The most sickening hunt I have ever seen.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not sure if this should necessarily go here. But this year there was a bear hunt in the Katmai National Preserve in Alaska. yes, a bear hunt. Now, my moral objection to sport hunting aside (I reject on ethical grounds all but subsistence and management motivated hunting of predators) this hunt is fucking disgusting. These animals are living in a national park and are completely used to people. They hunt salmon alongside sport anglers the whole summer, and lounge about complacently in front of people's tents.

Then in fall, these basically tame bears get hunted.

Is this hunt ethical?

This is a video of said hunt. These bears are so used to people they will knowingly walk less than 20 meters away from a group of three sport hunters and get shot. Said hunters leave the rotting carcass after decapitating and skinning it, and as there are no bag limits on this hunt... hunters if they so wish can shoot the feeding(read: opportunistic cannibal) bears from their sleeping bags.

In any case, I cant rant anymore... Feel free to discuss.

[Singular Intellect]

Yeah, pretty disgusting.

I think humans should only kill any animal for practically justifiable purposes. There isn't any here in this case.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's really a question about whether or not there is Bear overpopulation. If there is, this is really the state just contracting out a cull of the herd that they'd otherwise do themselves, with exactly the same methods.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's really a question about whether or not there is Bear overpopulation. If there is, this is really the state just contracting out a cull of the herd that they'd otherwise do themselves, with exactly the same methods.

Well, is there a bear overpopulation problem at work here or is this sports hunting?

[Lagmonster]

Are you certain that this hunt wasn't done, as Duchess says, to cull the species for winter? If so, trust me when I say that watching an animal gruesomely starve to death in winter is far more moving than watching a few animals get shot to death.

As to the ethics of the hunting methods, I think it boils down to the suffering animals incur - if you torture an animal to death, that's unethical. But who cares how they bait their prey or why? It doesn't change the outcome of the event.

As for the 'they trust humans so it's cruel' argument, that's just plain stupid. Predator and prey species often occupy space within reasonable proximity of each other, but that perceived safe coexistence is an illusion, subject to the appetite of the predator species and the concern of the prey species. Or you could go hug one of those trusting bears to see how much it likes you and thinks you wouldn't ever dare hurt it.

And leaving a skinned bear carcass behind makes sense; people don't really eat bear, and aside from a handful of craftsmen don't use their innards for anything, so better to leave it for the scavengers to gorge themselves on in preparation for winter.

[Gaidin]

It doesn't even have to be overpopulation inspiring the hunt so much as fear, or lack thereof. Once bears stop seeing people and cars as a threat(assuming they see them that way), they aren't going to suddenly start again. Anything that a bear isn't afraid of becomes food.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, these bears are not overpopulated, the population is healthy and would be with or without any sort of culling (the ustainable harvest in the area is six percent, the state of alaska manages it down to 2%)

It's really a question about whether or not there is Bear overpopulation. If there is, this is really the state just contracting out a cull of the herd that they'd otherwise do themselves, with exactly the same methods.

In a population with no natural predators, limited only by food intake, there is no reason to ever cull a population for management reasons because the system takes care of itself. The bears dont mate and have cubs more than they die of starvation (though that does happen, and death from starvation during hibernation is painless) and the population reaches equilibrium. Management of a population is only ever done for two reasons

1) We have messed up the system by exterminating predators or changing the composition of plant species such that the population of ungulates explodes and puts pressure on the system that we depend on. Ie. a deer population at a reservoir.

2) We have a desire to harvest the species for some reason.

Well, is there a bear overpopulation problem at work here or is this sports hunting?

Sport hunting

It doesn't even have to be overpopulation inspiring the hunt so much as fear, or lack thereof. Once bears stop seeing people and cars as a threat(assuming they see them that way), they aren't going to suddenly start again. Anything that a bear isn't afraid of becomes food.

I'll be blunt, people take that risk when they go into the alaskan wilderness. These animals are nowhere near human inhabited areas, and there are few issues between humans and bears here anyway. Why? because due to the abundant salmon, they dont care to eat other things. The salmon is easy, humans are difficult, they scream, holler, make a huge mess. And more to the point, the hunt was NEVER justified on those grounds as far as I can tell.

As to the ethics of the hunting methods, I think it boils down to the suffering animals incur - if you torture an animal to death, that's unethical. But who cares how they bait their prey or why? It doesn't change the outcome of the event.

Bears are difficult to kill in one shot. They need to be shot multiple times, often with bolt action rifles, or in one case you saw, bows. That animal suffered immensely, not only in terms of physical pain, but also fear. It's suffering needs to bring pleasure to a LOT of people before it is justified on utilitarian grounds. There is a fuckton more to it than that. It does not just boil down to relative measures of pleasure vs pain. If it did, I could kill and skin people provided my doing so pleased enough people at the taxidermy exhibit at the local natural history museum. There are issues of justice (IE fundamental fairness, applied in this case as issues of fair chase and sportsmanship) which are violated in this case as well among other things. Preference utilitarianism can come in (Honestly I think the bear's preference not to die kinda outweigh the hunters preference for a trophy)

As for the 'they trust humans so it's cruel' argument, that's just plain stupid. Predator and prey species often occupy space within reasonable proximity of each other, but that perceived safe coexistence is an illusion, subject to the appetite of the predator species and the concern of the prey species. Or you could go hug one of those trusting bears to see how much it likes you and thinks you wouldn't ever dare hurt it.

You probably dont watch natural systems very often, and see interactions between predator and prey very much, so I will forgive this idiocy. This is not a predator-prey interaction as biologists know it. Predators and their prey co-exist yes. But the prey species watch them like hawks, keep at a safe distance so they can run if they need to, hide their offspring, engage in mobbing behavior (I got mobbed by angry grackles not too long ago) etc. These bears are tertiary consumers. They have no predators. They have no evolved mechanisms to combat predators. They are territorial and protective of their young yes, but during the salmon run, even those mechanisms are down because of the high bear density and abundance of food. These bears are so accustomed to humans that a bear can get shot 50 meters away and the the animal might look up from eating flowers for a few seconds before going back to munching. Moreover, predators dont kill for fun or sport. They kill to survive and take (mostly) the weak, sick, and injured (Ambush predators like crocodiles might be an exception to this). Human hunters kill for sport and prefer to take trophy animals, the largest and healthiest animal they can (with the exception of subsistence hunters). Human trophy hunters are not part of the massive co-evolved system that regulates predator prey interactions so don't try to pull that over on me. Subsistence hunters like Alaskan natives are, Masai in Africa are. White trophy hunters are not.

And leaving a skinned bear carcass behind makes sense; people don't really eat bear, and aside from a handful of craftsmen don't use their innards for anything, so better to leave it for the scavengers to gorge themselves on in preparation for winter.

If they left the carcass sure, maybe it could be justified that way (though I would say it has more to do with them not respecting the animal with these particular hunters) But chances are they are simply using the corpses as bait to attract more bears for their trophy wall. See above.

[Lord Poe]

You know, I feel sorry for these bears if they're dying simply for the "fun" of "sport" hunting. But irony sometimes pops up, and makes you laugh out loud. Check out the banner ad I saw at the bottom of this thread:

[Zixinus]

I think humans should only kill any animal for practically justifiable purposes. There isn't any here in this case.

I agree. If you kill an animal, then at least take use of the corpse. And more then just skinning. Killing for the fun of it is not justifiable.

[Gaidin]

The actual hunt summary. Link at bottom center of page to a pdf.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't have the first damned clue what kind of conclusion to actually draw from the data. As it is though, I'm more interested in why Alaska allows the hunt than why any single person wants to hunt them. I can't find anything about that though.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The actual hunt summary. Link at bottom center of page to a pdf.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't have the first damned clue what kind of conclusion to actually draw from the data. As it is though, I'm more interested in why Alaska allows the hunt than why any single person wants to hunt them. I can't find anything about that though.

They allow it because hunters are a powerful lobby and they pay a small fortune to hunt the bears.

[Lagmonster]

I'll be blunt, people take that risk when they go into the alaskan wilderness.

This is different than sport hunting; if there is a situation wherein people are taking a risk, mitigating that risk includes being willing to kill the bear if you feel threatened by it.

Bears are difficult to kill in one shot. They need to be shot multiple times, often with bolt action rifles, or in one case you saw, bows. That animal suffered immensely, not only in terms of physical pain, but also fear.

The hunters in your video are probably slobs who just wanted to kill a bear and wouldn't care whether it was in a barrel or in the wild, at which point you just have to try for the cleanest kill possible to your ability. While I don't care for sport hunting myself, as long as the population levels are being managed responsibly by whoever is tending the park and everyone is working to minimize undue suffering I don't see why anyone should give a shit.

It's suffering needs to bring pleasure to a LOT of people before it is justified on utilitarian grounds.

My father in law hunts, and I spent a good portion of my youth on a farm in the middle of nowhere where they did a good amount of hunting and pest shooting. While I don't hunt, I've seen many animals killed, and met a good many hunters, and I can tell you that your "inflicting suffering gives hunters a stiffy" comment is a load of horseshit. Hunters generally get a thrill from hunting, not torturing something to death. Certainly, some are sadistic bastards, but that's hardly the case for the majority and I think you'll find the bastards get reprimanded in the community and in some cases what they do is illegal. Most hunters I know actually prefer to crow about their ability to make a 'clean' kill.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is different than sport hunting; if there is a situation wherein people are taking a risk, mitigating that risk includes being willing to kill the bear if you feel threatened by it.

bit of a strawman there.

If you feel threatened by an individual bear that is one thing. If you are in the woods and meet a bear before the salmon run (say right after it wakes up and is hungry with no river full of fat-rich tasty salmon to keep it satiated) And it comes after you, fine, shoot it if you have to.

Organizing hunts to "mitigate risk to people" when one does not exist (because the bears are content to swim around eating more salmon than they know what to do with) is another matter. If the bear wants to rifle through your stuff because you were an idiot and left your crap near your tent, your damn fault, leave the bear alone or make some loud noise, the bear has salmon not 100 yards away it doesn't want or need a fight, I guarantee you, it will leave more often than not. If it gets angry and comes at you, see above on shooting it.

The hunters in your video are probably slobs who just wanted to kill a bear and wouldn't care whether it was in a barrel or in the wild, at which point you just have to try for the cleanest kill possible to your ability. While I don't care for sport hunting myself, as long as the population levels are being managed responsibly by whoever is tending the park and everyone is working to minimize undue suffering I don't see why anyone should give a shit.

If you are an act utilitarian you are not being consistent then. In act utilitarianism, the ONLY moral action is to take the route that leads to the greatest ratio of pleasure vs. pain. The only action which does this is to leave the bear alone and get your (collective you, not individual) jollies elsewhere. I am a bit more flexible than that because I am not an act utilitarian I am a non-anthropocentric pragmatist (anthropocentrism being the idea that only humans directly count in moral deliberations) I take multiple moral principles into account and balance them against eachother.

can tell you that your "inflicting suffering gives hunters a stiffy" comment is a load of horseshit.

Are you on drugs? You must be hallucinating because I said nothing to that effect. Here is what you need to do. You need to let Mr. Scarecrow's relatives out of the camps, click your heals together and say "there's no place like home" a few times and come back from the land of Oz. Then we can have a real discussion. Thanks

My father in law hunts, and I spent a good portion of my youth on a farm in the middle of nowhere where they did a good amount of hunting and pest shooting. While I don't hunt, I've seen many animals killed, and met a good many hunters, and I can tell you that your "inflicting suffering gives hunters a stiffy" comment is a load of horseshit. Hunters generally get a thrill from hunting, not torturing something to death. Certainly, some are sadistic bastards, but that's hardly the case for the majority and I think you'll find the bastards get reprimanded in the community and in some cases what they do is illegal. Most hunters I know actually prefer to crow about their ability to make a 'clean' kill.

I spent my formative childhood years in the alaskan wilderness. Literally, I lived in the woods about 30 km from the nearest population center and about 300 meters from my nearest neighbor (a lumberjack lesbian who built her house out of rock and mortar with her bare hands)
I too know a lot of sport hunters and many of them would want to beat these particular slobs into a bloody paste. They do prefer, by and large clean kills, and I do not consider them evil. Morally wrong maybe (in some cases depending on the species they hunt and under what circumstances. In a lot of cases sports hunting takes place under an ecological management context because the population has overshot carrying capacity due to a lack of predators. But they are not evil (good character, poor decisions most of the time when the moral calculus does not go in their favor) the issue here is not whether it "gives them a stiffy" but whether or not the happiness or pleasure they get from sport hunting outweighs the suffering of the animal, and if it does, then whether other moral considerations (such as justice, preference utilitarianism etc) also come out in their favor.

With a lot of deer hunting for example, the hunt is fair. The animals are not naive to predation, the hunters have to sneak in nice and close to get a clean kill, which gives the animal a chance to defend itself by running, etc. There is justice in that sort of hunt. And because the kill is usually clean, the animal does not suffer significantly. The only thing left is the preference utilitarianism. But that is hard to quantify... the deer doesnt want to die... but the hunter wants a trophy... how to work that out I am not sure.

[LadyTevar]

Aly? This is why I didn't get deeper into the discussion when you IMd me with this story.

You are going way overboard with your defense, and it's making you look PETA. Calm down and think your arguments out better.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If you're looking at it merely abstractly as an interest comparison, and not in the context of population control, then perhaps, Alyrium, you can try to juxtapose the two interests and discern what one's usually more serious. What does the one have to lose vs the other? I am not really familiar with the psychology or mental capacity of most of these types of animals, so I leave that to those who are.

Assuming it can want to continue living or has a preference/interest in continued life, that is usually a significant interest. Maintained life leads to many other interests, allows the fulfillment of futures. By killing them, you might be depriving them of that. Would that, alone, seem more significant than the simpler desire to acquire temporary pleasure of collect a material trinket? What happens to him if that desire is not met? How serious is that loss compared to the loss of life? Preference Utilitarianism seems somewhat more difficult to apply in this case for me because I am not as familiar with their cognitive research as I am with Chimpanzees etc.

Now, as you said, if it were population control at stake, that changes the equation entirely anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aly? This is why I didn't get deeper into the discussion when you IMd me with this story.

You are going way overboard with your defense, and it's making you look PETA. Calm down and think your arguments out better.

I am hardly going overboard. I just know the material. Find a flaw in the argument and show how it is not thought out. I am hardly PETA, I support subsistence hunting, hunting for the regulation of populations (even though such problems are almost invariably human caused), and even sport hunting of herbivors under certain conditions (usually within a larger management context). I do not support the hunting of tertiary consumers (apex predators) because they are the check on the entire system. Their populations are small and thus fluctuate wildly with weather patterns and prey availability, this makes hunting their populations more risky than hunting ungulates, which spring back as soon as limiting factors are removed and exist in populations orders of magnitude larger than their predators and thus dont have as much fluctuation in their population. Without the predators, prey population explode because they are no longer under predation pressure, horrendously damaging their ecosystem because they overshoot their carrying capacity (a healthy system can for a time support HUGE numbers of deer, even though the deer have overshot their carrying capacity, but eventually the system degrades and the deer begin to starve) Predators keep this from happening. If they are reduced in a region then we, who caused the problem by locally extirpating or reducing predator populations have to step in and micromanage the deer.

I would much prefer if we let the self-regulating system stay self-regulating. Go ahead, hunt the deer, they can take the extra predation pressures. The wolves and bears cannot.

That is just an ecological argument. The moral questions, whether it is ethical to kill a relatively intelligent predator, one that cannot due to its size be taken down easily by anything short of military hardware, one that will suffer immensely before death and will do so with a huge amount of fear, the exact nature of which is unknown to us. Why? So someone can get a sense of pride from taking down a predator? Sorry, that is NOT justified on utilitarian grounds. Bear suffering outweighs human self esteem boost.

A deer... a deer is not the brightest of animals and can be easily killed cleanly with minimal suffering. On utilitarian grounds one can justify that to a limited degree (though not if they are really a strict utilitarian for the reasons I laid out in a previous post. But I am not one of those. Utilitarian concerns are only a component of my ethical calculus)

Then there are other moral arguments I can make. The simple fact is, there is nothing about the nature of most animals that means they exist for us. Their purpose in existing is not to serve our needs, or to serve as a no-questions-asked stockpile of sustainable harvest for our use. There some philosophers that think that animals, and in fact nature as an entity has something called intrinsic value. Value which transcends the value that they have as amenities for humans, and transcends most ethical systems we have produced. There are a number of ways to get at this, ways which on their own would require books to fully articulate. It is also a view that I personally tend to support. But again, very hard to articulate.

That aside, some animals, namely the ones we created from scratch DO exist to serve our needs. As such I support the eating of animals raised for the purpose provided that they do not suffer. Luckily most of our domesticated animals, at least in western countries, are stupid enough that we can indeed kill them painlessly, and can reduce their suffering while they live (this caveat is why I oppose factory farming)

I am not in any way comparable to PETA, which operates on a very rigid rights based framework developed in part by Tom Regan. They believe that animals have these things called "rights" which as a metaphysical property (and not as a social/legal construct) I reject completely even when dealing with people.

So dont mischaracterize my arguments. I invite you to find a flaw in them if you wish. I enjoy the discussion.

If you're looking at it merely abstractly as an interest comparison, and not in the context of population control, then perhaps, Alyrium, you can try to juxtapose the two interests and discern what one's usually more serious. What does the one have to lose vs the other? I am not really familiar with the psychology or mental capacity of most of these types of animals, so I leave that to those who are.

Assuming it can want to continue living or has a preference/interest in continued life, that is usually a significant interest. Maintained life leads to many other interests, allows the fulfillment of futures. By killing them, you might be depriving them of that. Would that, alone, seem more significant than the simpler desire to acquire temporary pleasure of collect a material trinket? What happens to him if that desire is not met? How serious is that loss compared to the loss of life? Preference Utilitarianism seems somewhat more difficult to apply in this case for me because I am not as familiar with their cognitive research as I am with Chimpanzees etc.

I honestly dont think there is a lot of research done on the cognitive abilities of bears. I would have to check the literature, but as a general rule predators are significantly smarter than their prey. The bear may not be self aware in the sense that we are, but as Singer would put it, they certainly have interests and all things considered would prefer not to die. Of course the strngth of that is hard to quantify, which is why I dont like using preference utilitarianism in calculations.

Now, as you said, if it were population control at stake, that changes the equation entirely anyway.

Not an issue in this case, or with most cases of predator regulation in general. In fact, seeing as Alaska and Northern Canada are almost the only places on the north american continent where native populations of wolves and healthy bear populations can be found (not for lack of trying miind you) we should cherish every last individual, if for no other reason than to serve as genetic stock to hopefully reintroduce them to larger portions of their native range. But that is me being unjustifiably optimistic

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Some of what you are saying I think I read in some of my texts on this issue. I think they called the philosophy "Deep Ecology." I can't say I know much about it. Now that you bring it up, I should probably research on it to catch up. It only had passing reference.

I tend to lean more toward the Singerian Utilitarian position, although I certainly have some issues with some of the positions, more so from a fact basis than the philosophical one.

I never understood Regan's fascination with the almost religion-like focus on animal rights. What is really bizarre is that organizations like PETA will often misquote Singer or take him out of context to make it seem like he doesn't support pets, doesn't think any animal research should be done, or that he claims animals have these inalienable rights. I really hate that group.

[Covenant]

Overboard or not, I won't fault him for it. The despicable act of hunting an animal in that kind of a condition is really without redeemable value. It's like sport hunting crippled children, really, and claiming you were hunting "the most dangerous animal, man himself!" This is just stupid murder, and while I'll stand with hunters when it comes to functional hunts (like a culling) I won't support ego-stroking that involves blowing the brains out of a living, fairly intelligent animal for no benefit but a trophy.

I mean, come on.

Do people even know how much food you can get from a hunting season's amount of deer or a single freakin' bear? It's an assload, like enough to feed you, your family, and your buddies for a year (depending on your meat consumption). It's ridiculous sometimes, people will just be giving the stuff away. Now, imagine that healthy, non-steroidal meat that needed to be killed off anyway (for sustainability's sake) replacing an equal demand for beef, chicken, etc. It's good for animal rights and health and it's good for us. Reducing our beef consumption is certainly wise, and it's a travesty that venison and other game meats are going to relative waste like this, which just adds insult to injury.

So what these jackholes do is ethically wrong on several levels, without a doubt, and one doesn't even need to dive deeply into animal rights to see that. Bears are no less intelligent than dogs though, so it's sad to see them so mistreated for the sake of some gutless idiot with a gun. If you must hunt a bear, hunt a wild one that knows to stay the fuck away from you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Some of what you are saying I think I read in some of my texts on this issue. I think they called the philosophy "Deep Ecology." I can't say I know much about it. Now that you bring it up, I should probably research on it to catch up. It only had passing reference.

I tend to lean more toward the Singerian Utilitarian position, although I certainly have some issues with some of the positions, more so from a fact basis than the philosophical one.

I never understood Regan's fascination with the almost religion-like focus on animal rights. What is really bizarre is that organizations like PETA will often misquote Singer or take him out of context to make it seem like he doesn't support pets, doesn't think any animal research should be done, or that he claims animals have these inalienable rights. I really hate that group.

I have some deep ecologist leanings, but I dont take it nearly as far as they do (what with redefining the self to include the entire universe). My position is a modified form of environmental pragmatism (see the work of Ben Minteer). The modification comes in because the pragmatists dont take the intrinsic value of ecosystems into account. I do. With a few other minor differences. I do

[Gil Hamilton]

This is different than sport hunting; if there is a situation wherein people are taking a risk, mitigating that risk includes being willing to kill the bear if you feel threatened by it.

I was going to stay our of this, but this is goofy. Your argument boils down to:

"Well, we went out looking for bears to hunt. However, when we found the bear, we were taking a risk! We had to shoot the bear, you know, in self-defense, because we were threatened by the bear deliberately went out and looked to find!"

See the problem in your logic? No, this is sports hunting. It's not like the bear wandered into their backyard (such as happens in places like New Jersey and some parts of PA) and decided to eat their dog/child. You can't claim to have shot a bear to protect yourself when you put yourself in that positon by looking for the damn bear in order to shoot it.

They could open up a whole new defense in murder trials this way. "Your honor, I went over to Ted's house with a gun and when I found him and pointed the gun at him, he got mad at me and I felt threatened. I shot him in self-defense to save my own life!"

The hunters in your video are probably slobs who just wanted to kill a bear and wouldn't care whether it was in a barrel or in the wild, at which point you just have to try for the cleanest kill possible to your ability. While I don't care for sport hunting myself, as long as the population levels are being managed responsibly by whoever is tending the park and everyone is working to minimize undue suffering I don't see why anyone should give a shit.

We should give a shit because they are going out into a state park, killing and mutilating animals for jollies?

Why is it that a kid who goes out and shoots stray dogs and cats for fun is a psycho (even though those dogs/cats were probably going to be kill anyway by local animal control or starvation), but someone who goes out to a state park to shoot bears for no other reason than the joy of killing bears is eh-OK?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It would be entirely possible with the material of a couple years of research to calculate a level at which hunting high-end predators simply prevents excess deaths in their population and has no actual effect on population size. With that limit, which will be quite small, nonetheless set, the other arguments make much less, for let us not forget that Bears and Wolves and so on are our competitors, and human society will soon be reaching a point where that is an issue again for us.

[Lagmonster]

I was going to stay out of this, but this is goofy. Your argument boils down to:

"Well, we went out looking for bears to hunt. However, when we found the bear, we were taking a risk! We had to shoot the bear, you know, in self-defense, because we were threatened by the bear deliberately went out and looked to find!"

Don't be an ass. I was responding directly to Aly's comment that people run the risk of being bear food just by going into the Alaskan wilderness and being shoulder-to-shoulder with bears while camping, which is different from talking explicitly about hunters.

We should give a shit because they are going out into a state park, killing and mutilating animals for jollies?

Why is it that a kid who goes out and shoots stray dogs and cats for fun is a psycho (even though those dogs/cats were probably going to be kill anyway by local animal control or starvation), but someone who goes out to a state park to shoot bears for no other reason than the joy of killing bears is eh-OK?

Do you really think that the motivation for licensed trophy sport hunting is the same as a kid who sneaks off by himself to torture small animals to death?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also I resent the suggestion that multiple rounds are required. It's entirely possible to take down a bear with a 45-70 with one shot--not just take it down, but gut it end to end. If you're worrying about the suffering of the bear, just ban the hunters from using anything other than a large calibre rifle, which they should only be using anyway for safety purposes when taking on that kind of dangerous game.

The only safe and appropriate way to hunt bears, particularly Alaskan Grizzlies, is one with man with an elephant rifle, or at least a 45-70, doing the first shot, and another man in support with a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with slugs in case the rifle shot doesn't kill the bear outright. It will probably charge, and you'll need that shotgun. I favour the Ithaca Mag-10 roadblocker. Three or four rounds of 10-gauge magnum slugs will stop any animal existence quite effectively, and quickly.

[Gil Hamilton]

Don't be an ass. I was responding directly to Aly's comment that people run the risk of being bear food just by going into the Alaskan wilderness and being shoulder-to-shoulder with bears while camping, which is different from talking explicitly about hunters.

And if you go out specifically looking, then you yourself are putting yourself in that position. Aly himself said that if you happen to be hiking and a bear really gets the itch to try and eat you rather than the much easier prey they tend to have available, by all means shoot it.

However, your argument that if you are hunting bears and find you find one, then shooting it is self defense is disingenuous, to say the least. That isn't self-defense, that's just plain old offense.

Do you really think that the motivation for licensed trophy sport hunting is the same as a kid who sneaks off by himself to torture small animals to death?

You haven't answered the question. If someone goes out and kills a stray dog, then mutilates its body and keeps its head and skin, we call them psychos. However, you are supposing that going out and killing a bear, then mutilating its body and keeping its head and skin is somehow OK? That doesn't logically follow. You can't say it is wrong to hunt and kill dogs and cats for fun and trophies, but turn around an saying doing exactly the same thing to other animals is fine.

[Gaidin]

Do you really think that the motivation for licensed trophy sport hunting is the same as a kid who sneaks off by himself to torture small animals to death?

You haven't answered the question. If someone goes out and kills a stray dog, then mutilates its body and keeps its head and skin, we call them psychos. However, you are supposing that going out and killing a bear, then mutilating its body and keeping its head and skin is somehow OK? That doesn't logically follow. You can't say it is wrong to hunt and kill dogs and cats for fun and trophies, but turn around an saying doing exactly the same thing to other animals is fine.

I'm not sure how the question can be answered when people have a tendancy to put different values on domesticated animals' lives vs wild.