Printable View
Maybe at the Ministerial level it can be done as easy as a just a re-classification in the Hunting Regs as to what are legal weapons in regards to the hunting.
Quote:
The Alberta government said Monday it is currently updating the province’s hunting regulations and promised to introduce a spear ban in the fall.
Good comments from the Rebel:
love the quote:
"The left wing reflex of the NDP to goose step along with their social justice brethren"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed_fPxl2Qgs
And what are you referring to, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapJack
Thanks
Given that i read this as a serious statement by the hunter, and not at all intentionally hyperbolic. let's start with a few quotes as examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by seabast
"Not to mention, I got 24 inches of penetration on that bear causing more damage and trauma to the bear than any arrow/broadhead/bullet combination could ever cause."
- There are plenty of gauge/caliber options that would cause more damage and trauma than this did. His statement is BS.
"a spear will kill an animal twice as fast as an arrow will. Just think about how much larger a blade on a spear is compared to a broad head on an arrow. Normal fix blade broad heads have a 1 inch cutting diameter in width and 1 inch in length."
- Seriously? Do i need to explain the errors in logic here?
"It’s considerably effortless to see why my last statement would be correct"
- This sentence just doesn't make any sense at all, but i can get passed it by reading between the lines.
"The Bear I speared only ran 60 yards and died immediately"
- Again, this makes no sense, if it ran 60 yards, it can't have "died immediately." He's an idiot.
"why not use a rifle and shoot the animal from 500 yards away with it having no chance to escape"
- Now he's lying about rifle hunting and putting it down. As if any animal within 500 yards is an automatic kill like turning on a light. More BS.
"The truth is we care more than anyone about these animals"
- Most of us don't like to hear this, but that's BS too, i have plenty of non-hunting friends that care just as much as i do, or any hunter does. he's trying to make it a "us vs them" thing, and it doesn't have to be that. exaggeration is always a mistake in arguments.
"In closing, you all should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to kill a heritage that has existed for over a million years. Literally, since the dawn of man, the spear has been a vital role in survival. The mere existence of our ancestors relied on the spear"
- This is biggest fallacy that some hunters try and hide behind. Just because something used to happen does not mean it still should, that's not a valid argument. Heritage is important but it doesn't exist in a bubble that protects it no matter what simply for being tradition. more has to go into it.
"spear hunting gives the animal the greatest chance of escape, considering our ethical killing range is within 10 yards"
- compared to what? not compared to using a pig sticker. again he's exaggerating.
I can go on and on, frankly there is barely a sentence in the entire post that isn't defensive, exaggerated, or arrogant...
If he had presented his defence in a different manor i may have been able to stand beside him, but he didn't, he's clearly a fool, and the definition of a meat head. if you want this representing hunting, fishing, or trapping, you're doing us all a disservice. There is no need to hyperbolize, exaggerate, or lie. The truth is a strong enough defence, so why not just use that?
I would have respected him then.
Furthermore, the thousands of pounds of meat him and his wife don't use to feed themselves and their families shows me that this guy can't represent me. i'm a subsistence hunter, trapper and fisherman. this guy kills for thrills then gives the meat away and claims charity. he's the worst kind of vanity hunter. He's killing thousands of pounds of meat a year more than he can use, i can't support that.
there's more bs in this statement than there is truth. which is a shame, because it could have been a great opportunity to state some infallible truths about a spear hunt and hunters in general.
i can write that statement if you want for him, all it takes is removing all of the idiotic filler he put in and sticking to the facts. A smarter person could have made a statement that couldn't be dismissed as bloviated.
I thought his statement was pretty good, fair and accurate.... If you look for fault, you will find it everywhere and with everyone....
I wonder what Steven Rinella will have to say about this.... hes about the most concise, bright and gifted spokesperson we could have for hunting, and he has an opinion on everything. im sure something will pop up on social media shortly..
Legal hunt. Did nothing wrong.
Don't cave to the anti.
I agree...yes he was pretty good and for the most part echoed a lot of what was said in earlier posts on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
He is actually right ..I've made very precious, clean, heart shot's on deer that technically killed them instantly and they still ran 50 yds....it's called 'fight or flight reflexes' and happens often....they're dead, just don't know it and keep running.Quote:
"The Bear I speared only ran 60 yards and died immediately"
- Again, this makes no sense, if it ran 60 yards, it can't have "died immediately." He's an idiot.
His behaviour...an idiot..sure I'll agree :)
Fratri,Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
While I understand what he is saying, how he is saying it is more important right now. His actions have been reported worldwide in a not so flattering light. Rather than come across as arrogant with statements like "I hope this helps you gain clarity from my side of the hunt, most people with either fear, reject, or dismiss things they don’t understand, I hope you all have a better grasp on this particular hunt now." (implying stupid on the fault of the media/viewers of the video), he needs to refine them to more humble terms (perhaps "I hope my above statements provide my perspective to everyone on how I view a hunter's role when an animal is hunted and killed (could use the term harvest if he really had to) and to show my behavior was excessive, I do respect the animals I hunt).
Also, the presentation of the email looked like he cooked it up at the gym rather than sat down and thought his statement out. Proper grammar and actually presenting his case in logical manner rather than making four or five points in a paragraph would have made the message more professional rather than having it look like he wrote it on his blackberry at the gym. Also, making valid statements addressing the reason why people are angry would have been more beneficial than making blanket statements (detailed explanation of why hunting with a spear is just as important as bowhunting or firearm hunting rather than blanket statements about hunters having more respect for animals than anyone else or the addition of bear meat being nutritious for our (unsure who he referring to here) bodies).
Dyth
Anyone who says "it was legal" so it's all good, and nothing else matters, just doesn't get it. His actions, though legal are already restricting hunting opportunities and re-writing regulations against hunters. The fact that it's legal is nearly irrelevant.
How we carry ourselves, is as important to our future as obeying the laws.
he has proven himself to be a poor steward, and if he continues to act in this manner he will continue to hurt hunters, but what does he care? he got his hunt, now he's out of Alberta and doesn't care that the laws will change because he has a child's mind. Supporting his actions in the hunt, after the hunt and his words regarding the hunt is idiotic and backwards.