Let's Go Mammoth Hunting

[Otern]

Is it only ok to hunt if the hunter does it in the absolutely quickest, safest, and surest way?

I think that's the moral imperative, yes. Unless training to survive, as noted above.

I get the sentiment, but then again, it's a slippery slope to just use massively overpowered firearms, or discriminate against any sort of medical handicap on the hunter.

The logical extreme would be the only ok way to hunt would be those caged hunts.

I think people should hunt in pretty much any way they see themselves fit to do, but they should also be responsible to finish off the animal quickly if something goes wrong. Injure an animal and can't finish it off within a certain time, and you have to pay a fine or something.

[apeman]

How do you feel about stepping on bugs?

[C-Mag]

The Makha Tribe of the Pacific Northwest hunt whales with harpoons and dugout canoes. They have access to more modern technology and don't need the food to stave off starvation.
Yet they do it, and few will grill a Native American tribe for their actions.

A good point was made by Otern about motivations.

[Otern]

I don't know about Norway but in the UK that would lead to a prosecution for cruelty. You are not allowed to hunt with spears, bows, slingshots or even shotguns when hunting anything bigger than a rabbit.
Dear hunters will not take a shot unless they have a high chance of killing with one shot and the power and bore of the ammunition you can use is regulated too.
Cruelty is not taking every reasonable precaution possible to ensure there's no unnecessary suffering.

Pretty much the same thing here. Only rifles and shotguns are legal for hunting. And snares for grouse in some cases.

But I don't think it's cruel to hunt in traditional way, even if more modern methods are available. Of course there should be attempts to limit the amount of suffering, but too much of this limitation, and we'll all turn into vegetarians.

It depends where you draw the line, I guess. I'm all for legalizing bow hunting, as long as the hunter is also required to keep a rifle close in case of bad hits.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe instead of getting upset about some dumpster-diving bear getting speared, a better act would be to go help the human beings who need food in your own communities, or -- I don't know -- fight to stop the killing of human babies in your country. I mean.. if ramming a spear through an animal is this horrific act, then what is delivering a baby half-way out of the womb and then severing her spinal cord with a pair of scissors?

[C-Mag]

I don't know about Norway but in the UK that would lead to a prosecution for cruelty. You are not allowed to hunt with spears, bows, slingshots or even shotguns when hunting anything bigger than a rabbit.
Dear hunters will not take a shot unless they have a high chance of killing with one shot and the power and bore of the ammunition you can use is regulated too.
Cruelty is not taking every reasonable precaution possible to ensure there's no unnecessary suffering.
Stabbing with a spear and leaving to die a painful death over night is definitely cruelty.

If that works for the UK, cool.
But I think there is a philosophical point here. Cruelty is purely a human projecting on to the animal kingdom. People do it with vegetables too.
Nature is cruel and brutal. Only by building artificial environments have we removed ourselves from the cruelty and brutality. Some of us humans seek to get back in touch with those more primal feelings and challenges.

I may not approve all the time, but I don't have much of a problem with it unless it is done to excess.

[Montegriffo]

Maybe instead of getting upset about some dumpster-diving bear getting speared, a better act would be to go help the human beings who need food in your own communities, or -- I don't know -- fight to stop the killing of human babies in your country. I mean.. if ramming a spear through an animal is this horrific act, then what is delivering a baby half-way out of the womb and then severing her spinal cord with a pair of scissors?

It's possible to do all those things. There is no need to prioritise cruelty you can oppose it all.
All living things should be treated with respect and pain should be minimised when killing them.

[Speaker to Animals]

No, I agree that you shouldn't leave an animal to die slowly in the woods like that. I just see a lot of jacked up priorities on the left these days.

In the grand scheme of things, what this guy did is not such a big deal. But it does serves as a salve for the leftists' punctured consciences. When your conscience is screaming at you for supporting a lot of horrific things about humans, it probably helps to virtue signal about a fucking bear.

[Otern]

Cruelty is not taking every reasonable precaution possible to ensure there's no unnecessary suffering.

But what's a reasonable precaution for me, might not be a reasonable precaution for you, even though we're both reasonable. It's all subjective.

And in the end, most hunting leads to unnecessary suffering, since most people don't need to hunt. Most people don't even need to eat meat. It might be just a moment of unnecessary suffering, with a good shot. Or it could be hours, with a bad shot. But it would still, by some people be regarded as unnecessary suffering.

Stabbing with a spear and leaving to die a painful death over night is definitely cruelty.

I don't know why they left it to die over night. Maybe they were afraid to go after an injured animal in dense forest, and it would therefore not be reasonable to track it at that time? Maybe they didn't want to track it down for a finishing shot, because it would destroy the "spear kill"? If the latter, it would definitely be cynical, and I don't approve of it, but cruel? Naah.

I doubt "fuck bears, let them suffer" was the hunter's motivation for hunting with a spear. That would be cruelty.

[Montegriffo]

I don't know about Norway but in the UK that would lead to a prosecution for cruelty. You are not allowed to hunt with spears, bows, slingshots or even shotguns when hunting anything bigger than a rabbit.
Dear hunters will not take a shot unless they have a high chance of killing with one shot and the power and bore of the ammunition you can use is regulated too.
Cruelty is not taking every reasonable precaution possible to ensure there's no unnecessary suffering.

Pretty much the same thing here. Only rifles and shotguns are legal for hunting. And snares for grouse in some cases.

But I don't think it's cruel to hunt in traditional way, even if more modern methods are available. Of course there should be attempts to limit the amount of suffering, but too much of this limitation, and we'll all turn into vegetarians.

It depends where you draw the line, I guess. I'm all for legalizing bow hunting, as long as the hunter is also required to keep a rifle close in case of bad hits.

I'm not against hunting, in fact I think if you want to eat meat you should be encouraged to kill your own animal at least once in your life.
As with abattoirs, I believe that laws ensuring a quick and humane death are a requirement in a civilised society.
If your bow can guarantee to be as accurate and deadly as a rifle then ok but I doubt that is realistically possible in most circumstances.