PETA'S Unbelievable Letter To 18 Yr. Old Girl Who Was Attacked By Bear

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Then they should be worrying about the animals that need their care. Not if we're hurting the poor deer in the woods (who are so over populated it's not funny). Or trying to get fish renamed "sea kittens" to get people to stop eating them.

snarky412:

A Pennsylvania teenager attacked by a bear while hunting...

Moral of the news report is: if you don't want to be attacked by a wild animal, don't go hunting them. Don't come home crying and snivelling to momma when the nasty furry creature bit and clawed you half to death and spoiled your chance to shoot some other animal as you exercise your constitutional right to kill something.

The more hunters that get eaten by their prey, the more satisfied I become. I'll chalk this one down as an 'own goal' by the hunter. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

And many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they're injured by hunters but not killed outright, which I'm sure you know firsthand from being in the woods. A study of 80 radio-collared deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with "traditional archery equipment," 11 were wounded but not recovered.

If I understand what PETA is saying, then PETA would rather that you hunted with assault rifles or heave artillery, so that the animal do not suffer. I am all for that! I would hate for my food to suffer.

bjax9er
Yeah maybe PETA should reconsider their position on the 20,000 dogs they kill every year.
Ethical my Ass.

But PETA kills animals out of love.
As long as it's PETA killing animals then that's ok because they hate people that kill animals.
People kill animals to eat them.
Animals kill other animals to eat them too, but what do animals know?

elysiumfire
The more hunters that get eaten by their prey, the more satisfied I become. I'll chalk this one down as an 'own goal' by the hunter. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

You won't get much satisfaction then...
www.numberof.net...
Less than 30 Bear attacks in the US per year.
www.numberof.net...
Between 23 and 44 Million hunters in the US per year.

The only way I see for your ridiculous satisfaction to occur is if deer and elk start acquiring a taste for human flesh. Which isn't going to happen.

Would you like some delicious venison?

elysiumfire
snarky412:

A Pennsylvania teenager attacked by a bear while hunting...

Moral of the news report is: if you don't want to be attacked by a wild animal, don't go hunting them. Don't come home crying and snivelling to momma when the nasty furry creature bit and clawed you half to death and spoiled your chance to shoot some other animal as you exercise your constitutional right to kill something.

The more hunters that get eaten by their prey, the more satisfied I become. I'll chalk this one down as an 'own goal' by the hunter. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Would your opinion be the same if she had a camera and not a gun?

I feel the same way when motorcycle riders wrap themselves around a tree or a car. The first thing I want to know is did they have a helmet on. If they don't wear a helmet they don't take their welfare seriously so why should I care.

It is a reminder to us all when hunting or doing any other recreational activity in the wild,,,we are in their territory!

Hoosierdaddy71:

Would your opinion be the same if she had a camera and not a gun?

I take it you think you are making a point? Using a camera hardly qualifies one to the term of being a 'hunter'. Whatever point you thought was a logical riposte is obviously quite self-negating. Think your logic through and make sure the point you are making supports its logic.

As far as I am aware, motorcyclists don't actually 'hunt' for a tree or a car to either kill or wrap themselves around. The usual consequence of an irresistible force impacting with an immovable object is not normally benign, it usually entails some form of destruction. What has this got to do with hunting wild animals? Yeah, nothing whatsoever.

burdman30ott6:

The only way I see for your ridiculous satisfaction to occur...

The only satisfaction I seek in this context is the hunter getting their ass kicked by the very prey they are hunting. Ramblers and campers and walkers out enjoying the forest or the countryside do not figure in my satisfaction, nor do the people whom live out in the wild and hunt only for food . No, it is those that see hunting and the killing of wild animals as a sport that figure in the context of my satisfaction.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Nice one you just stole my thoughts cant say it better.Dont understand some pepole if someone come in bears house(area) he/she going to attack it is not their fault.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


wow...you seem so proud of yourself...

Good for you.

Go Americaaaaaa!!!!

Fu** yeah!!!!!


Those effing bears don't stand a chance...

"And many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they're injured by hunters but not killed outright"

Gosh. Lucky those poor wildebeest in Africa don't have to endure prolonged, painful deaths when they're eaten alive by crocodiles and hyenas but not killed outright. Lucky no animal in the wild ever has to suffer any pain whatsoever as they die by predation, sickness, starvation or injury. Lucky all animals rejoice in nature's bounty feted by choirs of fairies and latte sipping rainbows.

I once saw a program on TV that compared the ethics of hunting and farming. Which is better for an animal? A life in the wild in which the animal has every chance to avoid, evade and escape the hunter, or a docile comfortable life on the farm, where the animal is conditioned to rely on and trust the farmer, but with a certain guarantee of death at the hands of the beneficent master?

Zaphod58
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

Then they should be worrying about the animals that need their care. Not if we're hurting the poor deer in the woods (who are so over populated it's not funny). Or trying to get fish renamed "sea kittens" to get people to stop eating them.

Sea kittens. Sea.....Kittens....
YAFKM

(Facepalm)

In all honesty I dislike both PETA and also the type of hunters that go around killing for fun and taking pictures with dead bodies (like the lady in the story does often).

I hunt rabbits and muntjack and other types of deer where I get the chance, but I do it for the good ethical reason of catching wild meat, rather than meat that has been factory farmed and lived an unnatural life with a stressful march to death.
I do get a satisfaction for getting my own meat and foraging for wild herbs and vegetables.
But I don't enjoy killing and I don't sit there smiling with corpses in front of cameras for a bit of fun and anybody that does is doing it for the wrong reasons and makes me feel a little sick of humans.

I am respectful to my kills and realise that I have taken a life, a life that may well have family waiting for it, in order to feed myself, as my ancestors have done before me.

PETA on the other hand are a bunch of hypocritical money grabbing dicks, much like many large charities.

reply to post by elysiumfire




Great post.
I actually think it would be fair if it was a trade 1 for 1. For every beautiful animal slaughtered for sport/kicks, a hunter is ripped to pieces by a bear or mauled/bitten by whatever they're hunting.
I mean a lot of the BS excuses these blood-thirsty morons give is overpopulation and all of that, well hello, we (the humans) are massively overpopulated too.
I think clearing out the gene pool of these disgraceful A-Holes would make the wildlife safer and more protected for genrrations to come.

If only the world worked this way.

elysiumfire
Hoosierdaddy71:

Would your opinion be the same if she had a camera and not a gun?

I take it you think you are making a point? Using a camera hardly qualifies one to the term of being a 'hunter'. Whatever point you thought was a logical riposte is obviously quite self-negating. Think your logic through and make sure the point you are making supports its logic.

As far as I am aware, motorcyclists don't actually 'hunt' for a tree or a car to either kill or wrap themselves around. The usual consequence of an irresistible force impacting with an immovable object is not normally benign, it usually entails some form of destruction. What has this got to do with hunting wild animals? Yeah, nothing whatsoever.

burdman30ott6:

The only way I see for your ridiculous satisfaction to occur...

The only satisfaction I seek in this context is the hunter getting their ass kicked by the very prey they are hunting. Ramblers and campers and walkers out enjoying the forest or the countryside do not figure in my satisfaction, nor do the people whom live out in the wild and hunt only for food . No, it is those that see hunting and the killing of wild animals as a sport that figure in the context of my satisfaction.

I think you might have just missed the logic of the question. You think that the "hunter" got what she deserved even though she was not bear hunting. Im asking you if she was unarmed and got mauled would you feel differently? Or is this view of yours based only on the fact that she was hunting and is now "fair game" pardon the pun...

Motorcycle riders obviously don't hunt trees and cars. They do however take a risk by just getting on the bike. They risk being innocent victims of other drivers/animals on the road. They absolutely know that they are at a much higher risk of injury by just riding their motorcycles. You could say that they are poking the bear ever time they ride.. Pardon the pun...

And for the record i don't blame the bear or the girl for the mauling. She stumbled where she shouldn't be and the bear was just being a bear. I'd like to point out also that she was not hunting alone or her hunting partner could not have came to her aid.

As a hunter myself,I believe the letter was in bad taste even if I agree with the general sentiment. There are risks, animal attack is the obvious one, they want to live too. I too greatly dislike trophy hunters.

That being said, PETA are morons.

reply to post by snarky412


Of course bear attacks are a terrible tragedy, of course we need to have compassion for those poor souls who get attacked by wild animals in the deep wood. Of course!

But maybe... maybe if you're tromping about in the woods, in the territory of a known predator like a bear, with the intention of killing them for sport, well maybe you shouldn't be surprised when they try to kill you back. Yes, I understand the bear would have probably attacked her gun or not, but I guess you take your chance when entering the wilderness. I don't have a problem with hunting as long as you make the most out of the animal and give thanks to it. I find trophy hunting abhorrent. I didn't think the letter was in bad taste, it was well-written and articulate, and simply pointed out a few things from a different perspective.

To be honest, I found the misogynistic comments in your second post about "wanting to strangle that woman" and PETA being "just a bunch bored housewives with nothing better to do" far more distasteful than anything in that letter.

Most of the people babbling on about how many animals PETA euthanizes every year have probably never worked at an animal shelter. Most of the animals they take in have been abused for years and are very aggressive and or sick. These animals would have also been euthanized at no kill shelters.

Anyway back on topic,

Good on the bear, too bad it wasn't a 1200 pound grizzly

reply to post by snarky412


I'm not sure I understand the point of your OP ...

Personally I have no problem with hunting if the animals killed are used as food but I do feel that hunting purely for the sake of so-called sport is barbaric and wrong ... and please don't presume that I am some kind of 'new-age bleeding heart' far from it ... I have actually skinned / gutted and portioned animals ready for the freezer / oven.

As far as the letter PETA sent this girl ... they were not demanding she doesn't go hunting ... they were merely asking her to think about the situation from the perspective of the animal ... and I agree.

If you are prepared to go hunting (especially bigger animals) then you would be naive not to consider the potential consequenses involved ... and to do that properly then you should consider the animals perspective and how it might react when it feels it is under threat.

There is nothing more savage or unpredictable than a mother protecting her young ... and that includes we humans.

If this young girl is not prepared to accept the possible outcome of her action then maybe she should not go hunting again until she is ... a good hunter will know that things don't always go the way they expect them to because of natures unpredictability.

Woody )O(