Thursday, May 22, 2008

for the chickens' sake . . .

Reynard, slaughtered in conformance to the law:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/environmental-conservation/ENV011-0523_11-0523.html

§ 11-0523. Destructive or menacing wildlife; taking without permit.
6. Raccoons, coyotes or fox injuring private property may be taken by
the owner, occupant or lessee thereof, or an employee or family member
of such owner, occupant or lessee, at any time in any manner.

in memory of our chickens and our neighbor's chickens. at 92 yards by range finder from the kids' upstairs bedroom window. sporting? ethical? discuss.

chicken-killing Reynard meets his demise

7 comments:

Ernie said...

Very sporting and totaly ethical I must say. I don't read in the regs about pond bank destroying muskrats. Are they open game as well?

KGT said...

In my mind,not particularly sporting. (didn't set out to fool a fox by calling, or hunting fox "out there" but instead ambushed said dead fox in the yard. Sort of like the occasional goose I plink above my house flying over. Not particularly sporting, but full of utility.

The utility, though, of predator control for a Jeffersonian gentleman farmer is not lost on me. That makes it perfectly ethical in my mind, but optimal "live off the land/don't waste the resource" gestalt dictates one does not waste the pelt.

On my farm, the only thing permitted to be shot and thrown away are starlings. I tell my sports who hunt here, if you shoot a fox or coyote, you are going to have to do something with it. Otherwise, don't shoot it.

"We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
Aldo speaketh

Nice shot.

Ernie said...

Keith,
You had better read through the regs again, or at least the first time. 11-0523 1 states "may take (a) unprotected wildlife other than birds, and (b) starlings, common crows" etc. While you can through them away on your farm, away as you indicate, the taking/ possesion appears to be in violation as I read this. That would then come under the heading of both non-sporting and definatly non-ethical!

Grousers' Jim Tantillo said...

Keith,
you should also read the regs on the "waste not, want not" issue:

section 9 states,

"9. Varying hares, cottontail rabbits, skunks, black, grey and fox squirrels, raccoons, opossums or weasels taken pursuant to this section in the closed season or in a manner not permitted by section 11-0901 shall be immediately buried or cremated. No person shall possess or traffic in such skunks or raccoons or the pelts thereof or in such varying hares or cottontail rabbits or the flesh thereof."

burial or cremation. those are the options, although I suppose that because foxes are not mentioned specifically, ideally, yes, I should save the pelt.

But until I can get that crappy .223 CZ (that Yeoman talked me into buying, heh heh) (just kidding Yeoman) shooting straight, I'm stuck with my tack-driving, Vulpes vulpes-shoulder-shattering Tikka .243 as my primary fox-getting gun.

sporting? not so much.

ethical? clean one-shot kill.

discuss

KGT said...

Ernie...read em again. ...MAY take (a)unprotected wildlife other than birds and (b) starlings, common crows
and, subject to section 11-0513, pigeons, when such wildlife is injuring their property or has become a nuisance thereon.

Very clearly MAY take starlings, and I do, regularly.

Jim,

Good point on the technicality...I stand by my "preference" to save the fox pelt. Other pelts out of season, pick your ashes or dust.

I should have clarified that my farm edicts about waste not want not and the choice to shoot predator varmints applies during hunting season.

Both for utility and for the clean shot, I have no issue with your ethics. Save the chickens and the eggs, in whatever order makes sense to you, fellow omnivore full of agency.
;)

As to the gun, remember the drilling I spoke of when last you visited Canoga? It has arrived. Thing of beauty.

Miss you around grousers HQ...Rice Hall ain't the same without the huffing sounds of philosophy.

Alex Metcalf said...

What makes "your" life form (chicken) more important/worthy of living than another (fox)? If the balance is tipped in any one's favor, should the species we breed and train, the one that can't live without help, be the one that dies before the crafty, smart, opportunistic predator making a thin living off the land?

Oh, and I'd have shot the damn thing, too.

Grousers' Jim Tantillo said...

Alex,
I have a fairly chicken-centric worldview. So it's no problem for me to be a speciesist in this way. Radical animal egalitarians have it tougher, I suppose.
jt