Do "shooting" animals exist?

Shooting animals to kill them is a real, documented practice

Helicopter-based shooting of deer is used widely in Australia and New Zealand, and researchers have measured what happens to the animals. In three Australian operations targeting chital and fallow deer, an independent veterinarian watched from the helicopter as animals were shot and then examined the carcasses on the ground. Shots were fired at roughly 69–76% of the deer observed, and the median time from first shot to insensibility ranged from 17 to 37 seconds [1].

The same practice exists at sea. During the regular hunt of young harp seals in the Greenland Sea, researchers followed 171 seals and recorded the angle from which each was shot. Across all shooting angles, 84.2% of the seals died instantly, though the rate varied substantially depending on the angle [2].

Why the angle and number of shots change the outcome

A bullet's path through an animal's head or torso determines whether death is immediate or drawn out. In the seal study, shooting obliquely from the front produced the highest instantaneous death rate (96.8%), while shooting directly from the side produced the lowest (66.7%). For the 27 seals that were not killed instantly, time to death was shortest when shot directly from the front (16 seconds) and longest when shot from the side (85 seconds) [2]. The authors recommend the oblique-from-front angle for better welfare, though they note the time-to-death analysis included only a limited number of animals [2].

In the deer operations, welfare outcomes were better when helicopters flew back over shot animals and fired multiple shots into the head or thorax. In the two fallow deer operations, most deer were shot multiple times and at least once in the head or thorax. In the chital deer operation, deer were shot fewer times and less often in those target areas, and non-fatal wounding was observed [1]. The researchers' implication is that a national standard requiring fly-back procedures and repeated shots could improve outcomes [1].

Shooting an animal with a camera is a different kind of shooting

The word "shooting" also describes photography, and in livestock farming it has a technical meaning. To assess the exterior—the body shape and conformation—of meat and dairy animals, systems use 3D cameras to capture images of animals. One approach is to shoot animals with a single fixed 3D camera; another is to shoot from different points using several 3D cameras that record images of the animals and individual body parts such as the udder [4]. These images feed deep-learning models used for health monitoring and identification [4].

This camera-based shooting is non-contact and does not harm the animal. It is a data-collection step in the digitalization of livestock assessment, not a killing or capture technique [4].

Researchers are trying to make shooting more predictable

Because shooting can harm animals, some researchers argue that ballistic methods should be tested before widespread use, much as traps have been. A review of wildlife shooting and darting proposes a four-step process: range and field testing for accuracy and projectile behaviour, post-mortem assessment of ballistic injury in cadavers, small-scale live animal pilot studies with pass/fail thresholds, and broad-scale use with reporting of adverse welfare outcomes [3]. The review also notes that new ammunition types, such as subsonic and lead-free rounds, are becoming available and need testing [3].

One example of testing a specific round comes from European rabbits in Australia, where researchers compared lead-free and lead-based .22 LR bullets and assessed the frequency of adverse welfare outcomes under typical field shooting conditions [5]. The point of such work is to identify methods that produce undesirable results before they are used widely [3].

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions