Hammer/club/steel bar experts advise please!

[skysthelimit]

I have yet to have a rabbit scream. My rabbits put up more of a struggle just getting out of the cage than they do during dispatch. The swing is so swift and final, only needs to be done ONCE, and there is very little jerking. Nor have I ever had a rabbit jerk while hung. Faster than the broomstick method. There will be no guns in this house, so this is as humane as it gets.

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

If were going to shoot it I wouldn't use a pellet gun, unless it was one bad pellet gun. A .22 would be my choice.

Somehow I missed this til right now.

First off, I always "over-pump" my pellet gun. I basically pump it until I cannot any longer. I tested that against a two-by-four left over from another project, and it punched through it like a hot knife through butter, and that was with a regular little pellet. For the rabbits I use pellets made specifically for hunting...they're spikey little things that are pretty nasty.

I think maybe you thought by pellet gun I meant a BB gun?

I chose the pellet gun because it is quiet and has no "kick." I started in a neighborhood where keeping rabbits for meat is not allowed (yeah I know, I'm a "bad" fellow lol, right? ) so using anything loud was out of the question, and even as quiet as my .22 is, it would be heard by the neighbors. I also don't want a rifle report spooking the rabbits that have yet to be slaughtered...today I dropped a steel bowl while moving my buck to another cage, and some of my rabbits panicked, running in circles or smacking into the back or sides of the cage. I had to spend a few minutes offering alfalfa and BOSS before they'd calm down. No way would they calmly accept the sound of a rifle! I wanted no kick because that removes the possibility of "flinching," which would ruin my aim and possibly cause a bad shot.

Now if I was HUNTING for rabbits, I wouldn't use the pellet gun...it doesn't have much range and has only iron sights. But at close range I feel it is just as lethal and effective as a larger, more powerful weapon.

EVENTUALLY I would like to have a Wringer, but that just isn't in my budget right now. So long as the rabbit is rendered unconscious instantly with no stress to the other rabbits, I am content.

 

[Happy]

I think maybe you thought by pellet gun I meant a BB gun?

No. you had already said that you have actually killed rabbits with it before. I already know that a Red Ryder is too weak to shoot your eye out.

Sounds like you have one bad pellet gun, but it doesn't change my open advice to avoid them in general. You can always switch to a framing hammer, that's what I did when I was in town, and it's worked well enough that I don't think I'll stop, despite being 7 miles from anything.

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Hey, if the hammer works for you, cool. I just couldn't do it.

 

[Happy]

Hey, if the hammer works for you, cool. I just couldn't do it.

Back atcha. Of course, if you can't do the hammer, then you probably shouldn't start in on any other hands-on method, like wringing. It all feeds your inner serial-killer and yours sounds timid.

 

[MamaSheepdog]

Personally, I prefer to keep my "inner serial killer" quiescent.

I believe that the kills that didn't go as smoothly as we liked are due to our very reluctance to harm another being. I hope I never lose that compassion and respect, but I do hope to move past the reluctance to ensure a quick end every time.

 

[Happy]

That compassion and respect is what drives the need to do it quickly.

 

[MamaSheepdog]

That compassion and respect is what drives the need to do it quickly.

Absolutely.

But despite the need for meat for myself and my family, I don't want to kill anything. It is overcoming the subconscious hesitation in delivering the killing blow that is so difficult, at least for me. :|

But conversely, I find a sense of pride in being able to do so, and knowing that the meat on our table was raised with love and had as quick an end as I could deliver. If the end didn't come as quickly as I would hope, I know that I at least regretted it and sorrowed for the animal, and am determined to do better next time.

 

[Happy]

I don't WANT to kill either, I just acknowledge that being so up-close and personal puts you in a strange place. That strange place is one I've visited for both disease and food. It's also the primary informant on how I view the ethics of life and death.

 

[Miss M]

It all feeds your inner serial-killer

Please do try to keep references to "murder" and "serial killing" to acts committed by humans upon other humans. For one thing, that is the proper usage of the terms. For another, animal rights activists like to use these terms in the way you are using them.

Lastly, it could make a completely valid act, killing an animal for food, even more uncomfortable for those on here who are already having difficulty overcoming several generations' worth of removal from the origins of meat, trying to successfully go back to doing something that used to be not only normal, but essential and expected... but which is now foreign, reviled, and difficult.

 

[bowbuild]

The thing with hitting them from the front is it does not break the neck. When suspended and hit with a downward force on the BACK of the skull it snaps the neck, as well as crashes the skull. I beleive the brain trauma, and broken neck results in less kicking, and instant death...this is my goal. Mammasheep you said you are using a pipe...unless that pipe has some weight, and is not crushing the skull, you will not get bleedout. The stick I use in my video is a heavy hardwood stick.

Bowbuild

 

[Zab]

This is why you bleed them by cutting the throat. Theyre not concidered dead untill youve bled them but they are fully unconcious and wont feel anything. They supposedly bleed out better when theyre only stunned.

Pro is that they can be comfortable untill the very end.

 

[Julz]

Hi and thanx everyone for the response very helpful

 

[Happy]

Please do try to keep references to "murder" and "serial killing" to acts committed by humans upon other humans.

I'm sorry you find my colorful language offensive, but I'm not going to stop addressing the emotional side of killing with the stark reality of what it is as long as it doesn't break the rules.

For one thing, that is the proper usage of the terms.

I've been speaking the language, with greater skill than most of my peers, for over three decades. I don't need a lesson in it from you. Murder is not exclusively a human term.
Murder v.: 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Murder

Bashing an animal's brain in is nothing pretty either, and the fact that serial killers often start with this very act is somewhat telling, and is directly related to the emotions involved in being that close to the act itself. This was the point I was underscoring to a person who clearly understood this principle, even if only somewhat.

For another, animal rights activists like to use these terms in the way you are using them.

So what? There's a reason they use these terms. That reason is it underscores a point. Ignoring the point does nothing for anyone. Even if they're wrong, their point is worth addressing. The sad fact is sometimes they're right. The neutral fact is that sometimes the word is appropriate.

Lastly, it could make a completely valid act, killing an animal for food, even more uncomfortable for those on here who are already having difficulty overcoming several generations' worth of removal from the origins of meat, trying to successfully go back to doing something that used to be not only normal, but essential and expected... but which is now foreign, reviled, and difficult.

And burying the emotions that make it difficult is what allows serial killers to murder people over and over. Sugar-coating the stark reality of life and death doesn't override this, and does nothing to alleviate the removal of man from the primal realities of nature, which we're pretending to return to by meeting our food. To me this is a cardinal lie, because it's hiding behind the truth instead of standing alone. Instead we should acknowledge YES, IT'S HARD, but show them that embracing this hardship is good for the soul (a term I use, despite religious people using it against me as an atheist) AND allows us to be good to our bodies.

I'm all for avoiding offense, but I'm not going to tiptoe around emotions when it undermines something so profound. Furthermore, nobody seems to care about offending my sensibilities (like correcting my grammar). I don't much care, and I'm not going to complain about my emotions, which are my own to police, but let's not pretend that it's not hypocritical to balk at being offended while not caring about offending others.

 

[UK-backyardbunnies]

I think the "...inhumanely or barbarously..." part of your definition of murder is the sticking point. The whole point being what we do is NOT inhumane or barbarous.
If it is, then it's not murder, it's a massive mess-up...

 

[Happy]

I think the "...inhumanely or barbarously..." part of your definition of murder is the sticking point. The whole point being what we do is NOT inhumane or barbarous.

The one instance I used the word "murder" was in reference to culling an animal because the breeder didn't like its color. This was the incident directly being referenced when I was asked to refrain from using the term. It was later implied (but never explicitly stated) that the culling in question was not one of death, at which point I retracted the term. Let me do it again officially here: If a person is culling by neuter, sale, adoption, etc. then there is no ethical dilemma, and clearly there is no murder. I further apologize to anyone wrongfully vilified by my assumption that a culling is one of death when that culling is for cosmetic purposes, provided the assumption was inaccurate. That said, I stick by my assertion that KILLING an animal for purely cosmetic purposes is both inhumane and barbaric, and therefore murder. I will not, of course, use the term "murder" to reference a humane killing, and I HAVE NOT used the term in any other conversation on this forum so far.

 

[MaggieJ]

I've been speaking the language, with greater skill than most of my peers, for over three decades. I don't need a lesson in it from you.

You could use a few lessons in manners, however.

Murder is not exclusively a human term.
Murder v.: 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Murder

I consulted several dictionaries and they all said more or less the same thing.

"Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

"The Criminal Code defines murder as killing someone where the killer meant to cause the person's death or meant to cause bodily harm that was likely to result in their death."
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."