He killed the bear for fun. That disgusts me. If you kill a rat for fun, you are disgusting to me.
I know that it’s not as good a weapon as a gun. I know that it’s hard to get one good shot with a gun. I know that this guy is a total fucking moron. I know that total fucking morons are, by definition, stupid and incompetent. I doubt that someone this stupid and incompetent is capable of using a more difficult weapon than a gun to make a single shot kill of a large animal. Yes, that is absolutely my position.
If he’s such a genius and such a good shot, why did he need to shoot a tame bear and why did he get caught? I think my interpretation of the data is pretty likely, and yours is an attempt to take a contrary position for the fuck of it.
I strenuously object to that. We can get started on phonies in music any time, and think I can rant about it with the best of them. When you get down to it, though, the victims of that phony crap deserve it. They’re gullible morons with shitty taste in music, and they pay the price (literally) for their stupidity. It’s very annoying to watch phony, no-talent losers like Vanilla Ice get famous, but ultimately I try to tell myself that it doesn’t affect me and they’ll get what’s coming to them.
Who said I don’t object? I’m a vegetarian and I don’t support people who kill animals for money.
The death wish is semi-facetious.
Shooting a gun is legal, and so is looking at the President. When you combine the two, people object to it.
The bottom line, Blake, is that while I think both of those things are wrong, I also think people are within their rights to do them. Victimizing an animal with such a bullshit motivation does make it worse, in my mind, even if the end result is the same. I’m not sold that he’s trying to help his career here. I think he just wanted to feel big, and decided because of his ego needs, a bear that couldn’t threaten him had to die. “Selfish” and “vanity” don’t seem to do it justice.
I was. What is your point here? I’ve never shot bear but I have shot goats and deer and putting an arrow through the brain at close range isn’t difficult. Are you suggesting that a bear skull are substantially heavier than those animals?
Why? I’ve shot tame pigs that were lying down, does that make me despicable? Are you suggesting I should have kicked them first to make them stand up and then shot them? Why would that make me less despicable?
I don’t get this at all.
You should realise that different parts of the world apparently use different terminologies. When I refer to a quarter pound arrow I am referring to the total arrow weight, not the point. That should have been obvious from the fact that I was comparing it to the weight of a bullet.
The fact that this was known to be a short range shot at a stationary target, and given that you implied that bear skulls are imposible to penetrate with standard arrows it isn’t excatly unlikely that a 800 grain arrow was being used, now is it?
No, you just made a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
What you are missing is that posters here are expressing their gut-level emotional reactions. I don’t think it can readily be explained to those who haven’t felt it. Imagine, instead of the bear in a pen. it was a child in a cradle. Or YOUR faithful pet of many years. I’m not defending this reaction, just explaining it the best I am able
Regarding the pain or lack thereof – if this guy is the pretender Great White Hunter he appears, he is probably a really shitty bow hunter. I have seen videos of “hunts” on game farms where an animal is basically trapped in a corner and pincushioned with arrows until it stops twitching and screeching, and breathing. I can easily imagine something like that happening, though who knows at this point? It’s possible he got a kill with one clean shot, but it doesn’t seem likely. I suppose that sooner or later the video will be online – it would be very interesting to see the raw footage and how it was edited into a final product.
Of course I speak from total ignorance about hunting, never having done it. But I am always hearing from hunters about it being more complex and difficult than I think, and they seem to have some kind of moral code about what constitutes a “fair hunt”.
Gentry violated the rules of bleeding heart liberals and’ REAL MEN (such as they are understood by folks like me, but that’s abother thread).
It’s described as having been in an “enclosed pen”, not a cage. The former implies a considerably larger area to roam, and not such a confined space where you could assume a point-blank shot.
I asked you where you got the idea that the bear’s death was painless (there was nothing in the linked story to that effect). “As far as anyone knows” is not evidence of a painless kill. We have no knowledge of this singer’s hunting prowess (based on his paying thousands of dollars for a tame bear in order to fake a realistic hunt, it’s extremely doubtful that he’s an experienced hunter). If you want to assume otherwise for whatever reason (the reputation of hunters in general? justifying your own actions?), that’s your business.
What makes you think I said any such thing?
We do not kill pets and service animals for fun. Even animals raised expressly for food are not killed for fun. It seems especially vile that a trusting animal was killed for pseudo-sport.
Well, I’m pretty sure I’ve eaten beef that was called “Chuck”, but that may not be what you mean.
Yes. Substantially. But that’s not the only issue. 1) It’s a smaller, more difficult target. 2) It is made of very thick bone which is sloped at odd angles. Many head shots will fail to penetrate to a fatal depth or ricochet away after hitting at a less than optimal angle. At that point, you have a bleeding, pissed-off bear. In short, if you try to head shoot a bear with a bow and arrow, you’re an idiot with a death wish.
An 800-grain arrow, including the point, which is pretty much the heaviest arrow anyone would use for any purpose short of a walking cane, still weighs quite a bit less than a quarter pound. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I should point out that the only way to kill a bear with a bow and arrow is with a heart/lungs shot in which the arrow passes completely through the bear, leaving a large exit wound. Even if you make a perfect shot and the arrow doesn’t exit the animal, the chances that you will ever claim your trophy are very, very small. The bear may die eventually, but it will run for many miles before it does.
Incidentally, another reason his act was despicable is that he’s lazy. The after-shot pursuit, claim, and extraction of the animal are important parts of any hunt, and I can’t respect anyone too lazy to pursue his own kill.
How do you know he did it for fun? Given the video production crew on the scene it seems almost certain that he did this as part of his image manufacturing. IOW HE DID IT FOR MONEY.
Is it really the recreation part that offends you? Do you also find every person who hunts for recreation disgusting?
I have killed countless rats in order to make money. Does that disgust you?
At a caged animal? Are you kidding?
How do you know that?
I could use the rolleyes here so easily.
You don’t need to be a good shot to shoot a bear in cage. That is the whole point.
It was a production of a video. It is very hard to get a good shot of an actual bow hunt. Damn hard for two guys to stalk prey when one of them has a camera to his eye.
Nixon got caught? Was he also a moron? How about Churchill? Clinton? It seems to me that your argument is that the guy must be a moron because he got caught, and we know he got caught because he was a moron. Totally circular.
Uh uh. It’s pretty likely that you can evaluate the intelligence of someone you have never even spoken to? And pretty likely circular reasoning makes sense?
OK, so do you also regularly start or contribute to pit threads about these people? Seriously, if you have an objection to his dishonesty that’s understandable, but I fail to see where the bear really enters into it except as perhaps an aggravating factor.
Once again though, your position seems more coherent than most here since it seems you at least object to the behaviour generally rather than this incidence specifically. You presumably also object to pest controllers and veterinarians taking money to kill animals.
True, but we all know that is because of the consequences. If someone shot like, oh, Dick Cheney, a gun near the President and there were no consequences I can’t imagine anyone starting a pit thread about it weeks later.
Well if that’s true it’s pathetic, but pretty trivial in the list of sins in this world. Hardly worthy of a pitting. It’s about on par with someone telling bullshit stories; ie the act of a small ego trying to inflate itself with fictitious heroism.
So it’s the old “If I had to explain it rationally I couldn’t” kneejerk?
IOW they are wishing death on others based on an irrational and ignorant response to those different from them? Is that really what the SDMB is about these days?
And imagine if, instead of getting a BJ from Monica, Bill Clinton had got a BJ form a 6 year old boy! Let’s execute Bill Clinton on that basis. These scenarios simply aren’t comparable.
Exactly what I said earlier. We are ignorant at this point. Yet people are howling for blood precisely because of that ignorance.
If this guy caused undue pain then charge him for it. If he killed person in the course of the hunt charge him with that too. At this point nobody has any reason to believe he did either.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. He violate some arbitrary cultural rules and as a result he has to be crucified. It’s nothing but the most shameful kind of bigotry. There is no rational explanation for why he should be crucified. He hurt no one, but because he offended our culture we have to kill hum.
The guys an arsehole, not a murderer. The only reasonable response would be to call him an arsehole and move ion.
…which is eminently pittable, disgusting, and wasteful, because something died for absolutely no reason other than to feed his ego and reputation. Not for food, not even for sport. Just his little egomania…and I reserve the right to despise him for it, because it reveals serious moral flaws.
IOW, you say arsehole, I say “sick scumbag.” YMMV, but I don’t give a shit.
If they kill something for the sake of killing it rather than the sake of eating it, yes, I absolutely do.
If you kill rats because you get off on it, you’re disgusting. How much clearer can this be?
At a moving target, you braying jackass. Unless you want to argue that what, the bear was holding completely still? And even if it were, go watch people at a range sometime. The average shmoe off the street can’t shoot unmoving PAPER, and there is zero evidence that this guy is anything but a rich, selfish, stupid average shmoe off the street.
My bad. I shouldn’t have done the calculations in my head. OK, substitute 1/8 of a pound. My point doesn’t change.
Sorry but that is just nonsense “hunter’s lore”. Even a basic understanding of physiology will tell you that bear with a metal arrowhead in the AV node or severing a major cardiac vessles won’t run for many metres, much less miles.
Similarly the idea that a bear with severed the renal arteries, a broken spine or numerous other injuries unlinked to the heart will move much distance after the injury is pure folklore.
So you are howling for his blood base dont he fact that you don’t have any evidence that he didn’t cause pain? Hell in that case we also don’t have any evidence thathe didn;t have sex with the bear. Do you assume that as well? This is to bizarre for words.
You have ducked the question. You said that the fact that it had a name wa simportant. Whyis aname of any relevance?
You have already said that you don’t object to recreational killing of animals. So do I take it you only object to the recreational killing of raised animals? Would you be fine if a wild-caught bear had been locked in cage and shot? Can you explain that in any rational way?
Why? Would it be less vile if the animal was timid, stressed and terrified at the time it was killed?
Why are you assuming that everyone is howling for his blood? Saying that his actions were disgusting or despicable or lazy or shameful or any variation thereof isn’t howling for his blood, and the majority of the people you’re shrieking at have said nothing that could even remotely be construed, even by you, as howing for his blood.
And the fact that people here have such a bigoted outlook that they will call any cultural differences a moral flaw is a far bigger moral flaw: it is bigotry. Pure and simple.
They don’t even attempt to justify rationally why killing the animal for pleasure (“sport”) is fine but killing it for an ego boost is wrong, even though the end result is identical. They simply vilify this person because he disagrees with their cultural prejudices.
OK, so now we are getting somewhere. You object to all recreational hunting and believe that all hunters are as sick as this person. At least now we know that yours position is just irrational cultural bigotry.
You can try answering the actual question, that would be clearer. Do you object to people killing animals for money? No mention was made of killing for pleasure. If this person killed this bear just to make an extra million dollars would that be OK by you? Even though the consequences are identical would that be acceptable?
I think we’ve just reached the extent of your ability to discuss this rationally, haven’t we?
You’re arguing a point not in evidence. First of all, you’re assuming that Gentry executed a clean, painless kill. This is far from established, and in fact is pretty goddamned unlikely. It would be easier to hit the heart/lungs than it would be to sever major arteries. In fact, an arterial shot in the general region of the heart and or lungs would still be construed as a heart/lung shot.
You’re also showing ignorance again. First, a bear is capable of running miles even while seriously injured because they do not tend to bleed freely. The massively thick layers of muscle and fat tend to act as a bandage (not to mention as a barrier to slow down an arrow) which stops the bear from bleeding out externally. This is why you need a large exit wound. If you’re arguing the bear bled out internally from an arterial shot, I’m going to have to ask for a cite.
Also, I’m quite suspect of your dismissal of countless hunters’ experiences as “folklore.” This smacks of pure arrogance and windbaggery.
And neither does mine: that you shouldn’t even be arguing the technical points, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
No hunter I know, and I know a lot, would kill something they aren’t going to eat. I specifically said
So, unless you can pull a cite out of the same places you’re pulling your expertise in hunting that shows that “all hunters” kill for the sake of killing rather than to eat it, I guess you’re wrong. Again.
Braying jackass had such a ring to it, I think you’re gonna have to keep it. It’s hilarious that you think that me calling you a jackass invalidates my arguments when your snide condescension from your first post to me is all hunky-dory.
You’re an idiot. There is no bigotry at all in my stance. There is only respect toward the hunt and the animal being hunted…and a strong disrespect for anyone who would purposefully deceive people by killing a captive animal during a fake hunt. This is not cultural bigotry. The respect a hunter feels toward the activity and the animal he is hunting crosses almost all cultural boundaries. You will find the same respect in Siberia, Australia, Africa, South America, and many other places as you do here in North America. Why? Because of what I said before: hunting is rooted very deeply in what we are.
Wow. What a stunningly ineffective argument, especially in light of the following quote:
I think it’s reasonable to decide the moral dimension of his act by addressing the outcome. I don’t have a problem with killing an animal for food. I don’t object to killing it for its hide. I don’t even object to killing an animal for “fun,” under certain circumstances: I think bullfighting is fascinating because of the incredible skill, artistry, and danger involved. It doesn’t appeal to me personally, but it is a difficult, somewhat dangerous skill, and I respect Ogre’s somewhat mystical experience while hunting, even if I’ve no desire (or, I suspect, ability) to feel it first hand.
This guy killed a bear so he could pretend to be a macho hunter guy and thereby sell more of his crappy albums. He killed an animal in a stupid bid for an undesirable end. That makes the death of this particular animal a total waste. That pisses me off. Not a lot. I’m not howling for blood. But I think the guy is a cheesedick, and while I’ve never before bought any of his albums, and would never have bought any of his albums, now I can not buy his albums and feel smugly superior about it.
Your comments about “howling for blood” are bizarre, seeing as the most I’ve called for is for the “hunter” in this case to face economic consequences. It’s also bizarre to make a bald assertion (completely unsupported) about the animal not suffering pain, and then try to castigate me for making assumptions.
It’s already been pointed out to you that a tame animal given a name is tantamount to a pet. It’s relevant that we frown on killing pets and then pretending that we’ve slain a dangerous wild beast.
Um, no I haven’t. I’ve pointed out the objections many people have to hunting. As it happens, I don’t have a serious problem with hunting in general. What’s objectionable is when certain hunters get all defensive and start trying to justify cruelty, laziness, and other acts that give the activity a bad name.
I appreciate it, Miller, although I feel I should point out that what I feel is not really mysticism…it’s more of an ecological connection, y’know? It’s really based in my understanding of what humans really are: clever apes that kill things for dinner.
