Drowning can no longer be considered euthanasia: reply to Bluett

摘要

We thank the Wildlife Society Bulletin for the opportunity to respond to Robert Bluett's rebuttal (Bluett 2001) to our article, "Drowning is not euthanasia" (Ludders et al. 1999). Our argument in that article apparently was not as clear as we had hoped, so this response gives us the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings and reiterate the important issues. Bluett (2001) raises numerous controversial issues that are facing wildlife management groups today, and we recognize and understand the importance of these issues. However, our article was not meant to be, nor did it include, a far-ranging discussion of these many issues or the variety of techniques used to kill wildlife. Our objective was to focus specifically on one issue within the larger debate: is killing an animal by drowning euthanasia? Our response and the central theme of our article is that drowning is not euthanasia. In fact, Bluett (2001:8) agrees with us when he writes,"...I accept the authors'...proforma conclusion that drowning is not euthanasia...." He disagrees with us in whether our (and his) conclusion is relevant to wildlife policy, law, and administration without considering certain issues that he raises and discusses in his rebuttal. Because our article dealt only with the issue of killing an animal by drowning, our response, in keeping with our central theme, focuses on issues relative to drowning. However, to encourage further dialogue, we address some of Bluett's philosophical and management challenges in our concluding remarks.