December 7, 2019

Is There Outrage? Man Kills Bear With a Spear

I realize the risk I am taking by even attempting to point out the obvious, emotional clap-trap and hypocrisy showing its ugly side from both “hunters” and “animal rights” people.

I found on Drudge, a link to an article about how both hunters and environmentalists are “outraged” over a person, whom they call a “hunter” who filmed his act of hunting a bear over a pile of bait, manipulating himself to get close enough to throw a spear (labeled “home made” in the article) at and kill a black bear. The hunt took place in Canada; legally I am presuming.

What of that so-called outrage?

First, let me write from a position of transparency. I have hunted for close to 55 years. I’ve never shot a bear. Never wanted to shoot a bear. Never hunted specifically for bear. I’ve never hunted over bait, but I understand when game management makes adjustments to hunting techniques in order to achieve game management goals. I’ve never hunted on a hunting ranch, behind fences, nor do I have any desire to do so. I hunt for the enjoyment and I kill to eat.

If we take a closer look at the nonsense of the article, with an open mind, perhaps rationality can make a bit more sense of what took place. The article epitomizes the emotional nonsense often associated with acts of hunting or killing animals. This is only understood when we examine that those who emote the so-called outrage, do so from the perspective that animals are like men in all senses of the definition, i.e. that it has feelings, understands and experiences human traits such as suffering, agony, pain, diminution of pride, experiences humiliation, understands respect, etc.

If this is a person’s mindset about animals, there is little hope that any sense of understanding can be gained or taught. And this is what the news article does. In addition, Drudge, obviously more interested in getting his website traffic higher, publishes this clap-trap nonsense hoping to embellish the event regardless of any truth.

It would only be right to take a look at the “hunter” in this case. From the article, we discover he was a former athlete – a javelin thrower in college. Presently he evidently owns a “fitness company”¬†and is described in the article as a “bodybuilder” and “fitness fanatic.” Does this fact alone give understanding as to how a person of this background, an obvious narcissist, as I believe all bodybuilders must be, would go out of his way to film the event (mostly of himself) and then react the way he did. Perhaps his biggest wrong in this entire event was that he filmed it and put it up on YouTube before giving it much thought to his self-centered reactions, etc.

Upon examination of the article, obviously a one-sided diatribe of emotional, value-laced idiocy, it’s clear to see that no rational thought was put into it. Here’s a grocery list of the terms and adjectives used in this article to describe the hunt, the hunted, and the hunter:

Bloodthirsty; disturbing; sick; slaughtering; slow and painful; poor animal; intestines pour out of its stomach; fitness fanatic; cruel; cheap act; colossal beast; disgusting; mindless jackass; shameless stunt; demean the animal; shameful spectacle of pseudo bravado; pure selfish bloodlust; heartlessly slaughtered for fun; desire for a thrill; expense of innocent life.

Of course all descriptions of the event are value-weighted, which really means nothing to anyone except those offering their perspective of their ideology and theories about animals. Not that it matters to anyone else, but the first time I clicked on the news article, I had to sit through about 20 seconds of an advertisement about MTV. From my perspective, what goes on regularly on MTV is as disgusting, perhaps more so, than the killing of this bear and filming it. MTV, one of the great promoters of social decadence, immorality, violence, homosexuality, racism, bigotry, sexism, hatred, drug and alcohol use and abuse, introduces the article in which we are left to understand that what MTV promotes is acceptable behavior, at least by the newspaper, and what happens in a video of a bear hunt is not. It seems to me this society has things quite mixed up.

The article says, but provides no links to substantiate, that a “hunter” from a “popular” US hunting website finds the video “disgusting.” Supposedly, the hunter claims this act of spearing a bear “demeans” the bear and then he chastises the hunter demanding he “show some respect for the animal.” Seriously, with a straight face, can you “demean” a bear? And can a bear recognize the actions of this hunter as being disrespectful? This supposed same hunter is quoted as saying, “If you want to take an animal humanely (which you obviously could care less about) then shoot it with a rifle.” What I would like to know is how, specifically taking an animal with a rifle, is more humane than with a spear? But, first, define “humane.” Humane is of or pertaining to human traits. Humans have a brain that offers them the ability to place values on certain actions and reactions of persons. Animals do not. Sorry if I’ve startled anyone here.

This hunter, said to have left a comment on the hunting website, and other environmentalists, think it’s wrong that the hunter, shows happy and excitable emotions after killing the bear. If hunters want to think of this act, whether it’s the method of kill or the reactions of the hunter, as something we have trouble with, then is it because for so many years we have come to accept the televised hunting shows of killing wild game, and hunters showing excitement and happiness over their kill, and this is somehow different? Oh, yes. Lest I forget. Film editing has managed to remove the “disgusting” and “inhumane” events that go on during the filming of an “ethical” and “humane” hunt for enjoyment and a “trophy.”

We are left with making up our minds as to who is lying and who is not in the article. The author of the article says the guides went back the next day to locate the bear. The environmentalists say the bear “MIGHT” have suffered for 20 hours or more. The hunter said it was a clean, ethical kill, that the bear went 60 yards and dropped dead. Well, which was it and does it really matter?

Assuming the entire hunt was legal, then what’s the big deal. All animal worshipers react emotionally to hunting and trapping. It’s what they do! This is nothing new. I don’t understand the need to film every act that people do and plaster it all over the Internet; in this case a bear hunt. But, then again, I don’t understand the need of people who react the way they do to films of hunting, to watch the videos and agonize over them. Making the videos and watching them in agony – there is something quite perverse in both events.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

Share

The Problem With Arguing Hunting Ethics, Name Calling and Ignorance

This nonsense is endless. Even the Bangor Daily News allows anybody to publish a bunch of rude nonsense about bears and bear hunting in order, I suppose, to promote their anti-hunting agenda. If not anti-hunting, certainly to support radical, corrupt organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States.

In an opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News, a mortgage broker, presenting himself as some authority on hunting and, being an “ethical” one at that, because he lived in Alaska for a handful of years, calls those who legally choose to use baiting as a means of harvesting a bear, lazy. To him they are lazy because all they have to do is carry a bucket of bait to a site, climb into a tree and wait for a bear to appear. Obviously the man knows nothing about baiting. However, he presents “his way” of hunting as ethical and the right way. Oh really?

Josh Phillips is a lazy hunter, if one at all. He is lazy because he hunts with a gun, maybe even a bow and arrow. He probably uses scent block or some kind of lure or a masking scent. Does he use a gps so he doesn’t get lost? How about a radio? Carry a cell phone? What a lazy hunter. Perhaps a real “ethical” hunter would venture into the woods with nothing but a loin cloth and bare hands. Who died and left Josh Phillips in charge of hunting ethics?

The rest of his story is old, worn out, unsubstantiated, nonsense about how other states have magically done this and done that while at the same time increased the number of bear hunters, blah, blah, blah. Probably Mr. Phillips is a lazy writer because he didn’t “ethically” do his research to vet that misinformation being used to promote his cause. If he had he would know this repeated information is false.

Some might think that calling Mr. Phillips lazy is an insult. I say it’s calling a duck(quack) a duck(quack).

Now that we know that Mr. Phillips is better than other hunters, well, you know, those that are ” finding a bear to kill and stuff or turn into a rug,” it still doesn’t solve the problem of how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is going to control bear populations.

It is nonsense to think that Maine’s bear population has increased in the amounts indicated by Phillips because of baiting bears. His analogy of relationships between bears and humans and bait stations is wrong on every account. He knows little, if anything, about baiting bears, nor the differences between “feeding” bears in back yards and carefully and strategically placing “bait” in remote areas.

I see the issue as one of the Humane Society of the United States wishing to steal the necessary tools away from the Maine wildlife management department in order to promote their bigger agenda of ending hunting. I wonder if Mr. Phillips has considered that his support of the Humane Society to end bear baiting, trapping and hounding, drives one more nail in the coffin of his beloved hunting experiences? For this reason, I doubt that he is much of a hunter at all. He appears as the typical person who condemns other choices of sport believing his own choice is THE ONLY one.

To compare bears and bear hunting in Maine to that of Colorado, Oregon or any other state further exemplifies the ignorance of the subject matter being discussed. Do your homework. Know your subject matter.

If Mr. Phillips really is a hunter and if Mr. Phillips chooses, because he is allowed legally to have a choice, to be nothing more than a stocker of game in the woods, that is his choice and I certainly respect that. His wish to steal choices from others is no different than should I campaign to make hunter an matter of loin cloths and bare hands. I doubt Phillips would like that much.

Ethics while hunting, as guided by hunting regulations devised for game management and public safety, is a subjective matter driven by personal choice. I don’t want to take away Mr. Phillips choices why does he want to take away mine?

The real issue here is the ability to be able to manage bears to provide a healthy bear population. How can that be done with the wildlife manager’s hands bound behind their backs?

Old Hunter says:

ScarboroughHunter

Share