This is a moral dilema for me.
Just the other day I caught a rat in my house and could have let it go, but instead I whacked him with a shovel 3 times and he died. Now I did not release the rat because I know he would return and continue to breed and bring in other rats. So I whacked him.
Now I had no guilt what so ever about whacking this rat for the mere fact that he exists and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now if I take it up to a larger species of animal and whacked something bigger, like a dog or cat. I would feel remose. I would not shot and kill a dog that constantly dug through my garbage. I would shoot him with rubber buck shot from a shotgun and scare him away for good.
Now suppose I am hunting for hog, rabbit, bambi or even a panda bear. If I hunt it and kill it for sport and leave the carcus is it any different than killing the rat in my house for the mere fact that he exists and was in the wrong spot?
These are some pretty far out scenarios that you are making up here. Shooting an animal that is on your state's big game list, and then leaving it to waste would generally be a hunting regulation offense. You could be fined, have equipment used in the hunt seized, and have your hunting rights abridged. That is how it is here in Oregon.
Vermin like Feral hogs, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are no way in the same category. Here in Oregon, all of these animals are totally unprotected, and can be legally shot at any time.
And regarding killing a rat in your yard: My goodness, what else are you supposed to do? Capture it and take it to your local Humane Society, and have them put it up for adoption?
Your Guidelines here should be both legal, and then religious. First, if killing the animal in a particular way is illegal, then it should never be done. Secondly, consider what your own religion may give guidance on the issue. After all, God gave man dominion over all of the animals. None of them is considered to have the same rights as man. Only man was created in God's image.
That said, one should never be intentionally cruel to any animal, even the most destructive pest. All animals deserve to have a quick death. Many states even require that hunters not intentionally allow an animal to suffer, and quickly dispatch it if that is possible.
I, for one, could never ever bow hunt. The effectiveness and reliability of a bow in quickly dispatching game just cannot come close to that of a modern rifle. When I kill an animal I don't want it to suffer for any length of time. I thus make every effort to take only what I personally consider to be ethical shots where I have high assurance that I can place my shot so that the animal quickly expires.
Now, does that mean that bow hunting is unethical, just because I am personally not comfortable doing it? I certainly don't think so. Humans have been hunting animals for thousands of years with bows. If someone else wants to hunt by bow, I'm all for that person having the right to do so.
We all have to make our own personal choices regarding what we are comfortable doing. And we all need to fully obey the law, and all hunting regulations.
But you are fretting far too much over this, in my opinion. Feral hogs are indeed very destructive. They are considered to be a harmful invasive species here in Oregon. Thus, just like the Nutria here in our state, there are no limitations on killing them. Both of these animals don't belong here, and are harmful to the natural ecosystem.
.
