Would hunting be affected by existence of a stun gun?

Question

In my world a reliable stun gun exists, the specifics of it described in this question: What would the rules for carry and use of weapons be affected by reliable stun guns?

I'm wondering how this will affect hunters? Stun guns have ranges and power rates of pistols, but high powered stun weapons could be used to take out all but the biggest targets easily (a really high power stun can work on the largest, but at that power the guns would be lethal to humans and may get different regulation).

Stun rifles also exist, but with only slightly longer ranges compared to pistols, rarely used in other circumstances I could see them used for hunting.

My question, how will this affect hunters? First, I am confident 'stun-hunting' will exist to some degree, either as a 'catch and release' approach or even a more 'humane' killing technique since once stun the animal wont feel any pain or fear when the hunter comes closer to kill it; possible even as an additional challenge. After all flint pistol hunting exists, all kind of niche weapon hunting methods are practiced to some degree.

However, I'm curious how much of a niche it will be. How much will hunters rebel against use of hunting weapons that have ranges comparable to pistols? Will stun-hunting ever be more then a tiny niche, or will the ability to hunt-and-release attract many who want to hunt but not kill and/or don't want the animal for the meat?

Second, In this world access to lethal weapons likely will be more restricted, due to presence of a 'safer' alternative; and because police prefer to use stun guns and thus don't like civies to have weapons that out range their preferred non-lethal means of dealing with a situation. I have a different question asking how restrictive lethal guns will be, and generally it will vary by area with some having little increase on restrictions and others having significant ones; however, in general what will it take for a hunter to get a hunting permit in a world that is more restrictive about gun use? Will becoming a hunter, or more accurately getting a lethal rifle to use for hunting, be harder, and if so would that have any significant affect hunting beyond a little extra red tape before you can start?

For example, are hunting rifles more likely to be limited in some way to make them only useful for hunting (maybe lower refire rate?) to satisfy the hunters while limiting concern of lethal weapons in a world that further legislates them? Are there even viable ways of being somewhat more restrictive on hunters and weapons, beyond more through background checks, without removing hunting entirely?

I really know almost nothing about hunting, so I don't really know enough to even ask an intelligent question here :)

Answer 1

Anything can happen, but... I don't see this happening. Full disclosure: I hunt; the only meat I eat is meat I have hunted myself (or a friend's, etc.) - I don't eat meat from the grocery; and I hunt within the law where it is helpful for population control. I am against the ownership of assault rifles, etc etc.

Why not?

Hunting culture is more than just fun to shoot at things. To quote from this site:

Hunting is an extremely important mode of human-nature interaction. How people think about this interaction is closely linked to culture patterns and value systems. To address hunting merely as a relationship between humans and animals, and manage it accordingly, will miss essential dimensions of hunting as a social practice.

Yes, there is a tiny minority who hunt for thrills, trophies, or sick fun; but I have to assure you (with only anecdotal evidence of years of hunting), they are deep in the minority of people who hunt.

How does this relate to a stun gun? Hunting is about skill and precision. In fact, people who hunt by archery very well could have hunted with a firearm, but have chosen not to for that reason. The same will go with those of us who use precision rifles. Why not just put an animal in a cage and shoot it? Because that's not the point of hunting. Similarly, it's why I choose to hunt instead of getting meat from the supermarket.

Who could this be useful for?

I think this would be a great mechanism for beginner hunters. One of the hardest things about being a real hunter is ensuring that you don't torture the animal by firing at the wrong time or without precision. Real hunters are devastated if they hit a deer, for example, but are unable to kill it on the first or second shot, or let it get away.

A beginner could very well use your weapon that can ensure the animal is stunned by one shot anywhere on its body. You could even release the animal, if you are just practicing, although I wouldn't want that to be a regular practice (think about how messed up it would be for a deer to be stunned forty or fifty times in its short lifetime).

How can we restrict weapons to hunting in your story?

I was wondering if you have the technology, you could put out a dozen or so coordinated transponders around a large perimeter ("hunting area only"), and rifles in your future can be modified to be limited to operation within this perimeter. It can include firing ranges and large private properties as well.

That's going to take some work, and diligence against companies that provide hacks (individual hackers will do it themselves), but it could be a start and also prevent accidental shootings in homes.

Answer 2

Most current hunters wouldn't find a big use for the stun gun hunting. I hunt for the meat, quick kill and fill the fridge.

However, I could see it starting off as a niche sport for hunting 'protected' wild game. Want to 'kill' an elephant? come with us to hunt one, get the thrill but leave the animal alive when you go home.

Later on I could see it taking on the mystique of a paintball game. People who really are not hunters finding it a game to go out and 'shoot' game.

One other thing might happen too, is by reducing the stun effect actually using them in paintball style game. No argument if you got hit and when your arm goes numb, it is really numb, you don't have to 'pretend'. I think this would be one of the biggest uses for them, lower powered ones for 'games'. The police and military would likely use them for training too. Nothing teaches you to keep your head down more than getting 'hit'.

Answer 3

I'm coming at this as someone who doesn't hunt, but still loves spending time outdoors and watching wildlife. I don't hunt because I've got no interest in killing animals for food and I don't like guns, but I still love the outdoors and wildlife watching. But the challenge of sneaking up and basically doing a catch and release? I'd go for that.

The subculture using your stun guns as their primary weapon would be a mix of traditional style hunters and the people who are currently birdwatchers and wildlife lovers, but don't want to kill the animals. You'd have the potential to attract an entirely different audience to the sport who would not otherwise use guns, so while few gun hunters would switch, the sport could attract a lot of the people who are currently birdwatchers or geocachers.

The technology to stun animals without killing them has the potential to allow and extended or year round stun-gun season, where hunters can stun an animal, but can not legally kill it. In this case, a lot more of the regular hunters would adopt the technology for the off season, and some of those would decide they like it enough to stick with it.

If the stun results in hurting the animals (a stunner hangover), it would decrease its popularity. If it's severe pain, the reduction would be a lot, possibly to the point where it would be illegal to use it for animal cruelty reasons. If it's mild (slight disorientation that gets shaken off after 10 minutes), it would probably still be pretty popular. I think that the stun could be popular even if it only lasted about 5-10 minutes. And any more than 20-30 minutes would be way too much, since a stunned animal is going to be easy prey to anything that comes along, including vultures or crows pecking an animal's eyes out. Most people will want to move on pretty fast once they've gotten a quick look at whatever they took down, and maybe some good photos. That's easy to do in 5-15 minutes, including enough time to get away from the area if you took down a large, potentially violent animal. A stunner hangover would make unlimited off season hunting use less likely.

In addition, wildlife managers would use it to replace sedatives in some catch and release situations.

Answer 4

My perspective: I have never gone hunting. I know many people who do. I do own a few guns that I keep for gang fights and shoot-outs with the police ... I mean, for self-defense and target shooting.

The question you present isn't all that hypothetical a question. Guns that fire anesthetic darts exist in our world. They are often used by people who want to capture animals for zoos, or to study animals for scientific research purposes without harming them.

To the best of my knowledge, such anesthetic darts have never caught on as an alternative to lethal weapons for hunting. Why not? I've never used an anesthetic dart so I can't say anything about how they handle. Maybe the range is too short or they are otherwise ineffective to make a practical weapon for anyone other than someone really determined to use them. Many hunters that I know want the meat, either they enjoy getting something other than the same old meats available at the grocery store, or they see it as a way to save money on groceries. Maybe some get a thrill out of the idea of killing something, though no one has ever expressed such an idea to me.

As to such weapons enabling a reduction in lethal weapons: Maybe. If you passed a law banning lethal weapons -- or established strong social pressure or whatever -- and told people they could only have stun weapons, presumably the peaceful, law-abiding people would obey it, but would the criminals? Even if you shut down all the gun factories in the country and banned imports, I am 100% certain that criminals would find ways to get guns. It's an easy prediction. It is 100% illegal to produce cocaine or import it into the country, but criminals still manage to get cocaine. Indeed I recall a few years ago authorities were saying that the price of cocaine was plummeting because there was so much of it available, law of supply and demand and all that.

Answer 5

I don't see any use for this for actual hunting. You still have to kill the animal if you mean to consume it. What i do see happening would be that the long range stun gun would be the weapon of choice among criminals. Perfect for abductions or murders, tortures and rapes where the 'capture' of the stunned victim is desired.

There is already 'catch and release' hunting. Its called Wildlife Photography. It takes the same skill set, just different gear. (It just doesn't taste as good)