can't please everyone, and every trapper may not use the same dispatch method, but all methods dicussed in this thread I believe are quick and humane, just a matter of personal choice.

My opinion is that there is no difference in shooting, clubbing, drowner rig, needle in lungs or whatever. I say do what you got to do to get the job done. My old trapper neighbor puts a stick behind their neck, stands on it and lifts the tail until the neck snaps.( smaller animals ) I have seen him do it and it is just as quick as anything else. For me there is no emotion in the process. I have a job to to and I do it.

For me it is the question weather the suggestions being made will achive what I consider acceptable,rapid unconsiousness followed by death.

A gunshot wound or blunt force to the brain certainly qualify,aphixiation with felines,blunt force followed by chest compression for small k-9's,drowning for species associated with water.Work for me.

Lung shots for coyotes and skunks meet my criteria.As there are no governing regulations that I know of,I rely on my experiences and some thought as to what that lung shot actualy does to come to that conclusion.With a good lung shot the brain is going to be deprived of the blood it needs to function in a rapid manner resulting in what to me is a humane death.

The injection of various and sundry compounds,where I know nothing of what there affects are just leave me cold.There is no way I could justifly there use.There are injectable compounds designed to do what we want.Not all of us can obtain them,such is life.There are those among us that cannot legally use a pistol or revolver or other firearm because of circumstance or age.I wouldn't advocate the use of unacceptable methods to them because of that limitation either.

Every hunter in the woods aims for the heart and lungs. Thats standard and quick and human. Trappers go for the head shot to save the hide. Whats the difference?

What scares me is there are people out there that will put anything in a injector to try and see if it works.
One post I read, said something like, " I found this can of old stuff in the shed do you
think it will work" Now that's where I draw the line.....

There should be approved legalized chemicals only..
This is just my opinion, I may be wrong.....

I agree w/ predator145

I need to correct my previous post about the use of acetone. I used the wrong word . Testimonials is the word I should have used instead of information. I also have it from a experienced ADC guy that it works very well. If they don't squirt it must work good. That is the logic I am going with.
Dan

I will use blunt force trauma to the brain on smaller animals such as rats and mink(with the exception of possums where I will sometimes use dislocation of the neck/spinal column). Pretty much everything else is dispacthed with a .22 short to the brain.... Good job Hal for discussing this subject. I think it needs to be addressed. Espically for new trappers.

Good topic and yes controversial...my take...I believe that the VMA or AVA needs to further research our "dispatch" methods and consider the TRAPPERS situation. My guess is there are many methods that haven't been tested. I personally have never read a document from anyone or organization that detailed time of death using injected acetone as a killing agent on skunks...is there any research on this effective method?
Any method used to kill animals will be looked at scornfully by protectionist organizations. Trappers must use discretion in the field to avoid possible problems. As mentioned before the killing of the trapped animal is never enjoyable..just a necessity.

To be "humane", the actions to kill the animal (dispatch, euthanise or whatever) should be, as far as practicable, the most humane possible.

Now what that means is that it renders the animal unconscious as quickly as possible (preferably immediately) so that the animal feels no pain, and death should follow while the animal is unconscious.

The method used should also be repeatable i.e. it can be done over and over without fault.

The method should also be the least traumatic to others (eg bystanders). i.e. blowing a small animals brains all over the countryside with an elephant rifle is not acceptable, nor is running over it with the car etc, etc.

Getting back to the term "as far as practicable", what I see this doing is being adequately prepared, trained and equiped for the task. Not having the right equipment is not, in itself, a defense if it could have been forseen that the situation would present itself that, say for example, you caught something bigger in the trap (eg a coyote)that you needed to dispach and only had equipment to kill a rabbit.

Shooting in the chest is generally not as "humane" as a brain shot, so IMO it should be used only where a more humane method is not possible or practicable.

What is "humane" is often described in legislation. It is commonly defined as "causing unnecessary pain or suffering". This puts the onus on YOU to select the most appropriate method which complies with this definition. Recently here, someone shot their sick dog in the backyard with a crossbow and their "defense" was that they didnt have injectable drugs used by a vet to euthanise the dog. Is that "humane"?

The use of injectable chemicals has been raised with me before. IMO, if it is not tried and tested, legal, or conforms to industry "best practice", then it is hardly likely to be humane.

Like Hal, I will also play the devil's advocate and say here that if you cannot do it properly, are not equiped with the knowledge, skills, and equipment to euthanise an animal in the most humane way possible, then dont do it!
Mike