The story of Josh Bowmar’s bear hunt has gone viral and international. The anti-hunt crowd is apoplectic over this supposed example of “animal cruelty.” The pro-hunting crowd has reacted with equal anger, disgusted with Under Armor’s decision to cancel its sponsorship of Mr. Bowmar’s wife Sarah, who took the video (and thus, condoned it). I know this has been hashed-out in our original post, but I want to revisit the issue here.
According to the Bowmars, the bear died within ten seconds or less after being speared. Nice work, if you can do it. And nothing more or less than our ancestors did. But is there anything unethical about hunting a bear with a spear? Doesn’t that depend on the hunter’s skill? And does it matter whether or not Mr. Bowmars made use of the meat? How is it any different from bow hunting?
I don’t really give a crap about “ethics” in hunting. That being said, going after a bear that weights three to four times what you do with nothing more than a cleverly sharpened stick is damn impressive.
This.
This.
Some more of this. ^
Yeah, and I’ll “this” this some more.
*adding some THIS sprinkles on top*
These this’s and them those thusly that there, so this. Yeah.
this, with a bogt (but one get this).
I’d say it’s particularly ethical. You have to get so close to the bear that even if you don’t get a clean kill shot, I imagine the chances of you losing track of the bear are much lower. The heavy spear and enormous broadhead probably do tons of damage, giving a pretty high likelihood of the bear bleeding out quickly.
I’m going to assume anyone out spearhunting for bear either has a backup handgun on them or a buddy with a big caliber rifle or shotgun to finish off the bear or protect the hunter if something goes wrong.
Otherwise, failure to seriously wound the bear with this method of hunting comes complete with its own very severe penalties.
Any kind of hunting can cause wounded animals to suffer. I’ve found dead deer in my woods that were wounded by arrows and ran off eventually dying on their own. Spearhunting’s probably less likely to have that happen than bowhunting.
^^^^ All those.
If it’s legal to hunt bear (and the bears, living or dead don’t give a sh_t which idiot cares to claim one or the other); and it’s a humane kill (we build better and better rocks to get the job done, so don’t make the animal suffer); then yes, it’s more “sporting” therefore satisfying of more “sporting purposes”.
The real question is it ethical to hunt man that way? The answer is, if you’re going to hunt man, you’ve settled your internal ethics arguments, and your prey should have already been apprised of that possibility, unless an “anti-spear” (any town for spear control) group made the prey think getting rid of spears would get rid of spears and those that would use them.
To all those who are saying “yeah well I bet he had back up…”
You are the very same people that had he not and died would have been saying how DUMB he was for NOT having backup in a day and age when he CAN.
Geez! Always with the complaints
“…nothing more than a cleverly sharpened stick…”
I’ll bet you someone off-camera had something quite a bit more than a pointy stick, just in case the spear didn’t get the job done. It ain’t quite such an impressive act of bravery if your buddy is standing behind you with a rifle.
Yup!
Stop trying to write laws for nature to follow, pretty sure the bear wasn’t worried how he would kill you.
Where’s the proof that this jackwagon had nothing more than a javelin? How do you know he didn’t have firearms as backups?
If he did have firearms as backups, which I’ve read in here necessarily means hunting rifles capable of taking large game, then doesn’t that presuppose the insufficiency and unreliability of spear hunting?
If it’s so consistently effective, then why have a backup in the form of a completely different type and vastly more modern weapon? If it’s not consistently effective, then why use that method at all?
This guy had his buddies with him and I’d bet they were all armed to teeth in case this stunt didn’t work. Look how surprised he was that it did work. It’s clear that a spear was not the totality of his options. So, no, he doesn’t win the “badass of the public park” award for going it alone with a spear against a raging, wild bear. It didn’t go down like that.
First of all, I don’t believe anyone said ALL that ANY of them in the hunting party had was a spear. Second, so what if he had a backup weapon just in case, that’s just smart. That’s why cops usually have a backup pistol, and a rifle and a shotgun in the car. Third, no you don’t need a rifle. .357 Magnum does nicely on black bear from a 4″ barrel, and I remember reading a story less than a month ago of a guy in AK, I believe, who stopped a charging grizzly (much larger bear) with a 10mm auto pistol.
This was a guided hunt, therefore the guide was with them. The guide always has a gun to protect his clients when dangerous game hunting. He has a gun even if the client has a gun, the guide can not guarantee that his client will shoot straight under pressure.
you must not have read the original story / it was just him and his wife / and she was working the video.
YES!
Oh and ^This…..
No. This guy was attention seeking jackass who had a guide that was backing him up with something a lot more powerful than another spear.
I am a hunter from way back, I have taken lots of animals over the years and I will never buy Under armor junk. It’s overrated and overpriced. Their actions on this whole affair confirmed their corporate mongery for me. That being said, a question for all of you defending him, what are the chances that he even hits the bear out of say 10 throws at that distance. What are the chances he makes the kill shot which according to various sources state he killed it in 10 seconds or they found it dead the next day. He got lucky as hell and my bet is that 9 times out of 10 even if he hits the bear he never finds it, allowing it to die slow right as we are heading to winter. A black bear is not going to charge a group of hunters with cameras and rifles. This guy wasn’t brave at all. He just allows all hunters to be tarred and feathered.
Like I said in the other thread, I have seen modern arrows with wicked sharp broad heads sticking out of the side of elk here in Colorado with that animal almost certainly doomed to a slow death. They were still running along with the herd so who knows how long they suffered? That aint very ethical in my book. The hipster archers who shot the beast was nowhere to be found. Don’t tell me some jackass with a spear even comes close to a modern bow. I am for using the right tool for the job. A rifle. One shot, one kill. Just my opinion but believe me there are a lot of us.
On top of that due to his yelling and screaming he allows all the crazy anti hunters to paint every hunter with a too broad of brush. Like it or not the opinions of the crunchy granola crowd matters, because there are a lot of them in case you haven’t noticed. One state after another is going down the stupid leftist path. Like what has happened to like half the state in the union. This clown sets back everyone who likes to shoot a deer, elk or bear. (By the way don’t call it “harvest” what a joke that is.)
Those idiots in the Chipotle down in Texas strike me as the say attention deprived sort. They aren’t doing us any favors.
With you. Well said
I’m glad at least someone in the comments section knows a little bit about black bears. The people saying this guy is brave because he had to get so close to such a big animal to kill it are delusional. Black bears HATE confrontation. They want absolutely nothing to do with humans. I’ve come across them a handful of times in the Colorado wilderness and simply speaking around them causes them to run away. Now try to take a brown bear with a spear and we’ll see who’s brave.
Which bear is best to hang out with and play cards? Brown, black, grizzly, or polar? : )
I personally love them all and would never kill one unless I had to for food/survival. They are far too beautiful to me. I have no issues with people hunting them for food. I still think Bowmar is a douche for taping his kill and then acting like a 10 year old. Doesn’t really help the pro gun pro hunting movement and is only going to upset people. Zero common sense.
If this guy tried to take a big Alaskan brown with that spear, we would probably be reading his obituary now. The bear might have died later from blood loss or infection, but not before it tore his entire face and scalp off.
But doing it so you can show off on social media isn’t at all impressive. This guy’s a twit.
Was done that way for a LONG time–nothing wrong with it–a clean kill is a clean kill–really takes a lot skill & courage–bravo
Yeah, back in the day, like 100,000 years ago, an “ethical” kill was more important than it is today! If you didn’t kill that bear real ethical, he would eat you before he died!
The modern metro male has lost touch with some realities of life. Subsistence hunting, which our ancestors did, had nothing at all to do with ethics.
You killed or you died. If you found a fawn lying still in the cover you bashed it and ate it. You robbed nests. You stampeded herds over cliffs.
Ethical hunting is a first world problem.
*mic drop*
You think way-back men were the attention whore men of today? Think they would have put go-pros on their spears?
That’s my primary issue with this bear “hunt”. This was like spearing a bear in a zoo. Then add all the attention whoring. This was a video stunt. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Second gray man/monomanic whatever. Let me get this straight. You’re a troll, a racist troll, stalking me and former water walker, that appears in this thread under at least 2 different names and you feel qualified to comment on ethics?
Now that is LOL funny right there.
Word.
‘You think way-back men were the attention whore men of today? Think they would have put go-pros on their spears?’
I come from a family where subsistence hunting was essential to the well-being of my relative’s families. They referred to guys like this as “junk hunters” and, if found in the woods, they quickly moved as far away from them as possible.
100,000 years? What sheltered island have you been living on? You don’t have to go that far back, in fact, you don’t even have to go back 1500 years, where men on horse back with dogs hunted wild boar in the forests of Germany–and sometimes did not live to tell the tale. Masai warriors in Africa were hunting–and fighting–with spears at least through the 19th century. A rite of passage from childhood to manhood was to go alone with your spear and hunt down and kill a lion. Since they did not have guns until the white man came along (or the Arabs from the north) hunting with throwing spears for any and all kinds of dangerous game was the norm. May still be for all I know.
The Italian documentary film Africa Addio was filmed in Africa in the 1960’s, after the fall of colonialism:
You want to see spear hunting, mob style? Check this out. Hippos, elephants, you name it…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p3ivCPXJSc
Do you know how “dating” was conducted for most of human history?
Care to subject your daughter to those practices, you know, for the sake of tradition?
Most societies, out side of war time, thru out human history didn’t have dating. The older generation got together and arranged a marriage for their children.
What on earth does this have to do with hunting a bear? How would you like to not brush your teeth ever, or cook dinner in a clay pot inside a brick oven fueled by dung? More stuff that happened in the past that also doesn’t have any relation to this story. Happy St. Crispin’s Day, and may your ale not spoil in your travels by carvan. You’re missing the point.
Is it unethical because hes white? Would it be ethical if he was native american or an Eskimo? Are native americans unethical?….. No its not enethical to kill a bear with a spear you racist!
I still say it takes far more courage to go after ISIS. I’m not impressed at all by a human killing an animal. A spear kill takes skill but so fucking what. Pretty sure this douche was never in danger so to say it takes courage is laughable. Enlist and go to fucking war. Then you are a man.
Ethical hunting can mean a lot of things to different people. In my opinion if you as the hunter feel confident in your ability to make a clean, quick kill, I have no issue with whatever method you choose to use. I do think the DNR should actively enforce hunting regulations so that when an animal is not killed quickly, that the hunter performs their due diligence in attempting to track down a wounded animal to complete the kill.
Absolutely. Personal ethics and fluid morality are the relevant benchmarks. Just like with gun safety.
If a gun owner feels, because personal feelings are what matter to you, that he can handle his guns responsibly, then you’re cool with that. All objective criteria be damned.
I just hope there aren’t any gun owners out there whose actions would warrant a recurring feature on a gun blog highlighting idiot gun owners and their mishaps, ’cause that would kinda sorta blow your whole “well, if so and so FEELS as though he can handle his spear (or gun), then just let him run wild to do as he pleases” idea to smithereens.
This post seems to have made you unusually upset.
Seems like every post I make has Jonathan boo hooing. But he hates feelings. Go figure.
The answer is, as always, it depends. If one is an experienced and skillful spear chuncker armed with an adequate spear for the kind of prey to be taken, then yes. If not, then no.
It’s no different than gun hunting. If I’m a horrible shot and am shooting an underpowered rifle at a given species, then odds are I will make an unethical kill.
I have no doubt that a properly utilized spear is ever bit as deadly as any rifle caliber.
I think this post sums it up perfectly. Whether you’re slitting a steer’s throat in the abattoir, chopping off a chicken’s head, shooting a deer in the heart with a .30-30, or spearing a bear, killing an animal is killing an animal. You’re either okay with the idea of doing it, or you’re not. But in nature, animals kill and eat other animals, and humans are animals. We’re just better with tools and strategy than the others.
I saw the video though, and that hit on the bear looked* like it was far from the heart and lungs, which is where they taught us to place our shots in Hunter’s Ed. If that’s the case then this hunter should practice more to ensure he gets a heart or lung shot next time.
* It was a shaky video of a moving target at distance, and I’m no expert on bear anatomy, so my initial impression could be wrong.
I am with Arkansas Kurt.
If you place your projectile accurately 90% of the time at the distance that you will engage your target, that is good (ethical) in my book. And if the projectile will kill the animal within 15 seconds or so of when it hits the vitals, that is good (ethical) in my book.
A person using a spear could certainly satisfy both of those requirements. And the hunter in this case did indeed demonstrate that capability.
Your entire post is based on a false premise.
In 21st century America, you’re never going to gain enough experience to build up the skill to hunt bear effectively, consistently, with a spear. Even if you could, it would necessitate many failures resulting in many maimed and tortured animals, which contradicts your whole “skilled hunter” assumption.
There’s also no comparison to hunting with a rifle. Underpowered rifles (actuwlly, the cartridges) are illegal. So you’re trying to justify spear hunting by comparing it to criminal activity. Fail.
Moreover, you can build up on the gun range skill for hunting with a rifle. You’ll be at a great distance, safe in a blind, and firing a precision weapon with a scope at a target that doesn’t know you exist. Paper targets at the range approximate this just fine. None of that is how you hunt a bear with a spear, however, so little to none of that can be practiced at the range with paper. Thus, you cannot build up the requisite spear hunting experience and skill without a whole lot of error along the way, error which is by definition not skillful.
This was a stunt, not a hunt.
In 21st century America, you’re never going to gain enough experience to build up the skill to hunt bear effectively, consistently, with a spear. Even if you could, it would necessitate many failures resulting in many maimed and tortured animals, which contradicts your whole “skilled hunter” assumption.
Just how do you think people train to shoot game? It’s called practice. I could just as easily spend hours with a spear throwing it at targets as I could going to the range and shooting targets. It’s not nearly as widespread as gun proficiency, but there no reason that in 21st Century American I couldn’t put in enough effort to become a proficient spearman.
You have posted an awful lot about this jonathan, Did you know the deceased bear personally?
That spear has a lot more KN then the arrow fired from my bow. A Bow is considered powerful enough.
Jonathon, I disagree.
It is no more difficult to gain skill (and evaluate that skill) with a spear than it is with a bow and arrow. He can practice with the same dense foam animals that archers use, learning the max distance he can make a reliable kill shot. Remember, he was an All American with the javelin in college, so he has the power. With the targets he can work on accuracy as well. Wouldn’t be surprised if he did something like that.
Anti-hunters believe that all hunting is unethical, because meat should grow on trees. Or we should all become vegans. Or that hunting is too male or too Southern or too white.
If skinny jeans were made in camo, the little fops would wear them. But never hunting caps, because they wouldn’t fit over their repulsive “man” buns. That’s the power of government indoctrination, and also the accumulation of too much estrogen in the water supply.
I am looking forward to factory grown meat, especially if ends up more consistently the way I like it. I imagine it will be cheaper too.
And you’ll likely never have to drive past a cattle ranch and endure that smell again. Yech!
That’s a feedlot you’re smelling, not a ranch.
Feedlot. Speaking of unethical.
@Swarf. How so? Anyhow, it all smells like money.
Soylent Green, anyone?
What does being anti-hunting across the board have to do with the ethics of this specific manner of hunting?
The question asked whether this means of hunting was ethical. Bringing up anti-hunters, who believe that any hunting is unethical, just sidesteps this question, while subtly smearing anyone who finds this unethical as being anti-hunting, hypocritical, and irrational. You’re better than that. Much better.
It’s probably the most ethical and fair way to hunt.
One animal using its basic skills to take down another. Though I have no problems with rifles or bows, especially when hunting for food.
Hunters respect the animal and the resources they provide. I guarantee hunters care INFINITELY more about the outdoors and local wildlife than these outrage snowflakes on the Internet. Probably never camped a day in their lives.
Are we part of nature or not? If so we have a right to use the resources like any other species. Only difference between most hunters and Internet babies is that the hunter works hard for his food instead of getting the chemically enhanced garbage found in stores.
You know who want to preserve wildlife and endangered species more than anyone else? Hunters. Can’t hunt bears of there aren’t any.
Hunters come in many varieties. Some are as you describe, while others are once-a-decade “hunters” who just want to play dress-up in the woods with other men and who have zero respect for Nature.
Hanging imaginary halos on suburban Fudds makes about as much sense as ridiculing all who object to spear hunting as being ignorant snowflakes.
If some are as I described then it would stand to reason I was referencing them right? Considering my use of the word “most” so I’m not clear on how I’m “hanging halos” on hunters.
STRONG pseudo intellectual. Next time save yourself the douchery and just say “glorify”.
How man hunted for the advent of bows and firearms. That he did it alone, without a group…he gets the dog with the big nuts award. And with one thrown told Ted Nugget to hold his draw and take a seat
So long as you don’t inflict unnecessary suffering, then yes, it’s a ethical and moral, no matter what the method of dispatching the animal.
People have been using spears since the dawn of man to take game.
John
And they’ve been using their bare hands to take take women for even longer. Are we to uphold all traditions, just because they’re old? Because, you know, this whole RKBA things is, historically, brand new, untraditional, and against the grain.
“People have been using spears since the dawn of man to take game.”
People have poached since regulations were first published. Being an old thing doesn’t make it right.
In fact, some would argue that the natural state of man is barbarism, not civilization. Reading enough of these articles and posts makes me tend to agree.
Ethical yes. Brave definitely.
Spears have been used for thousands of years. Bow hunting and cross bow hunting of animals is accepted. Why would spears not be?
All I care about is if he ate the bear. Otherwise, killing for mere sport shows disrespect and is the highest form of douchery.
I do agree with that. Not to mention it removes the food source for another hunter who would want to eat it.
Some sport hunters donate their kill to people who need food. I’d be okay with that too.
I’d want to keep the new rug though.
How about you eat the liver and I keep the hide?
Thank god someone said it.
Killing for “fun” is the ultimate form of douchebaggery. No respect whatsoever for “sport” killing, or “trophy” hunting. None.
Hunting for sustenance, sure — that’s as nature intended. Hunting for survival? No problem whatsoever. THAT is what man has been doing for tens of thousands of years.
Killing some majestic beast to show what a “man” you are? Sorry, that’s just a glorified version of the “knockout” game as far as I’m concerned. Showing a picture of a 10-year-old girl with her freshly-killed giraffe? That’s just sick. As in, demented. And unnecessarily polarizes and divides the firearms rights community.
Native people in the America, in Africa, the Pacific Islands, and parts of Asia all hunted and killed dangerous animals as various rites of passage. Often these cultures are held up as being closer to nature than us, and they engaged in this very same practice, proving manhood through surviving danger.
Well – we don’t need that now. You want a rite of passage surviving the danger? Take a walk through Chicago. If you survive the journey – you’ll have my respect.
They did, but it was done as a substitute for regular hunting–it was no trophy, it was just, “Okay, this week YOU do it, young one.” And of course, if you couldn’t hunt, you weren’t going to be much use to the tribe, since that’s what they did.
During that walk thru the South side of Chicago is an AR allowed or only a barbarian tribal spear??
Agree 100%. Killing an animal for sport isn’t manly. I recommend military enlistment and killing ISIS. I have no problem with hunters and eating animals.
What’s wrong with a bit of entertainment as long as sustainability is maintained?
It’s just an animal. We can own it just because we can. Manliness? Although I never hunt, all my buddies who hunt dont seem to have doubt in their manliness/womanliness to begin with, just like (most) gun owners are not compensating for small dicks.
As long as the environment is not further damaged, none of my biz.
James? An ethical principle either stands or it doesn’t, but you don’t get to declare it ok…..but only if it doesn’t have a practical impact.
Really, every last firearm infringement is unethical on its face. They don’t become OK just because they only affect a given percentage of the population. With that thinking, you might as well declare burglary is OK, because it’s just one house.
Whether spear hunting is ethical is its own issue. Whatever the answer is, it has nothing to do with only a few animals being impacted.
“All I care about is if he ate the bear.”
Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
Strongly agree, and many here disagree with you and I on that.
For me personally, killing an animal solely for it’s head or hide or because it’s rare is bloodlust and it’s creepy.
The argument that hunters pay a fee that supports the community and therefore their wanting to kill a giraffe is hunky dory just reinforces the whole creepiness of it.
Gee, in the US and Canada, it is illegal to waste the meat; in fact, a hunter is obligated to harvest as much of the meat as is possible. In Africa, the only meat that is wasted is from the animals killed by poachers for their horns or tusks. Although safari hunters are going for the trophy, the fact of the matter is that nothing is wasted, and the meat is donated to local communities and consumed. Everybody wins. And the hunts are, if legally operated, all part of the game management system run by the particular country.
Spear does a lot more damage than an arrow. Nobody sane has argued against bowhunting as inhumane, spearhunting is good by me.
As a bow hunter I actually doubt that a spear does as much tissue damage than a broadhead or folding point arrow does. I have absolutely nothing to back that up except having seen a hundred times probably what an arrow does when it hits an animal at 250-300 FPS. There’s a whole lot of energy being expended. Even though the spear is much heavier and the hunter was a javelin thrower, I just have my doubts.
I’m going by the idea that a well-thrown spear delivers twice the energy of an arrow fired from a modern bow, (5lb @37fps=106 ft/lbs vs 540 grains @ 220fps=58 ft/lbs) and cuts a hole several inches wide.
This. Also a spear has enough mass to easily penetrate/break bone. My (limited) understanding of arrow wounds is that they tend to deflect off bones in many circumstances where a bad angle-hit occurs.
Just thinking out loud… definitely no expert.
Archery is far more accurate. If you feel otherwise, then do a test.
Plus, the bear may alert and move to a spear being thrown. An arrow being released is less likely to startle the animal and allow it to move (i.e.: arrows are far faster).
Sounds like the predecessor to the 9mm vs .45 arguments.
CSGrad_76 – LOL. Nailed it!
Ebby123 – The thing about an arrow deflecting off a bone is something I’ve always read and never seen. I’ve shot an arrow through and through a large automobiles front door and have it stopped by the other door. I don’t know about the overall energy of an arrow versus a spear, but I can tell you I’ve never had an arrow deflect substantially off a deer’s shoulder blade or other bone. I’ve had quite a few punch an ugly looking hole through a shoulder blade. I had an arrow knock a vertebrae out of an Elk’s neck also. The original question was about ethics and I’m OK with killing a bear with a spear if you can do it humanely and you’re going to eat it. My point is don’t underestimate what a modern arrow can do to an animal. It is a devastating injury if placed well.
The first report I saw on this last week said that, according to one of the guides, they didn’t find the bear until the next day, which doesn’t match up with Josh’s claim that it ran 60 yards and died immediately.
Josh also told the reporter that the ethical “spearing” distance limit is 10 yards, but his social media apparently showed he claimed that he made the throw from 12 to 15 yards… so not following his own ethical rules?
I dunno…
Away from mak and his petty meat problems, this kill is fine…. To even argue ethics shows ones misunderstanding of its meaning….or lack of..
as long as it’s part of a cull, not near any paved footpaths or refuse bins. baiting is ok but only if the bear’s grease is later used for leather boot dressing.
my motto: knock it’s dick in the dirt.
copycat attempts at spearing that leave distressed wounded animals, well, no sir, i don’t like it. that may lead to some maulings as well.
i met a nepalese man in the chitwan valley who courted his wife by jumping on a rhino and taking it for a spin.
Ive got a cold steel spear. It’s cutting edges would cause a bleed out really, really fast.
Since baiting is illegal in Oregon, I probably won’t have the opportunity to use it.
Ethical? Yes.
By the way, bear meat is delicious!
That looks like a cold steel javelin, which is basically a sword on a stick.
It will make a massive wound, and then rip that wound open under its weight as the animal runs.
Ten seconds is about as fast as you can expect from what Ted Nugent calls the “double lung boogie”, whether bow, spear, or high-powered rifle.
I think this question needs to be answered in two parts:
In black and white terms, it was legal, barring a perfect brain shot the bear probably died faster and in less pain than if it had been shot. There is more than one source explains that a clean cut from an edged weapon will cause rapid and massive blood loss and will not likely clot so death is quick and beyond the initially shock of being hit with a spear, painless. The converse is true of a traumatic injury from a gunshot as the tearing crushing caused by the bullet will be less clean and more likely to clot potentially delaying the eventual expiration. Anyone who hunts long enough will have that one deer that they mortally wounded but started tracking too soon and invariably finds the final pool of coagulated blood with tracks leading away from it never to be found again.
However, let’s take a look at the optics, does it look ok to the outside world? Not really, at least from the pictures and social media posts it sure looks like he primarily did it “because he could” and from the celebration evidenced, it certainly looks like he did it for lets call them “self serving” reasons.
Now, me personally, knowing that the bear likely didn’t suffer, I say it was a clean kill, if he respected the animal by harvesting the edible bits then I say no harm no foul. However, the social media whoring of the kill is not my personal cup of tea. As we have already seen, the public seems to agree it was in poor taste.
We need to stop caring how we look to the “eternal victims” on the outside of our community.
The weaker animals often rely on deception or feigned injury as a means of manipulating stronger animals – Hence the rise of the Social Justice Warriors.
In today’s culture they are the weakest in the herd. The least capable, the least powerful. Thus, they must rely on feigned injury and deception to perpetually manipulate the stronger animals that they fear.
I don’t believe in Evolution in the common usage today, but if you look at Humans like one big herd of primates, it all starts to make sense. The weak fear the strong, but would never contest them openly, so instead they convince others – usually named “government” to do their dirty work.
You sound like someone who would appreciate Atlas Shrugged. Guilt is their only weapon, and it only works if they convince you to feel guilty about something.
But yes, survival of the fittest does not mean strongest or smartest. The free-riders have figured out how to game the system. They guilt smart and successful people into giving them their money, convince them not to have kids (while they have dozens of baby mamas), and guilt them into “understanding” while they mug them walking down the street. They get free money and make weak-minded people feel bad about not giving them more.
OPTICS? Who, outside the demtards, uses the faux noun “optics”. Put your metrosexual murse away and cut off that manbun.
Ethical? Please…what is more hands on than this? Why can’t this be respected? Under armour is a wannabe company. I always thought their stuff was overpriced and flashy. This is just what happens to a business ran by libtards who wanted to be part of a market they don’t understand.
Remember way back in the 80’s when all the stand-up comics was blasting people for hunting with semi-autos because if you need more that five rounds you suck at hunting? Those are the people right now making a fuss about this. So screw em. Same said for years that hunting should be dangerous so that the animal has a chance, well, this guy called their bluff and went after a BEAR with a damn SPEAR. And now they are pissed off about that. So since there is no winning with these clowns I vote that instead we institute a hunting season ON THEM.
At the very least take away their right to vote, because it’s obvious that an adult conversation is not possible with them. So they need to not be allowed to affect public policy any longer.
I think he’s an idiot that did it for attention. It’s not 10,000 bc. As long as he eats it and it died quickly then it’s not unethical.
With that UA should NOT have punished his wife for his stupidity. Woman’s rights activists should be flipping that a woman is fired because of her husband. I guess woman can’t stand alone. They are just their husbands wives. That’s what UA’s decision tells me.
If it gets the job done without much fuss or muss, then who cares. All the histrionic, effeminate nancy boys/SJWs who are crying over this will be upset no matter what, so screw them and their delicate feelings.
^^THIS. The “eternal victims” must be ignored. They are weaker animals trying manipulate the stronger animals into helping them stay alive.
They fear, more than anything else, the removal of their protective enclave – their special bubble where they are shielded from all forms of Natural Selection. They fear the real world – and that fear drives them to absolute mania at the slightest hint of how cold, unfair, and dispassionately full of death the real world is.
As an NRA member , pro hunter and lifetime shooter, I am curious why the spear hunter chose a baited hunt, and why he saw the need to video it for all to see his prowess. Maybe Narcissus took over to advertise his ego? Just askin’.
Perhaps finding the correct cave and then crawling in with a spear was eliminated from our DNA as a tactic by Mog Darwin a couple million ago?
Some of us have been fighting the pro-gun and pro-hunting battle for decades. That is, we were fighting this fight when Bowmar was in diapers.
Now this kid comes along, wants youtube views, and works to get more people to be revolted by hunting. Sheesh, especially when we have so many fighting to take our rights away now.
What a jackass. Then he cries about his wife’s sponsorship money.
After watching the video my jimmies were not rustled. Good spearing.
I may get some flak for this, and for full disclosure I never hunt:
It’s just an animal! Who gives a care as long as it’s not intentional torture!
/flamesuit on
Hope you’ve got an extra flamesuit, ’cause I agree with you 100%. If he donated the meat to needy people, good for him. If not, he’s a bit wasteful but ultimately, meh, it’s just an animal.
In principle – in an ideal world I might disagree with you. Compassion, all life matters and all that..
But this isn’t that world. There are infinitely more important things to worry about – like our own survival.
Do you know why those “activists” think the bear’s life matters, but not the mosquito that they just swatted? They weren’t enjoying looking at the mosquito. That’s it.
When the hunter kills the bear, these infantile self-centered individuals believe that the world OWED them that bear to look at and go “aww how cute”. And thus, the hunter has taken THEIR BEAR away from them, and they must throw a tantrum to stop it from ever happening again.
If it was ethical to do it thousands of years ago, it’s still ethical today. Humans are the apex predator in the world, but we have to understand that that power comes with great responsibility and that is to kill as humanely as possible. I have no doubt the bear died quickly.
If the prog media wants to display animal cruelty, then they should dig up the tapes of the Muslim slaughterhouse animal abuse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11384505/Secret-halal-slaughterhouse-film-reveals-horrific-animal-abuse.html
Oh, wait, it’s not being done by White Christians, move along.
I’m against hunting if it doesn’t serve a purpose ie. Food, pest control, population Control etc. Pure sport hunting is bullshit.
I would add “training, the honing of skills” to the approved list.
Being Jewish, I cannot eat pork unless it is a matter of survival. That said, I love to hunt hogs even though I can’t eat them. My buddies usually get the meat, and I get to train for a day when my ability to bag that hog might keep my family alive for another week.
I’m Jewish but I love bacon. Hogs are pests and overpopulated so I don’t think you have to eat them necessarily. Instead of listing why you should hunt I should just list why we shouldn’t, and that is for the sole purpose of stuffing the animal as a trophy. That is unethical IMO
It’s certainly one of, if not the, most sporting way to hunt a bear. I do some hunting, but don’t consider myself a hunter. I go get me a couple deer and turkeys every year, with the occasional squirrel and coyote shoot thrown in, all done with guns. I have friends who are solely into bow-hunting, not my thing though. Either way though, hunting involves killing and that is the cold, hard truth- something anti-hunters, anti-gunners and their ilk have trouble with. Since I’m not a big time hunter, I use guns for the same reason I have guns for self defense: it is the most effective technology available for accomplishing those objectives. I’d rather see a bear cleanly speared than sloppily shot though.
The only “unethical” hunting is that which damages the long term population of a species or threatens humans.
Anti-hunters shriek to the heavens about taking game with a gun/bow and how it’s unfair and weak. “Take out something that has a chance to fight back,” they say. “Use a spear like the brave Massai and Zulu warriors,” they say.
Man takes down a bear with a spear in 2016 like the hunters of yore, as it has been demanded for decades. The anti-hunters flip out.
These freaks know nothing of nature and the environment because they live among ivory towers in the concrete jungle. There is no pleasing them until we all live in an urban marxist dictatorship or every human being on earth is dead.
I would simply ask if they have a problem with spearfishing too.
I’m guessing most of them don’t.
I will however point out that UA did say that they thought this was “reckless”, so their severing of ties may have to do more with not wanting to get sued when some idiot attempts this and gets themselves mauled.
These nitwits are ok with spear fishing because fish are less human-like than bears. These people literally measure how deserving of “extra consideration” a lifeform is based on how similar to humans it is. The idea that a fish or a vegetable may experience their own forms of pain or pleasure doesn’t occur to them. They also place themselves outside the food chain, outside of the rest of nature, outside of the circle of life. It’s a self-centered and arrogant philosophy.
Honestly I think it has much more to do with how much Social Justice Warriors enjoy watching videos of said species on facebook.
Literally, I think that’s it.
Mosquitos? No f*cks given.
Ants? Nope.
Rabbits? “OMFG HOW CUUUUTE!! WHO WOULD EVER KILL A RABBIT?!?”
I knew those damn cat videos would lead to trouble!
Bingo- somehow bears got this reputation as being lovable, cuddly animals. Hell, my wife calls me her “big ol’ cuddly bear” (that is classified information btw, thank goodness for internet anonymity). However when you look at the way bears actually behave and exist in the wild, they are far from lovable and cuddly. Generations after teddy bears first hit the scene and later childrens book characters (Winnie the Pooh, Little Bear etc) must have made a lot of “modern” “adults” think that bears are actually that way? Or that bears have some sort of totemic power? I don’t know. Bears are not your brother brah. They will avoid you like the plague in most instances or brutally kill you if they feel the need to.
Exactly right. Bears are nothing but wild hogs with black fur. Here in Florida one is just as bad as the other if you own land.
It depends. Is the hunter native american? If so, then yes, it is not only ethical, but a cultural ritual that should be preserved before it is lost to time and white man’s persecution. If no, then it is unethical and cruel and should be banned.
Interesting. We can define what is ethical according to where our great-great-great grandparents were born. I never thought of it that way.
Also, I don’t think the bear cares.
What about the CareBears?
Sure it’s ethical. The anti-gun/hunting/extremist jag weeds want everyone defenseless/wearing skinny jeans and under the gubmints thumb. Please don’t hurt Yogi,Bambi or Snagglepuss!
The only way this hunt could have been ethical in the eyes of the anti-freedom members of our society is if the couple took a video of going to the store and purchasing a package of free-range, gluten free, organic, bear meat…that’s kosher. i.e. it is only ethical if it never happened.
Perhaps the Bowmars could have requested a license to think about hunting, then applied for an ethical walking certificate, then secured an ethical spear registration, with an obligatory 10 day waiting period all signed in triplicate, notarized and approved by the local sheriff before they went on this hunt, or they could have simply said, “F — OFF” to the rest of the professional outrage crowd and continued living their lives in the manner that best suits them.
And UA can just jog on, in my opinion. Social media mavens can join them.
“And nothing more or less than our ancestors did.”
For the love of F’ing God, please stop repeating this abject idiocy of an appositive when discussing this topic!
For starters, it’s obvious and adds nothing to anyone’s understanding of the issue. More importantly, it’s a vile misdirection. It’s an attempt to legitimize an action through nothing more than its recurrence.
Shall we all fill these pages with examples of things our ancestors did and justify committing those same acts today on that basis? Or would like to restrict the exercise to just the last two or three generations? Tell you what, how about we just tally up reprehensible acts committed by our contemporaries, and if they’re sufficiently prevalent, then TTAG can proudly publish op-eds in favor of them all? Fair enough? After all, might may not make right, but according to TTAG, frequency makes legitimacy.
OK, so who’s up on their google-foo? Let’s start with stats on vivisection, lynching, footbinding, and female genital mutilation, to go along with our bear-spearing happy fun times.
Now for the preemptive disarming of the riled up crowd:
Yes, I’m aware of medical experiments on animals. That’s for an important purpose. Spearing a human-familiar bear isn’t.
#RatLivesDon’tMatter
No, I’m not against hunting, even bear hunting, provided it’s done humanely and respectfully. A jackwagon with a javelin-mounted Go Pro camera doesn’t cut it.
Says you – the arbiter of all morality.
How about a little humility? “I don’t believe that a javelin is humane – here’s why..”
Spears carry more lethal energy than an arrow – commonly accepted as humane. Both kill 10 times less painfully than the MILLIONS of cows that are hacked, slashed, and stabbed until they eventually bleed out and become your next Big Mac hamburger.
All of these options are EXPONENTIALLY more humans that how an animal dies in the natural world – being run down and eaten while still alive by a pack of coyotes, or getting an infection and suffering for months before drowning in your own pus.
Perspective.
Your understanding of modern commercial livestock slaughtering techniques is flawed, to say the least.
Under ideal conditions you are correct – commercial harvesting is much more humane, but the 10% or so of slaughterhouses that aren’t will butcher more animals that probably most hunters in the U.S. combined.
Curtis,
Not all slaughterhouses are humane.
If you think hunting an animal with a spear is unethical you should just go annul your own existence. Hunting baited animals with a spear is why you are here to have this discussion.
Ethics between humans is a luxury. Extending ethics to non-humans is possibly a pathology.
One time I was at an event where someone was egging the crowd on about the idea that we should extend rights to trees and everyone was feeling super-groovy about this. I asked if we should also extend rights to bacteria, like Staphylococcus aureus or Clostridium botulinum? Should penicillin be considered a weapon of mass destruction, should taking antibiotics be considered genocide?
I’ve also wondered why vegetarians seem to draw an arbitrary line between animals and plants. It’s like they are saying, “well, creatures that are more like me deserve different consideration than forms of life that are less like me. If the lifeform feels pain like I do then save it, if it feels pain in its own way that different them me, screw it, toss it with some raspberry vinaigrette.” Who are you self-centered vegetarian, defining experiences more like yours superior or higher order?
As to your last paragraph there don I would say the following:
A great number of the anti-hunters I’ve encountered didn’t like the killing because it reminded them that one day, they too, will die and they hadn’t really come to grips with that yet. (That’s my psychoanalysis of them based on my interactions with them.) Combine that with the fact that, generally speaking, we are the apex predator on this planet and you’re gonna get some wonky views when people start over-analyzing things.
More bears killed by any means necessary should be the goal. This guy just got to do it up close and personal. Up humans down bears. The only good bear is a dead bear.
I don’t question the weapon or the methods.
Further, this bear clearly had no fear of humans and needed to be culled for the sake of human safety.
What I do question is the need to film your hunt with multiple cameras (including one mounted on the spear), then use the youtube bragging stump to show… what, exactly? To demonstrate your superior testosterone level? I doubt if the hunter in question endangered his own safety here, and if he did, it was a sophomoric stunt. Most likely it was nothing more than a pathetic, desperate attempt to get attention. Mission accomplished.
The only thing I know for sure is that this spearchucker (and his videographer wife) have done us no favors. Culling dangerous animals is best done quietly and without fanfare, regardless of the weapon used.
It’s his job Curtis. More views-more bucks. Except it backfired this time. Social media et all. Not to hijack this thread but Gabby Giffords just endorsed Mark Kirk for the senate. Truly the worst RINO around-at least Gabby got shot in the head…
Gabby is pro-Kirk.
Now, that’s funny.
I wonder what Tammy Duckworth did to pi$$ her off.
Oh Curtis I neglected to mention the Gabbster endorsed Pat Toomey (RINO) of Pennsylvania also:)
The first response says “I don’t really give a crap about “ethics” in hunting.” This makes me think far less about today’s hunters. Far less. Then again, those who don’t care about ethics probably don’t care what anyone else thinks or if they spoil something for other people. They just want what they want, like any 5 year old kid.
I had answered all of Farago’s questions, but it doesn’t matter so I deleted the answers. People who don’t care about ethics and those who agree with them is a more important topic than the difference between a spear and a bow.
For the “no ethics” crowd, thank you for being forthright.
Let me just make sure, we are discussing whether hunting, that quickly kills the prey, exactly as has been done for the last 100,000 years and exactly as is still done in much of the world, is ethical cause better technology is now available?
So when “smart” 40 Mega Watt plasma rifles become common place, it will be unethical to hunt black bear with a lever action .45-70?
He made clean kill…good for him. He has, I suppose, practiced flinging his spear until he had sufficient proficiency to attempt taking a game animal. Had he not made a clean kill, and the gut-hit or shoulder-hit bear/deer/elk/whatever did not leave a trail good enough to follow (assuming dogs are not allowed in that state to follow up wounded animals) how would he feel, or rather, how should he feel. God gave us dominion over the animals for our utilization as food, clothing, tools and shelter, not to thump our chests and exult in our prowess by broadcasting it over the internet/airwaves. This stuff ,chest-thumping and exulting, is just providing ammo to the antis. Tone it down just a bit guys else you’re just providing them with the rope for your own hanging. Take a picture and put it in your album to look back on when you’re too old to go out to the game fields anymore.
Provided the hunter makes a quick, clean kill, spearing is no more or less ethical than any other method. American Indians used to hunt buffalo by stampeding a herd over a cliff. They took what they could carry and left the rest to rot.
I’m totally fine with spear hunting. There are tribes that still do it to this day. I don’t judge their hunting. Oh, am I ok with a white man spear hunting? Yes. Heck, I’d try it myself, even if it gives Jonathan Houston and the liberal progressive world a conniption fit.
Deer suffer every year from poor arrow and gun shots. Even a relatively good shoot with an arrow takes time to kill a deer (whereas a .45-70 +P or .300 Wing Mag at close range is DRT). Some deer run for hours, some die days later, and some carry on for the next season or so with terrible wounds and scars. I’ve helped other hunters track down and harvest wounded game. We don’t want to make mistakes, but we are human.
Of course every reasonable effort should be made to minimize unnecessary suffering. My quick kill with a high powered rifle and a nice scope might seem less sporting than the traditional archer with a recurve bow. His low energy arrow shot is far less likely to dispatch a deer or a bear quickly. The recurve hunter might judge the crossbow hunter. The spear Hunter has to get in close, obviously, and ought to have lethal cover if he’s after dangerous game.
I’m fine with all sport hunters and fishers who don’t poach and don’t cause unnecessary suffering. I’m not so naive that I expect tolerance from liberals who hate hunting.
If hunting with a spear is unethical, then hunting with a full auto machine gun should be the height of ethical hunting, right?
Look, ethics is the study of morality, what is considered good or bad by the society you are a member of. So let’s break it down. Did he follow all the laws pertaining to hunting a bear? Yes. Did the bear suffer? Apparently not more than any quickly dying animal. Did he kill the bear for sport? I’d say no, since he put it on media that he profits from. Did he enjoy it? Looks like it. Did he donate the meat to people who could use it? We don’t know. Will the anti-hunters care if he used a spear or a machine gun? No they hate hunters and hunting, period.
So overall I’d say that he was ethical.
Now if you want to look at the ethics of UA, they had a financial arrangement with his spouse, which they terminated over people who don’t hunt complaining about hunters. They are apparently OK with selling stuff to hunters. So what they did was punish a woman for the actions of their spouse. Is that OK in our society? Not really. So I’d say UA was unethical.
Ethics aside, if many of you want to rush to the defense of a guy who’s apparently topless half the time and likes to stab what’s basically an oversized raccoon and brag about it, I guess that’s your business. I have nothing against hunting for the sake of hunting. This, however, was egotism and attention-whoring.
Yes
Yes. Killing an animal with the judicious application of your skill is definitely ethical.
The method of killing bears doesn’t really get my attention. I’m not a big fan of hunting them over bait stations though. If you want to hunt bear, then go stalk one and get within range using stealth or smarts. At least deer, when going for food are still wary of humans and spook easily. Bears seem to not give a rats ass who’s near when they have been conditioned to come to the bait stations at dinner time.
Comments are closed.