American hunter kills black bear with spear

[Carson Dyle]

As always, I have the perfect solution.
Let bait-hunting of bears be legal, but only with a 4" max knife (folding blade only, be careful!.
The faux-hunters don't have to actually hunt, and the rest of us get endless youtube entertainment.

Make them hunt with spears. Oh, wait...

 

[bshole]

As always, I have the perfect solution.
Let bait-hunting of bears be legal, but only with a 4" max knife (folding blade only, be careful!.
The faux-hunters don't have to actually hunt, and the rest of us get endless youtube entertainment.

Solution for what?

It is weird to think that 10,000 years ago our ancestors would take on bears with little more than the weapon you suggest. We are all sissy boys compared to them.

 

[MongGrel]

Finally actually watched the video myself, if nothing else just to see wtf that electrical look thing was attached to it.

Same kind of taser device connected to the spearhead ? NM, a camera it looks, wouldn't doubt if there wasn't something else going on also.

What a dick.

 

[Thebobo]

Whats strange is I used to do a lot of fishing while back but back then I never understood the joy folks see in hunting. Kind of contradictory of myself I know, but as long as you are hunting for food I don't have a problem these days.

Interesting how times have changed, for a while you would never seen a animal killed on TV now there are ~50 Alaskan shows with folks hunting showing them killing and dressing animals.

But this guy is bait hunting and should be ashamed.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you care about animals, your first priority should be no more immigration into North America. The most important step in achieving conservation is to end our own population growth. Every year we add more people, the less wilderness will exist. The more animals we will slaughter. The fewer resources we all share.

 

[bshole]

If you care about animals, your first priority should be no more immigration into North America. The most important step in achieving conservation is to end our own population growth. Every year we add more people, the less wilderness will exist. The more animals we will slaughter. The fewer resources we all share.

Wow that is literally the first time I heard that argument before. I will give you points for originality but as we all know hunters are the tools used by DNR to manage wildlife. The DNR determines the upper bag limit for game. It is rather difficult to see a link between immigration and the limits set by the DNR.

 

[MongGrel]

If you care about animals, your first priority should be no more immigration into North America. The most important step in achieving conservation is to end our own population growth. Every year we add more people, the less wilderness will exist. The more animals we will slaughter. The fewer resources we all share.

NM, that was a bit vague along some lines.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wow that is literally the first time I heard that argument before. I will give you points for originality but as we all know hunters are the tools used by DNR to manage wildlife. The DNR determines the upper bag limit for game. It is rather difficult to see a link between immigration and the limits set by the DNR.

Are you saying we should be hunting bears in the wilderness and these are merely qualms over the method?
I'm speaking more of an animal preserve function, more of us there are the more difficult it is to maintain the natural environment and not slaughter species. My speech was for leaving them alone.

 

[Thebobo]

Are you saying we should be hunting bears in the wilderness and these are merely qualms over the method?
I'm speaking more of an animal preserve function, more of us there are the more difficult it is to maintain the natural environment and not slaughter species. My speech was for leaving them alone.

I agree less habitat etc. Would love to talk about overpopulation But thats for another topic,

 

[feralkid]

If you care about animals, your first priority should be no more immigration into North America. The most important step in achieving conservation is to end our own population growth. Every year we add more people, the less wilderness will exist. The more animals we will slaughter. The fewer resources we all share.

Sure... that sounds logical.

 

[bshole]

Are you saying we should be hunting bears in the wilderness and these are merely qualms over the method?
I'm speaking more of an animal preserve function, more of us there are the more difficult it is to maintain the natural environment and not slaughter species. My speech was for leaving them alone.

Look back at history, when the population of America was 1/5 of what it is today, we decimated the buffalo, hunted the passenger pigeon to extinction and basically destroyed ecosystems. As the human population in America has grown at a rapid rate since then we have done a pretty spectacular job of re-introducing species that were extinct in America. I have seen the fruits of that in my own lifetime. Cranes, turkey, raptors, wolves are now common in Wisconsin. The forest is being managed and is healthier than it has ever been since the 19th century plunder and getting better.

The number of people coming into America will not effect the natural balance. The last hundred years of progress PROVES this. When the population at large, the state government and the federal government take an active interest in preserving and promoting our natural heritage (which it has for many decades now), your fear can be seen to be unfounded.

 

[agent00f]

Seeing that drum there, possibly used as a garbage can... I know it's allowed in some states, it's illegal in my state, and I feel that baiting in animals with food is NOT fair pursuit. That's not hunting. It's no different than filling your bird feeder and noting that the same cardinal comes back day after day for months on end, then one day, there's a cardinal season, and you shoot it while it's sitting on the feeder. I feel a great deal of condescension toward people who do that. And, don't say, "but we have to, to control the population." If the population is high enough to need controlling, there isn't a need to bait them in with food, or salt blocks.

I only see the condescension as purists looking down on anyone who doesn't care as much. I suppose using a superior system (ie bait) vs a dumb animal is less manly than fighting it to the death with bare hands, and raising a vulnerable animal to easily kill even less so, but that's just a judgement based on personal valuation of masculinity or maybe whatever skill is involved in the fight.