Nice kill. That's what hunting is all about. Forget about the haters (tree huggers) As a matter of fact on frame 57-58 I thought I heard an Elk. Should of gotten you one as well.
YOU FUCKING CUNT WHY SHOOT THE BEAR YOU MOTHERFUCKING PUSSY HO.... DIE MOTHERFUCKER,,,,,,DIE COCK SUCKING ASSHOLE..... SHOVE THAT GUN UP YOUR OWN ASS AND PULL THE TRIGGER........... MOTHERFUCKER DIE MAN DIE
ROFLMAO! That's hilarious. "that's for jumping on my tree" ...Hehehehe! Nice video. You guys did a great job. I'm going to Colorado next week to Elk hunt. I want my next hunt to be bear. Congrats!
justinburton7 tell all the tree hugging hatters who are talking shit whos gona be alive when the government defaults on their debt and money is useless and you will not be able to buy groceries and gas. the people who know how to hunt and fish thats who a countryboy can survive!!!!!! whos with me thumbs up and for those that dont agree you will find out soon.
@meinLiebsterFeind, Bear is a major food source where I live. I don't know of any hunter who makes themselves known to their prey. That would seem counter productive, the object is to try and kill the animal without it being too tense or nervous before (makes the meat tougher). Bear meat and hunting/fishing is almost a requirement to survival where I live in Canada just south of the Alaska border. My people have hunted these lands with respect to nature and what it gives up for our survival.
@jeremyradawiec Justinburton has already said that he's never had bear meat and didn't kill the bear for food. What community do you live in that is not so remote that you have the internet but is so remote that you still rely on wildlife rather than farming/agriculture for sustenance?
fark everyone going off at hunting it's a sport assholes and its okay sure it's not nice to kill for fun but hey there is much worse things to do if you eat what you kill there is nothing wrong with it but if not just keep it to a minimum you can still do it so to all you tree huger bitches just shut up its not g=a good thing to do but so what you dont need to be dicks about it
I could understand if you were a fur trader, but what did you plan to do with the corpse? I happen to think bears are pretty interesting animals and not a particularly good food source.
@plopnod sounds like the men at the University Of Boston spend way to much time studying each others penises. Maybe they should leave campus occasionally, maybe then they could find someone that measures up to their expectations. When I was young, professors showing to much interest in other peoples penises got knocked the hell out. What some folks will do for a good grade.
@plopnod, that DMGD "study" is a spoof, but a certain deadness of character is required to repeatedly kill for sport, once one gets past the initial (natural) instinct. The serial killing of animals is much darker than true sustenance hunting.
The problem is not the ability to kill per se, rather the willingness to do it often for no particular reason and glorify it, especially in the context of how Man has destroyed so much of nature. Modern hunting is disrespectful when done to entertain.
I agree. In Missouri, where I live, Black bears used to be abundant, they were plentiful in all highland and river land-types. Around 1950, the Black bear was assumed to be extirpated in the state due to egregious slaughter; they were killed simply for existing. Fortunately, that was not the case -- some managed to stay alive in the remote highland areas and the population is slowly creeping back (about 500 individuals). Seeing a wild bear in 2011 is a blessing.
Which is why I fundamentally don't understand buying a bunch of Chinese made camouflage clothing and killing such a creature on sight. In the previous video, the bear was startled because the hunters did not make themselves known to the bear. Black bears rely on their strong sense of smell, rather than their relatively poor eyesight, the bear did not identify the presence of the hunter until it was very close and, naturally, became alarmed.
This ties into other issues, like the particularly jingoistic nature of the joy-hunting demographic. I've always found that quite troubling; they consider themselves to be overtly patriotic, yet are the most prone to litter, purchase heaps of foreign made junk to facilitate their hunts, drive large gas-guzzling vehicles to the hunts, don't recycle, and don't care much for the environment. Funny, that.
@meinLiebsterFeind, they mostly seem to have a religious dominion attitude toward nature. To show any true respect would deviate from the Manifest Destiny credo, which almost wiped out the American bison. Their direct ancestors were plugging away with Sharps rifles and piling up skulls. See "Buffalo head shot 300 Rem Ultra Mag" (on YouTube) for that same attitude today.
@dseries16 I saw this on an episode of 'The Nature of Things' about 3-4 years ago.I've tried in vein to find any links to it.Maybe you might have better luck than I.
nice vid. i liked the first one more, where he wants to climb your tree...damn was he scared after he saw something is up there.
let me ask you what bearhunt is for? populationcontrol or something? because i think you can´t eat bears, neigther have i seen any kind of bear trophy, apart from a stuffed one maybe. so what you do with the bear?
@justinburton7 I'm a vegaterian, and I have no problem with people hunting but calling "tree huggers" nut jobs makes you a ignorant redneck, stop molesting your sister.
Did any of the "dislikers" have any idea what they were going to watch, before they decided to watch a bear hunting video? This is a hunting video. Good video justinburton7. I enjoy hunting, and seeing others do it properly as well. All you educated veiwers COULD choose to watch something you enjoy, rather than seeking hunting clips, unless you merely want to bitch.
Are you hippies so concerned about wildlife that you have nothing better to do than to watch hunting videos and try to sound like a badass by commenting protest posts?
Why is that relevant? Lets say, hypothetically, that I am a huge carnivore who only ever eats chicken. There is a huge moral divide between a) farming an animal for food, producing literally millions of them for the purpose of consumption, and then killing it FOR FOOD, and b) going out into the territory of a wild species, of which there are probably at most a few hundred thousand, and killing one of its members essentially for sport (given all the other available food sources).
This comparison I keep seeing between hunting wild animals and eating farmed animals is asinine. 1) There is a moral difference between depriving an animal who only lives because we created it for food of their life and depriving an animal in the wild with total autonomy from its life. 2) Many of our farming practices are unjust, it's true - what does that have to do with the inherent injustice of hunting bears? Absolutely nothing. They are distinct issues and involve different questions.
@Superlativesweetie.wild animals fight a daily battle with death,their lives are [mostly] consumed with finding food and mating.You cant look at a bear as if it was a pet.You draw a line at raised/wild animals,true they are different but how can you place such morels on enslaved animals?Do they too not deserve to live?There is a small % a wild animal will die by man,but there is 110% chance a raised animal will die by man.People have lost touch with the cycle of life,supermarkets prove this[end]
@VoiceInBlackness There were two metrics of distinction I pointed out: intelligence and alternatives. Intelligence -- smarter animals suffer more, both because they have a more acute fear (they have a better sense of what it is they're fearing and its consequences) and because their opportunity cost is higher (they lead richer lives). Alternatives - food-shrimp are always eaten by man because they exist for that purpose; bears exist independently of us so the emergent excuse is unavailable there
Wow so many dislikes. Let me guess granola crunching city folks who think meat comes from a magical enchanted place. See we are predators it is our nature to hunt for food and clothing and it is also our nature to do it for sport. I personally am not fond of bear meat however it is food so nothing wrong with hunting food especially food armed with weapons itself. For city folk and sensitive people keep in mind your ancestors did this. We just embrace it
@italianboys82 Because we live in a weird world where people when they see real hunting they don't want to accept the way it is... like the guy killing the bear is a monster for his act. But I guess those same people would prefer chickens or turkeys boosted with steroid. They become so big that their weight is too important for their legs. That being said, we're not gonna talk about the unacceptable environment they grow in. This video is totally a like.
i bet when someone in your family or someone you know get attacked/killed by a bear you'll want to kill every single one. so stop hating on hunting bear meat is amazing :)
@Superlativesweetie ........how is hunting wrong???? Man has hunted since the begining of....hmmm...supermarkets!! If they were to hunt endangered animals or for kicks i would fully agree with you,but they ain't.I dont agree with hunting in trees unless you are Tarzan,but to each their own.I dont think you really realize how screwed up most of the food you buy at the supermarket is treated,some of those animals sit in their own shit....what do you think about that??
@VoiceInBlackness Yeah, I know how screwed up commercial animal farming can be - I don't eat a lot of meat and I buy free-range wherever possible. But these are seperate issues and involve seperate questions -- questions about the relative intelligence of the animals involved, the relative opportunity cost burden each animal suffers, etc.
(For more on this, Peter Singer's Standford Univeristy podcast, "All Animals are Equal - But in What Sense of Equality?")
@Superlativesweetie ....On the whole if you look deep enough you might find that everything is actually connected,folks just like to split up the issues to suit their own thoughts/needs....to live is to suffer,death can be looked at in many ways,life isn't taken but re-newed,one death provides another life.If you are true to your cause you cant place different values on dumb/smart/wild/raised for food animals.Animals suffer when killed,both in wild and when raised....in either case its killing.
@VoiceInBlackness The fact that one can draw parallels in most things if one tries hard enough doesn't mean that issues that share some features are the same. The cognitive capacity of shrimp is so limiting that chances are they have no experience of fear, anticipating harm, their own identity, an appreciation of the loss of their life, etc. Although they may feel pain, they're typically killed in an instant. The same cannot be said of a bear hunt and these differences are morally relevant.
@Superlativesweetie .shrimp /bears are free,bears are more aware of their surroundings.Bears like man take advantage of their surrounding because they can.Bears sometimes eat their food alive.What gives a wolve/bear the right to kill a moose calf?You are forgetting there is a cycle of life,it is very cruel but it is how life works.In order for YOU to live you TAKE from the land,no matter how simple you live, YOU TAKE.Bears are just less destructive then man.To survive you NEED to take.[end pt 1]
@VoiceInBlackness You're contradicting yourself. It can't be that killing is natural (and implicitly just) because survival demands it but that it's OK to kill bears when we can easily survive otherwise. If what gives the bear the right to kill other animals is necessity and the natural order, then those things are required in our killing the bear and they don't exist. It's def. not necessary and it's certainly not part of the natural order - people who have killed bears are a tiny tiny minority
@Superlativesweetie ...natural order is eatting at a restaurant or supermarket for man?You are willing to reduce an animal due to its perceived intelligents?Shrimp,fish,ducks,rabbits,cows,deer,etc...dont exist to feed man....man took advantage of these food items.A person is no more important then a tree,people just take advantage of their surroundings.Its not necessary to eat beef either.Natives WERE in touch with the land and hunted all animals and used all plants....thats natural order.
@VoiceInBlackness Moreover, consider that food-shrimp exists because we eat it. You can ask yourself, then, whether the shrimp would have been better off killed for food or never having existed at all. From this we can foster a sort of excuse for farming animals who don't lead miserable lives for food (though an animal who is miserable may well have preferred never to have existed.) But a wild animal's existence isn't contingent on our having planned to eat it so we have no such excuse available
@justinburton7, very few people eat bear meat, and carnivore meat generally doesn't taste that good (different cellular content). Asking people "what do you eat" is a useless question without full context.
These video killings are mostly done for entertainment, not food. Get that concept through your mind and bag the excuses.
@Antithropocentric What I eat is irrelevant regardless of the context for all the reasons I've belaboured here. Justin's commentary merely reinforces what his video already makes manifest - that he's intellectually incapable of grasping the salient rhetoric and, thus, of being a morally decent person. Trying to reason with him and the fans of his cruelty is futile; an undeveloped faculty of reason is required for thinking this is OK.
@Superlativesweetie What you eat is absolutely NOT irrelevant! Answer the man's question! If you eat meat, which I'm certain you do given the way you evaded the simple question like a skilled useless lawyer, you must accept that an animal had to die so that the meat could be provided. Would you argue next that the butcher is an immoral person? Oh there's someone with under developed faculties here alright. You're the only one that needs a mirror to see him....
@JaleelJohanson62 In true stupid-person form you failed to realise that in several other comments I explain precisely why it's irrelevant. In remarkably-stupid person form, you failed to realise that Antithropocentric had described one of the reasons in the very comment I was responding to: what I eat is irrelevant because this bear is not being hunted for food.
Justin, great vids bro. Nice blackie. I moved to and currently live in Alaska just to enjoy all the hunting and fishing it offers. I wouldn't even respond to these jackasses that think hunting is wrong as long as you buy it in a grocery store, lmao, idiots.
@AdamB9098 You're an idiot. There's nothing about "Bears Go Wild" that suggests it's a hunting video. And even if it did, the argument that you should turn a blind eye to injustices if you don't like them is a perfect testament to what is wrong with all the people who like this - a total inability to consider anyone but themselves and an intellectual mediocrity that prevents a suitable understanding of all the moral implications. I would feel sorry for you if I didn't think you were an asshole.
@Superlativesweetie First of all, beard don't go wild, they ARE wild (who's the idiot now?). Secondly, what are the "moral implications" of hunting? You are the average blissfully ignorant city slicker who thinks that hunting is so wrong but you have no idea what would happen if there were no hunting do you? I didn't ask you for your fucking opinion and I certianly didn't insult you, all I said was nobody made you watch, so now you can go fuck yourself asshole.
@AdamB9098 Yeah... it's still you. Your opening statement is what I had said originally.. it's not clear what work you think it's doing? For more detail on the moral implications, look at all the other comments I made (or just think about it; anyone with even a tiny moral faculty should be able to appreciate them). And anyway, if you don't want my opinion, don't engage it with your asinine commentary.
@Superlativesweetie if ppl didnt hunt do u know how many ppl would die every year bcuz of over population bears would move right in and wouldnt take a second thought so ppl dont only hunt for pleasure its to protect u idiots to
@borncountry100 Seriously? Your argument is that hunting is what keeps bear populations under control, rather than the destruction of their habitat resulting from daily human expansion? That, if not for hunters, an unmitigated bear population would just run rampant into cities and towns, ravaging everything? Imbecile. And besides, even if killing bears might be merited in THAT situation, it is not the situation Justin is in here. He wandered into THEIR territory and started firing. Hypocrite.
@Superlativesweetie Why not lobby congress for legislation that limits land development? Wouldn't THAT make far better use of your time? In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to get educated about conservation. Established hunting seasons and bag limits are about keeping the population of a given species at a sustainable number in order to prevent cruel starvation due to lack of resources. Death from starvation is MUCH worse than death from a hunter's bullet.
@JaleelJohanson62 Well I'm Canadian, as is the bear, so I wouldn't lobby congress. Moreover, it's stupid to require that I lobby the government to solve one problem in order to legitimate my criticisms about another. Anyway, what are you saying? Are you saying that hunting is OK because the law mitigates just how cruel any particular hunter can be, or are you seriously weighing the suffering of the shot bear against the would-be suffering of the hunter if he had not shot the bear to eat?
@Superlativesweetie You try very hard to come across as intelligent, but you're truly average at best... I'll try to talk simpler for you... human population is rising. Therefore, space for human habitat is rising and this is displacing habitat for non-human occupants of this planet. When this happens, management of non-human occupant population via hunting prevents starvation of non-human occupants. You're human, so burn down your house to make space if you're feeling guilty....
@JaleelJohanson62 You don't have to dumb down the point, you just have to make it unambiguously. If the idea is that killing bears who are forced into less resource-rich habitats saves them from starvation, then there are at least 3 things to say: 1. the respect for a being's autonomy is morally valuable; it is typically desireable to have one's chance to compete for resources, of one's own accord, even where they are scarce (not to mention the evolutionary role of doing so).
@JaleelJohanson62 2. that bear populations are subject to starvation and displacement is a reason to be compassionate towards them and to develop ways to protect them and their numbers. Bear starvation is an argument for sanctuaries and aid, not hunting. That's why foreign-aid packages are not missiles. And even if the only solution were to kill them, it's something to be done as humanely as possible and with a heavy heart, not by a guffawing jack-ass in a hunt.
@JaleelJohanson62 3. 3. Even if your argument did hold more water, it is not the one by borncountry100 I originally responded to. The original argument was that hunting protected people by keeping bear populations from expanding into our cities and terrorizing us. While your argument is unpersuasive, it's at least less imbecilic than the original... so kudos for that.
@Superlativesweetie My argument represents the facts and this is true whether someone chooses to be pursuaded by them or not. Hunting is the best, most efficient way to compensate for the human encroachment on animal habitat. It's a human solution to a human induced problem if you will. This is because encroachment and hunting are both fast acting conditions that apart from natural disaster, don't normally or rarely occur so quickly in nature.
@JaleelJohanson62 If we're talking about the moral rightness or wrongness of hunting, it doesn't much help its case that it has a beneficial byproduct unless it outweighs other considerations (the bear's autonomy/preferences, other remedies that have less moral collateral, etc.). The moral value of its utility is further undermined by its being tied to another wrong. The only reason to hunt, by your logic, is to mitigate the extent of the cruelty of another wrong.
@JaleelJohanson62 That hunting is useful in lessening the blow of habitat destruction is not an argument for hunting, its an argument against heedless expansion. Its akin to saying that it's OK to shoot the Auschwitz captives to manage the uncontrolled influx of new prisoners (which, incidentally, is the attitude taken by Nazi Germany at the time, which I think we can all agree is condemnable). It does nothing to redeem the act of killing a thing that you've made its life unbearably difficult.
@Superlativesweetie Well, I've already suggested that you burn your house down and concede the land it occupies back to the animals, but somehow I don't think you'd be willing to do this? Don't feel bad though because I don't think anyone else would be willing to do this either. The psychology as to why hunters hunt is meaningless as that has no bearing on the law of conservation. They need only observe bag limits and seasons as this makes for accurate data for next season.
@JaleelJohanson62 I rent so it's not my house to burn, but if it would effect a mankind-wide compassion towards animals, I would. Unfortunately, since it seems causally at odds with physics, I'll leave the house as it is, thank you. Unlike physical laws, laws that govern hunting are mere conventions and the ethical reasoning that motivates them are, of course, of import. Using them to justify hunting is a precarious task if the hunters don't even have to appreciate what work the laws are doing.
@Superlativesweetie Every hunter in the U.S. has to take a hunter safety course. The main focus of the course is to educate the hunters about the law of conservation as it relates to sustainable habitat. I suggest you take this course yourself. One doesn't need to be a hunter to benefit from the course. To reiterate, as long as a hunter follows the law and observes legal seasons and bag limits, it doesn't matter how much or little pleasure they take in hunting. Poachers? That's another story..
@JaleelJohanson62 Bartenders in Ontario have to take a course ostensibly designed to educate them about the legal duty of care they have to all patrons. The idea is that teaching them about the law will mandate a sober concern for people's wellbeing that creates a safe, controlled environment where everyone has a good time. Nevertheless, there isn't a single nightclub in which the legal serving limit is observed and drunk patrons are carefully watched until sobriety rather than expelled.
@Superlativesweetie True. No system is perfect. In the days of prohibition in the U.S. under the 18th ammendment to the constitution where all forms of alcoholic beverages were made illegal overnight, boat loads of people died from improperly distilled alcohol poisoning and gang violence directly attributable to the black marketing of moonshine. The conclusion I draw is that laws are only effective with law abiding folks. All others must be stopped. This is why law enforcement exists.
@JaleelJohanson62 Sure, with respect to more serious laws that are less commonly flouted - murder, theft. But as the prohibition and bartending cases demonstrate, law enforcement itself is not a sufficient safeguard against reckless, harmful hedonism. The law in both cases is/was hardly enforceable because enough people think/thought it was OK that it became too much work to govern properly. The laws of prohibition were repealed while the legal serving limit is just routinely ignored.
@JaleelJohanson62 Besides, the law is not a good referrent for what it should be. It reflects normative ethics but should always be their product, not their guide. (Examples of good guides: common values, maximising happiness sans bias, global amelioration, intersubjective approval, discourse, etc) If you juxtapose this asshat with the image of a 17th century native who kills to survive and apologizes to the animal for it, the contrast should make clear the moral relevance of hunters' attitudes.
@Superlativesweetie It's fun and all to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya while wishing everyone else would adopt the same morals as ourselves, but reality, not habitual whining should set in when the fire goes out. The fast road to frustration is to try and change that we cannot change. By the letter of the law, if the guy in this video had a bear tag and hadn't exceeded any bag limits, how he reacts to the kill is completely personal be it laughing or apologizing to the game. That's it.
@JaleelJohanson62 Laws are changed to reflect the evolution of moral norms all the time. All your saying is that he didn't do anything illegal, not that he didn't do anything immoral, and my criticism is of the latter. And the criticism is important, as are hunters' attitudes, because it reflects and reinforces a different, better ethics. And in any case, we do actually recognize a legal difference based on attitude. Criminals who exhibit remorse and are less callous often get lighter sentences.
@JaleelJohanson62 This is because you can't mandate an ethical concern for others - some people have it and assholes don't. It absolutely matters how happy bartenders are to follow the law because if money makes them happy, rather than others' wellbeing, they're not going to compromise their pursuit of it if they can help it. And in any case, my original point remains undealt with - the law (conservation in the wake of human consumption) doesn't actually redeem it so a hunter's education is moot
@Superlativesweetie And... your use of Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland is a poor analogy! The purpose of places like Auschwitz was to exterminate ALL of the occupants and over crowding only could occur when the occupants couldn't be killed at a rate that equaled or exceeded the acquisition of more occupants. This has virtually nothing in common with attempting to maintain a population that can be supported by the limited resources of a given habitat whatsoever.
@JaleelJohanson62 If your argument is that shooting bears is justified because it saves those bears from the starvation you've inflicted on them, the parallel seems obvious to me. You're justifying murder by rending it a remedy to a problem you persist in creating when it's really just yet another reason for you to stop being problematic. The two cases share this faulty rationale, but the callous lack of concern for others' interests is another pretty clear commonality.
@Superlativesweetie Good Lord.... If you had an invasion of carpenter ants in your home, would killing them be justified or would you accept and adapt to having ants in all your food? You're not being realistic! In nature there is a hierarchy that is maintained by a balance between predators and prey. Upset the balance and the hierarchy changes. Humans are currently the dominant species. What's unique is that humans are the first dominant species to try and maintain balance.
@JaleelJohanson62 What!? You think we, as a species, make an earnest effort to maintain a balance between our interests and those of the animals we dominate? Now who's not being realistic!? Natural-dominance talk is tiring. In no sensible way can you describe the advantage we enjoy as "natural" as the point of technology is to reign in the natural. We have distorted "the balance" so self-centeredly that, if everyone in our species wanted to enjoy the American lifestyle, it would take 5-7 Earths.
@Superlativesweetie I actually agree with you about your point with the American lifestyle. This too will pass as the lifestyle is certainly not sustainable. As for making an earnest effort to maintain balance, yes, there are those who dedicate their lives to it just as there are those who could give a rat about anything but themselves. There are no easy answers.
@JaleelJohanson62 So apropos your analogy, it seems clear to me that we are the ants and everyone else is helpless against our invasion. Any justification you could muster for killing the ants would be wholly applicable to killing humans who go into forests to harrass bears. The essential difference and what is unique about humans is that we use guns and are relatively relentless.
@Superlativesweetie Yes! Exactly correct! We are the current dominant species on Earth and as such use our minds to develop the means to maintain our dominance until the end of our days. Conversely, the animals which are capable of turning the tables on us are also free to do so should the opportunity arise. What likely seperates us from the dinosaurs is that we at least attempt to maintain balance based on variable habitat due to our activeties. I don't think dinosaurs gave a damn.
@JaleelJohanson62 That a select minority is concerned about sustainability is not a testament to what we, as a species, do. Species dominance is more about prevalence than dominance - being the most numerous, not the most ruthless - and it's not in and of itself desireable (re: overpopulation). Being the dominant species does not license us to fuck the planet up for everything else; "being able to" is not the same as "being entitled to."
@Superlativesweetie It's also true that while a select minority choose to break laws, rape, pillage, and murder, it's not a testament to what we as a species do. It's really a half full half empty way of looking at it. In order to become numerous, a species must possess the necessary tools to fend off competition and locate food. We've done both beyond being limited to what we can gather. This will continue until the numbers expand beyond what we can extract from the Earth. That is natural.
@JaleelJohanson62 It's not a half-full/half-empty issue, you've just made my point again. It's senseless to use what a minority does to inform statements about what the species does. A minority is actively concerned with sustainability and balance, the majority should be but isn't. Instead, we, as a species, have depleted the resources everyone needs practically beyond repair and we have already reached a point at which our numbers are beyond what the earth can sustain - hence overpopulation.
@JaleelJohanson62 2. And you seem to use "natural" as a sort of self-justifying term. 1. What you mean by it is unclear as you call "natural" things which are wholly a product of heavy technological exploitation, and 2. technology exists because a traditionally natural existence is burdensome; it's not clear why you think it's desireable to be natural. Hobbes thought the State of Nature was the WORST-case scenario precisely because of it meant the total abandonment of comfort-ensuring ethics.
@Superlativesweetie I'm not on trial here, so the terms I use are for conveying what I'm thinking, not justifying mine or the actions of others. Technical advancement is natural for me. I'm lazy and am always seeking out easier ways to do things. I also find my successes rewarding. It's not for most animals. A bear in the wild probably doesn't do anything differently today than the way its ancestors did things thousands of years ago.
@JaleelJohanson62 You're justifying yourself right now - that's the point of criticism and discourse. And your use of the "natural" as a sort of " 'nuff said" sentiment about your view is a disservice to your own argument. It is not enough to say that something is natural. Our advantage is not natural, it's decidedly technological. And defining as "natural" EVERYTHING one feels disposed to do gives it a breadth that makes it virtually meaningless, even if you could show it to be desireable.
@JaleelJohanson62 And yeah, technology is an advantage exclusively enjoyed by humans, but that is not a free-for-all license to abuse it. If you're to make the argument that our advantage and dominance is justified by some natural survival imperative shared by everything, you still have more work to do in justifying consumption beyond what survival demands. On the other hand, if what you're saying is that we can just pursue whatever because being disposed to it makes it natural.. slippery slope!
@Superlativesweetie Human beings stand apart from the rest of the life on the planet due to their ability to innovate using ever increasing technological know-how. Without this ability, the guy in this video would be the prey, not the predator. An expandable scale is necessary to determine what's natural for the guy to do because the options approach infinity as time approaches infinity. Because of this, what's considered natural to do today may not be so tomorrow.
@JaleelJohanson62 Now it seems like all your saying is that natural is a variable term that describes whatever stage of the game we're at - which basically makes it so relative as to be meaningless. You could even say that it's in Douchebag's nature to shoot bears for fun, and it's in my nature to disapprove, and so the argument from what's natural can be used to justify both positions. This is a philosophically poor path to take. You have to reach intersubjectively common ground.
@Superlativesweetie I don't have to do anything. People can have as much or as little fun as they'd like while partaking in a legal activety in a legal manner. In fact, I've been to this video so many times now with this circular conversation of ours that I'm starting to think about doing something I've never done before.... I'm getting a bear tag and am going bear hunting this weekend. I'm a damned good hunter so I see a new rug for my shop floor in the near future. Wish me luck!
@JaleelJohanson62 "I don't have to do anything." You're an idiot. IN discourse, ONE has to reach intersubjective commonground in order to AVOID circularity. Obviously nobody is going to make you do so, but most people feel compelled to do things by their own sense of instrumental reason and not just by force. You're an unfortunate exception, and it's impossible to get you to do anything productive or intelligent without forcing your hand. Good luck not being an asshole for the rest of your life.
@Superlativesweetie No my friend, it is YOU that's the idiot. You should kill yourself because that's the only way you can stop leaving such dreadful footprints on the world. Good luck to you too w/regards to not being an asshole the rest of your life. If you follow my advice in my second sentence, both your problem and everyone else's will be solved.
@Superlativesweetie you sir have posted waaay too much comments on this video,"have you made this video your home",are you a crazy? look at all those long comments you posted, hunting is bad hunting is good fucking who cares,if you really defend your views so much you would have been making a difference out there instead of commenting here. you are an attention whore and you are using youtube as goto place instead of doing what your supposed to do away from your responsibilities.do not reply pls
@Superlativesweetie yea it kinda does. i mean come on, there arn't really that many hunters now anyway. were not killing too many bears or deer. we endanger animals in other ways such as useing draino or weed killer. not that i am an enviornmentalist.
@sandstar102 I wasn't saying that we are all as assholish as these hunters - that is not the case, they are a special breed of douchebag. I was just responding to the suggestion that humans are justified in their cruel dominance because it's natural and because millions of years ago the planet was comperably dominated by a bunch of lizards with even LESS concern for the wellbeing of everything else on the planet than us. It's the "at least we're not those guys" argument. It makes no sense.
@Superlativesweetie whatever dude ur an idiot u have no idea wut ur talking about ur treating this like its such a bad thing to hunt when its not alot of things would b different and not for the better either
@borncountry100 This from the imbecile who thinks the bears are comin' to get us. I sincerely hope you're speaking from personal experience, you ass-hat.
There's something about killing top predators like bears and wolves that is so disheartening. Why can't you kill a deer or a moose or something. Predators are never as numerous as prey animals. </3
That bear might have kids to feed back, but she'll never return to them. (I am not going to curse you, dear hunter. I am just putting forward my thought. Btw, I am a non veg but I restrict myself to chicken and fish). I believe hunting shouldn't be allowed for the bigger mammals.
people make me laugh, the people saying OH MY GOD how could you do that, well us country people dont live in no town or city thinking oh look inst he cute, fuck no that meat will taste good and the blanket will keep me warm and head will look good on my wall, Kill the dam bear, all you city people get a life, go make a video of your car on 22'' inch rims and shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!
Why Do people have a problem Killing something that wouldn't hesitate to rip their faces off .....Too Few Hunters So Many regulations Bear populations are fine ..Fire Away :) IMO Bear taste like Shit :( You Might have dropped Him with one shot, If your hand hadn't been shaking like a lil school girl ;p
@justinburton7 agreed these people are little bitches every one has there opinion but its not right when they say just go try to bitch at us and say that they are defense less no they arnt and thats crule i dont think it is but every one has a opinion but really shut up do u think we care about ur little hunting mean WE DONT CARE IF U DONT LIKE IT DONT WATCH IT
Nice kill. That's what hunting is all about. Forget about the haters (tree huggers) As a matter of fact on frame 57-58 I thought I heard an Elk. Should of gotten you one as well.
JMKContractingsatx 1 month ago
YOU FUCKING CUNT WHY SHOOT THE BEAR YOU MOTHERFUCKING PUSSY HO.... DIE MOTHERFUCKER,,,,,,DIE COCK SUCKING ASSHOLE..... SHOVE THAT GUN UP YOUR OWN ASS AND PULL THE TRIGGER........... MOTHERFUCKER DIE MAN DIE
Supertiger9999 1 month ago
Get a room.
fredwilma1000 1 month ago
Lol you got him
ameer4666 1 month ago
*Du-du-daa-dum* "Your Sneak skill increased to 45." LEVEL UP!
Agent1W 1 month ago 3
Lol nice shot man
browukraka 2 months ago
Nice shot.
metalrayne1 2 months ago
is that for jumping on your tree?? nice bear
HuntTrap13 2 months ago
I liked the first video when fear got the better of you but now my sympathy is for the bear.
vadzofthebadz 3 months ago 3
@vadzofthebadz ahaha its called revenge you pussy!!
dstir23 2 months ago
@dstir23
Clearly you're a brave internet hunter.
vadzofthebadz 2 months ago
@vadzofthebadz clearly you're a tree hugging faggot
dstir23 2 months ago
@dstir23
...says the guy using "pussy" as something negative. lol
vadzofthebadz 2 months ago 3
@vadzofthebadz You have sympathy for a bear... You clearly have a vagina... hence why i called you a pussy... get it queer boy?
dstir23 2 months ago
@dstir23
Lol. Look at you trying to justify your association of vagina with guys. Whatever makes you happy Mr Keyboard Killer.
vadzofthebadz 2 months ago
@vadzofthebadz lol that was a very pathetic response good sir. check mate bitch
dstir23 1 month ago
Idiots!!!!!!!!!!
sixkiller1000 3 months ago
Excellent video! You guys are great ethical hunters! Congrats!
ColtDeltaElite10mm 3 months ago
lol @ quote
"that's fo jumping on my tree!"
(please visit the first video to see the other comment, haha"
sakuramingo 3 months ago
You got him!. Good hunt!
Algonkin1964 3 months ago
Awesome shot! Kill the bear or let it kill you? I would have shot it also. :)
joeybare 3 months ago
Good hunt, good shot, and nice bear!
firebrand07 3 months ago
How do you operate the bolt? do you use the trigger hand or use the right hand to move it?
HajiHardball 3 months ago
@HajiHardball I use the trigger hand.... with practice, its pretty simple to do.
justinburton7 3 months ago
@justinburton7 Where did you hunt in Canada? In Alberta?
ostapslobodian 3 months ago
I love youtube "ultimate retardation fights", always make my day. <3
DrBugProductions 3 months ago
ROFLMAO! That's hilarious. "that's for jumping on my tree" ...Hehehehe! Nice video. You guys did a great job. I'm going to Colorado next week to Elk hunt. I want my next hunt to be bear. Congrats!
Bustertb 3 months ago
Great job! Good times.
Colorado81505 3 months ago
justinburton7 tell all the tree hugging hatters who are talking shit whos gona be alive when the government defaults on their debt and money is useless and you will not be able to buy groceries and gas. the people who know how to hunt and fish thats who a countryboy can survive!!!!!! whos with me thumbs up and for those that dont agree you will find out soon.
kjtb2101 3 months ago
@meinLiebsterFeind, Bear is a major food source where I live. I don't know of any hunter who makes themselves known to their prey. That would seem counter productive, the object is to try and kill the animal without it being too tense or nervous before (makes the meat tougher). Bear meat and hunting/fishing is almost a requirement to survival where I live in Canada just south of the Alaska border. My people have hunted these lands with respect to nature and what it gives up for our survival.
jeremyradawiec 4 months ago
@jeremyradawiec Justinburton has already said that he's never had bear meat and didn't kill the bear for food. What community do you live in that is not so remote that you have the internet but is so remote that you still rely on wildlife rather than farming/agriculture for sustenance?
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
fark everyone going off at hunting it's a sport assholes and its okay sure it's not nice to kill for fun but hey there is much worse things to do if you eat what you kill there is nothing wrong with it but if not just keep it to a minimum you can still do it so to all you tree huger bitches just shut up its not g=a good thing to do but so what you dont need to be dicks about it
ArchDouchebag 4 months ago
I could understand if you were a fur trader, but what did you plan to do with the corpse? I happen to think bears are pretty interesting animals and not a particularly good food source.
meinLiebsterFeind 4 months ago
@plopnod sounds like the men at the University Of Boston spend way to much time studying each others penises. Maybe they should leave campus occasionally, maybe then they could find someone that measures up to their expectations. When I was young, professors showing to much interest in other peoples penises got knocked the hell out. What some folks will do for a good grade.
carlgharper 4 months ago
@plopnod, that DMGD "study" is a spoof, but a certain deadness of character is required to repeatedly kill for sport, once one gets past the initial (natural) instinct. The serial killing of animals is much darker than true sustenance hunting.
The problem is not the ability to kill per se, rather the willingness to do it often for no particular reason and glorify it, especially in the context of how Man has destroyed so much of nature. Modern hunting is disrespectful when done to entertain.
Antithropocentric 4 months ago
@Antithropocentric
I agree. In Missouri, where I live, Black bears used to be abundant, they were plentiful in all highland and river land-types. Around 1950, the Black bear was assumed to be extirpated in the state due to egregious slaughter; they were killed simply for existing. Fortunately, that was not the case -- some managed to stay alive in the remote highland areas and the population is slowly creeping back (about 500 individuals). Seeing a wild bear in 2011 is a blessing.
meinLiebsterFeind 4 months ago
Continued...
Which is why I fundamentally don't understand buying a bunch of Chinese made camouflage clothing and killing such a creature on sight. In the previous video, the bear was startled because the hunters did not make themselves known to the bear. Black bears rely on their strong sense of smell, rather than their relatively poor eyesight, the bear did not identify the presence of the hunter until it was very close and, naturally, became alarmed.
meinLiebsterFeind 4 months ago
This ties into other issues, like the particularly jingoistic nature of the joy-hunting demographic. I've always found that quite troubling; they consider themselves to be overtly patriotic, yet are the most prone to litter, purchase heaps of foreign made junk to facilitate their hunts, drive large gas-guzzling vehicles to the hunts, don't recycle, and don't care much for the environment. Funny, that.
meinLiebsterFeind 4 months ago
@meinLiebsterFeind, they mostly seem to have a religious dominion attitude toward nature. To show any true respect would deviate from the Manifest Destiny credo, which almost wiped out the American bison. Their direct ancestors were plugging away with Sharps rifles and piling up skulls. See "Buffalo head shot 300 Rem Ultra Mag" (on YouTube) for that same attitude today.
Antithropocentric 4 months ago
@plopnod post a link or point us towards the research paper or it isnt true and didnt happen.
dseries16 4 months ago
@dseries16 I saw this on an episode of 'The Nature of Things' about 3-4 years ago.I've tried in vein to find any links to it.Maybe you might have better luck than I.
plopnod 4 months ago
I guess the bear won't be jumping on your tree anymore, nice shot. Please say that you ate the meat and tanned the hide....
Darthbelal 4 months ago
Schießt lieber auf euch selbst.Egal wer draufgeht,es findet immer den richtigen.Aber scheißt nicht auf wehrlose.Dumme Menschen..
derhamburger2 4 months ago
hunting is so bad...its much better to raise an animal, feed him crap, kill him and then eat him ...like the "thats for jumping on my tree" :))
cradleofpainhell 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice vid. i liked the first one more, where he wants to climb your tree...damn was he scared after he saw something is up there.
let me ask you what bearhunt is for? populationcontrol or something? because i think you can´t eat bears, neigther have i seen any kind of bear trophy, apart from a stuffed one maybe. so what you do with the bear?
Guzzist11 5 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von justinburton7
This has been flagged as spam show
@justinburton7 I'm a vegaterian, and I have no problem with people hunting but calling "tree huggers" nut jobs makes you a ignorant redneck, stop molesting your sister.
SuPaRaTt 5 months ago
Comment removed
SuPaRaTt 5 months ago
Did any of the "dislikers" have any idea what they were going to watch, before they decided to watch a bear hunting video? This is a hunting video. Good video justinburton7. I enjoy hunting, and seeing others do it properly as well. All you educated veiwers COULD choose to watch something you enjoy, rather than seeking hunting clips, unless you merely want to bitch.
2433006guy 5 months ago
Are you hippies so concerned about wildlife that you have nothing better to do than to watch hunting videos and try to sound like a badass by commenting protest posts?
guitarq359 5 months ago
you could have given warning shots but in end better him than you...survival mode..
Bossna2 5 months ago
DON'T KILL THE BEARS
11natacha11 5 months ago 2
Why is that relevant? Lets say, hypothetically, that I am a huge carnivore who only ever eats chicken. There is a huge moral divide between a) farming an animal for food, producing literally millions of them for the purpose of consumption, and then killing it FOR FOOD, and b) going out into the territory of a wild species, of which there are probably at most a few hundred thousand, and killing one of its members essentially for sport (given all the other available food sources).
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
This comparison I keep seeing between hunting wild animals and eating farmed animals is asinine. 1) There is a moral difference between depriving an animal who only lives because we created it for food of their life and depriving an animal in the wild with total autonomy from its life. 2) Many of our farming practices are unjust, it's true - what does that have to do with the inherent injustice of hunting bears? Absolutely nothing. They are distinct issues and involve different questions.
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@Superlativesweetie.wild animals fight a daily battle with death,their lives are [mostly] consumed with finding food and mating.You cant look at a bear as if it was a pet.You draw a line at raised/wild animals,true they are different but how can you place such morels on enslaved animals?Do they too not deserve to live?There is a small % a wild animal will die by man,but there is 110% chance a raised animal will die by man.People have lost touch with the cycle of life,supermarkets prove this[end]
VoiceInBlackness 5 months ago
@VoiceInBlackness There were two metrics of distinction I pointed out: intelligence and alternatives. Intelligence -- smarter animals suffer more, both because they have a more acute fear (they have a better sense of what it is they're fearing and its consequences) and because their opportunity cost is higher (they lead richer lives). Alternatives - food-shrimp are always eaten by man because they exist for that purpose; bears exist independently of us so the emergent excuse is unavailable there
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
Comment removed
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
0:56 almost sounds like Elk Bugling lol
Wow so many dislikes. Let me guess granola crunching city folks who think meat comes from a magical enchanted place. See we are predators it is our nature to hunt for food and clothing and it is also our nature to do it for sport. I personally am not fond of bear meat however it is food so nothing wrong with hunting food especially food armed with weapons itself. For city folk and sensitive people keep in mind your ancestors did this. We just embrace it
CapnCrossbones 5 months ago
How come so many dislikes?
italianboys82 5 months ago 3
@italianboys82 Tree huggers are nut job morons.... thats why. lol
justinburton7 5 months ago 28
@justinburton7 No. They just like trees.
brandon9966 5 months ago
@italianboys82 Because we live in a weird world where people when they see real hunting they don't want to accept the way it is... like the guy killing the bear is a monster for his act. But I guess those same people would prefer chickens or turkeys boosted with steroid. They become so big that their weight is too important for their legs. That being said, we're not gonna talk about the unacceptable environment they grow in. This video is totally a like.
shrekpower 4 months ago 7
@italianboys82 cause people stupid lol
romano65332 3 months ago
That's quite the one on one challenge.You're quite the man!You were definitely lucky to survive that vicious attack.
robinandthe7hoods 5 months ago
@GerrettJihad it was over 6 feet! That's not a "small bear"
justinburton7 5 months ago 3
@justinburton7 stupid people see a bear on all 4's and think its 3 feet tall until it stands shoulder to shoulder with them
ouellette666 4 months ago
we like to see and hear shots fired that way aleast you tried
taterheadkiley 5 months ago
i bet when someone in your family or someone you know get attacked/killed by a bear you'll want to kill every single one. so stop hating on hunting bear meat is amazing :)
YouWontWin1 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bears start wild, they don't go wild. Hunting is wrong.
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@Superlativesweetie ........how is hunting wrong???? Man has hunted since the begining of....hmmm...supermarkets!! If they were to hunt endangered animals or for kicks i would fully agree with you,but they ain't.I dont agree with hunting in trees unless you are Tarzan,but to each their own.I dont think you really realize how screwed up most of the food you buy at the supermarket is treated,some of those animals sit in their own shit....what do you think about that??
VoiceInBlackness 5 months ago
Comment removed
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@VoiceInBlackness Yeah, I know how screwed up commercial animal farming can be - I don't eat a lot of meat and I buy free-range wherever possible. But these are seperate issues and involve seperate questions -- questions about the relative intelligence of the animals involved, the relative opportunity cost burden each animal suffers, etc.
(For more on this, Peter Singer's Standford Univeristy podcast, "All Animals are Equal - But in What Sense of Equality?")
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@Superlativesweetie ....On the whole if you look deep enough you might find that everything is actually connected,folks just like to split up the issues to suit their own thoughts/needs....to live is to suffer,death can be looked at in many ways,life isn't taken but re-newed,one death provides another life.If you are true to your cause you cant place different values on dumb/smart/wild/raised for food animals.Animals suffer when killed,both in wild and when raised....in either case its killing.
VoiceInBlackness 5 months ago
@VoiceInBlackness The fact that one can draw parallels in most things if one tries hard enough doesn't mean that issues that share some features are the same. The cognitive capacity of shrimp is so limiting that chances are they have no experience of fear, anticipating harm, their own identity, an appreciation of the loss of their life, etc. Although they may feel pain, they're typically killed in an instant. The same cannot be said of a bear hunt and these differences are morally relevant.
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@Superlativesweetie .shrimp /bears are free,bears are more aware of their surroundings.Bears like man take advantage of their surrounding because they can.Bears sometimes eat their food alive.What gives a wolve/bear the right to kill a moose calf?You are forgetting there is a cycle of life,it is very cruel but it is how life works.In order for YOU to live you TAKE from the land,no matter how simple you live, YOU TAKE.Bears are just less destructive then man.To survive you NEED to take.[end pt 1]
VoiceInBlackness 5 months ago
@VoiceInBlackness You're contradicting yourself. It can't be that killing is natural (and implicitly just) because survival demands it but that it's OK to kill bears when we can easily survive otherwise. If what gives the bear the right to kill other animals is necessity and the natural order, then those things are required in our killing the bear and they don't exist. It's def. not necessary and it's certainly not part of the natural order - people who have killed bears are a tiny tiny minority
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@Superlativesweetie ...natural order is eatting at a restaurant or supermarket for man?You are willing to reduce an animal due to its perceived intelligents?Shrimp,fish,ducks,rabbits,cows,deer,etc...dont exist to feed man....man took advantage of these food items.A person is no more important then a tree,people just take advantage of their surroundings.Its not necessary to eat beef either.Natives WERE in touch with the land and hunted all animals and used all plants....thats natural order.
VoiceInBlackness 5 months ago
@VoiceInBlackness Moreover, consider that food-shrimp exists because we eat it. You can ask yourself, then, whether the shrimp would have been better off killed for food or never having existed at all. From this we can foster a sort of excuse for farming animals who don't lead miserable lives for food (though an animal who is miserable may well have preferred never to have existed.) But a wild animal's existence isn't contingent on our having planned to eat it so we have no such excuse available
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@Superlativesweetie What do you eat?
justinburton7 5 months ago 15
Comment removed
Superlativesweetie 5 months ago
@justinburton7 Fish.
cuzgandalfgothigh99 4 months ago
@justinburton7, very few people eat bear meat, and carnivore meat generally doesn't taste that good (different cellular content). Asking people "what do you eat" is a useless question without full context.
These video killings are mostly done for entertainment, not food. Get that concept through your mind and bag the excuses.
Antithropocentric 4 months ago 2
@Antithropocentric What I eat is irrelevant regardless of the context for all the reasons I've belaboured here. Justin's commentary merely reinforces what his video already makes manifest - that he's intellectually incapable of grasping the salient rhetoric and, thus, of being a morally decent person. Trying to reason with him and the fans of his cruelty is futile; an undeveloped faculty of reason is required for thinking this is OK.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie What you eat is absolutely NOT irrelevant! Answer the man's question! If you eat meat, which I'm certain you do given the way you evaded the simple question like a skilled useless lawyer, you must accept that an animal had to die so that the meat could be provided. Would you argue next that the butcher is an immoral person? Oh there's someone with under developed faculties here alright. You're the only one that needs a mirror to see him....
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 In true stupid-person form you failed to realise that in several other comments I explain precisely why it's irrelevant. In remarkably-stupid person form, you failed to realise that Antithropocentric had described one of the reasons in the very comment I was responding to: what I eat is irrelevant because this bear is not being hunted for food.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@justinburton7 bear meat? hmm never tried but sounds interesting :D
Ritunamos 4 months ago
@justinburton7 I can proudly say i've never eaten bear before..
Altariav 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie I guess you only eat vegetation, huh?
threetime1 4 months ago
Justin, great vids bro. Nice blackie. I moved to and currently live in Alaska just to enjoy all the hunting and fishing it offers. I wouldn't even respond to these jackasses that think hunting is wrong as long as you buy it in a grocery store, lmao, idiots.
threetime1 4 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Stop watching hunting videos if you think hunting is wrong. Nobody is forcing you to watch.
AdamB9098 4 months ago
@AdamB9098 You're an idiot. There's nothing about "Bears Go Wild" that suggests it's a hunting video. And even if it did, the argument that you should turn a blind eye to injustices if you don't like them is a perfect testament to what is wrong with all the people who like this - a total inability to consider anyone but themselves and an intellectual mediocrity that prevents a suitable understanding of all the moral implications. I would feel sorry for you if I didn't think you were an asshole.
Superlativesweetie 4 months ago 2
@Superlativesweetie 100% true !
Dominusorg 4 months ago
@Superlativesweetie First of all, beard don't go wild, they ARE wild (who's the idiot now?). Secondly, what are the "moral implications" of hunting? You are the average blissfully ignorant city slicker who thinks that hunting is so wrong but you have no idea what would happen if there were no hunting do you? I didn't ask you for your fucking opinion and I certianly didn't insult you, all I said was nobody made you watch, so now you can go fuck yourself asshole.
AdamB9098 4 months ago
@AdamB9098 Yeah... it's still you. Your opening statement is what I had said originally.. it's not clear what work you think it's doing? For more detail on the moral implications, look at all the other comments I made (or just think about it; anyone with even a tiny moral faculty should be able to appreciate them). And anyway, if you don't want my opinion, don't engage it with your asinine commentary.
Superlativesweetie 4 months ago
@Superlativesweetie if ppl didnt hunt do u know how many ppl would die every year bcuz of over population bears would move right in and wouldnt take a second thought so ppl dont only hunt for pleasure its to protect u idiots to
borncountry100 3 months ago
@borncountry100 Seriously? Your argument is that hunting is what keeps bear populations under control, rather than the destruction of their habitat resulting from daily human expansion? That, if not for hunters, an unmitigated bear population would just run rampant into cities and towns, ravaging everything? Imbecile. And besides, even if killing bears might be merited in THAT situation, it is not the situation Justin is in here. He wandered into THEIR territory and started firing. Hypocrite.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Why not lobby congress for legislation that limits land development? Wouldn't THAT make far better use of your time? In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to get educated about conservation. Established hunting seasons and bag limits are about keeping the population of a given species at a sustainable number in order to prevent cruel starvation due to lack of resources. Death from starvation is MUCH worse than death from a hunter's bullet.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Well I'm Canadian, as is the bear, so I wouldn't lobby congress. Moreover, it's stupid to require that I lobby the government to solve one problem in order to legitimate my criticisms about another. Anyway, what are you saying? Are you saying that hunting is OK because the law mitigates just how cruel any particular hunter can be, or are you seriously weighing the suffering of the shot bear against the would-be suffering of the hunter if he had not shot the bear to eat?
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie You try very hard to come across as intelligent, but you're truly average at best... I'll try to talk simpler for you... human population is rising. Therefore, space for human habitat is rising and this is displacing habitat for non-human occupants of this planet. When this happens, management of non-human occupant population via hunting prevents starvation of non-human occupants. You're human, so burn down your house to make space if you're feeling guilty....
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 You don't have to dumb down the point, you just have to make it unambiguously. If the idea is that killing bears who are forced into less resource-rich habitats saves them from starvation, then there are at least 3 things to say: 1. the respect for a being's autonomy is morally valuable; it is typically desireable to have one's chance to compete for resources, of one's own accord, even where they are scarce (not to mention the evolutionary role of doing so).
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 2. that bear populations are subject to starvation and displacement is a reason to be compassionate towards them and to develop ways to protect them and their numbers. Bear starvation is an argument for sanctuaries and aid, not hunting. That's why foreign-aid packages are not missiles. And even if the only solution were to kill them, it's something to be done as humanely as possible and with a heavy heart, not by a guffawing jack-ass in a hunt.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 3. 3. Even if your argument did hold more water, it is not the one by borncountry100 I originally responded to. The original argument was that hunting protected people by keeping bear populations from expanding into our cities and terrorizing us. While your argument is unpersuasive, it's at least less imbecilic than the original... so kudos for that.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie My argument represents the facts and this is true whether someone chooses to be pursuaded by them or not. Hunting is the best, most efficient way to compensate for the human encroachment on animal habitat. It's a human solution to a human induced problem if you will. This is because encroachment and hunting are both fast acting conditions that apart from natural disaster, don't normally or rarely occur so quickly in nature.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 If we're talking about the moral rightness or wrongness of hunting, it doesn't much help its case that it has a beneficial byproduct unless it outweighs other considerations (the bear's autonomy/preferences, other remedies that have less moral collateral, etc.). The moral value of its utility is further undermined by its being tied to another wrong. The only reason to hunt, by your logic, is to mitigate the extent of the cruelty of another wrong.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 That hunting is useful in lessening the blow of habitat destruction is not an argument for hunting, its an argument against heedless expansion. Its akin to saying that it's OK to shoot the Auschwitz captives to manage the uncontrolled influx of new prisoners (which, incidentally, is the attitude taken by Nazi Germany at the time, which I think we can all agree is condemnable). It does nothing to redeem the act of killing a thing that you've made its life unbearably difficult.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Well, I've already suggested that you burn your house down and concede the land it occupies back to the animals, but somehow I don't think you'd be willing to do this? Don't feel bad though because I don't think anyone else would be willing to do this either. The psychology as to why hunters hunt is meaningless as that has no bearing on the law of conservation. They need only observe bag limits and seasons as this makes for accurate data for next season.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 I rent so it's not my house to burn, but if it would effect a mankind-wide compassion towards animals, I would. Unfortunately, since it seems causally at odds with physics, I'll leave the house as it is, thank you. Unlike physical laws, laws that govern hunting are mere conventions and the ethical reasoning that motivates them are, of course, of import. Using them to justify hunting is a precarious task if the hunters don't even have to appreciate what work the laws are doing.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Every hunter in the U.S. has to take a hunter safety course. The main focus of the course is to educate the hunters about the law of conservation as it relates to sustainable habitat. I suggest you take this course yourself. One doesn't need to be a hunter to benefit from the course. To reiterate, as long as a hunter follows the law and observes legal seasons and bag limits, it doesn't matter how much or little pleasure they take in hunting. Poachers? That's another story..
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Bartenders in Ontario have to take a course ostensibly designed to educate them about the legal duty of care they have to all patrons. The idea is that teaching them about the law will mandate a sober concern for people's wellbeing that creates a safe, controlled environment where everyone has a good time. Nevertheless, there isn't a single nightclub in which the legal serving limit is observed and drunk patrons are carefully watched until sobriety rather than expelled.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie True. No system is perfect. In the days of prohibition in the U.S. under the 18th ammendment to the constitution where all forms of alcoholic beverages were made illegal overnight, boat loads of people died from improperly distilled alcohol poisoning and gang violence directly attributable to the black marketing of moonshine. The conclusion I draw is that laws are only effective with law abiding folks. All others must be stopped. This is why law enforcement exists.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Sure, with respect to more serious laws that are less commonly flouted - murder, theft. But as the prohibition and bartending cases demonstrate, law enforcement itself is not a sufficient safeguard against reckless, harmful hedonism. The law in both cases is/was hardly enforceable because enough people think/thought it was OK that it became too much work to govern properly. The laws of prohibition were repealed while the legal serving limit is just routinely ignored.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Besides, the law is not a good referrent for what it should be. It reflects normative ethics but should always be their product, not their guide. (Examples of good guides: common values, maximising happiness sans bias, global amelioration, intersubjective approval, discourse, etc) If you juxtapose this asshat with the image of a 17th century native who kills to survive and apologizes to the animal for it, the contrast should make clear the moral relevance of hunters' attitudes.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie It's fun and all to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya while wishing everyone else would adopt the same morals as ourselves, but reality, not habitual whining should set in when the fire goes out. The fast road to frustration is to try and change that we cannot change. By the letter of the law, if the guy in this video had a bear tag and hadn't exceeded any bag limits, how he reacts to the kill is completely personal be it laughing or apologizing to the game. That's it.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Laws are changed to reflect the evolution of moral norms all the time. All your saying is that he didn't do anything illegal, not that he didn't do anything immoral, and my criticism is of the latter. And the criticism is important, as are hunters' attitudes, because it reflects and reinforces a different, better ethics. And in any case, we do actually recognize a legal difference based on attitude. Criminals who exhibit remorse and are less callous often get lighter sentences.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 This is because you can't mandate an ethical concern for others - some people have it and assholes don't. It absolutely matters how happy bartenders are to follow the law because if money makes them happy, rather than others' wellbeing, they're not going to compromise their pursuit of it if they can help it. And in any case, my original point remains undealt with - the law (conservation in the wake of human consumption) doesn't actually redeem it so a hunter's education is moot
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie And... your use of Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland is a poor analogy! The purpose of places like Auschwitz was to exterminate ALL of the occupants and over crowding only could occur when the occupants couldn't be killed at a rate that equaled or exceeded the acquisition of more occupants. This has virtually nothing in common with attempting to maintain a population that can be supported by the limited resources of a given habitat whatsoever.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 If your argument is that shooting bears is justified because it saves those bears from the starvation you've inflicted on them, the parallel seems obvious to me. You're justifying murder by rending it a remedy to a problem you persist in creating when it's really just yet another reason for you to stop being problematic. The two cases share this faulty rationale, but the callous lack of concern for others' interests is another pretty clear commonality.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Good Lord.... If you had an invasion of carpenter ants in your home, would killing them be justified or would you accept and adapt to having ants in all your food? You're not being realistic! In nature there is a hierarchy that is maintained by a balance between predators and prey. Upset the balance and the hierarchy changes. Humans are currently the dominant species. What's unique is that humans are the first dominant species to try and maintain balance.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 What!? You think we, as a species, make an earnest effort to maintain a balance between our interests and those of the animals we dominate? Now who's not being realistic!? Natural-dominance talk is tiring. In no sensible way can you describe the advantage we enjoy as "natural" as the point of technology is to reign in the natural. We have distorted "the balance" so self-centeredly that, if everyone in our species wanted to enjoy the American lifestyle, it would take 5-7 Earths.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie I actually agree with you about your point with the American lifestyle. This too will pass as the lifestyle is certainly not sustainable. As for making an earnest effort to maintain balance, yes, there are those who dedicate their lives to it just as there are those who could give a rat about anything but themselves. There are no easy answers.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 So apropos your analogy, it seems clear to me that we are the ants and everyone else is helpless against our invasion. Any justification you could muster for killing the ants would be wholly applicable to killing humans who go into forests to harrass bears. The essential difference and what is unique about humans is that we use guns and are relatively relentless.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Yes! Exactly correct! We are the current dominant species on Earth and as such use our minds to develop the means to maintain our dominance until the end of our days. Conversely, the animals which are capable of turning the tables on us are also free to do so should the opportunity arise. What likely seperates us from the dinosaurs is that we at least attempt to maintain balance based on variable habitat due to our activeties. I don't think dinosaurs gave a damn.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 That a select minority is concerned about sustainability is not a testament to what we, as a species, do. Species dominance is more about prevalence than dominance - being the most numerous, not the most ruthless - and it's not in and of itself desireable (re: overpopulation). Being the dominant species does not license us to fuck the planet up for everything else; "being able to" is not the same as "being entitled to."
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie It's also true that while a select minority choose to break laws, rape, pillage, and murder, it's not a testament to what we as a species do. It's really a half full half empty way of looking at it. In order to become numerous, a species must possess the necessary tools to fend off competition and locate food. We've done both beyond being limited to what we can gather. This will continue until the numbers expand beyond what we can extract from the Earth. That is natural.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 It's not a half-full/half-empty issue, you've just made my point again. It's senseless to use what a minority does to inform statements about what the species does. A minority is actively concerned with sustainability and balance, the majority should be but isn't. Instead, we, as a species, have depleted the resources everyone needs practically beyond repair and we have already reached a point at which our numbers are beyond what the earth can sustain - hence overpopulation.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 2. And you seem to use "natural" as a sort of self-justifying term. 1. What you mean by it is unclear as you call "natural" things which are wholly a product of heavy technological exploitation, and 2. technology exists because a traditionally natural existence is burdensome; it's not clear why you think it's desireable to be natural. Hobbes thought the State of Nature was the WORST-case scenario precisely because of it meant the total abandonment of comfort-ensuring ethics.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie I'm not on trial here, so the terms I use are for conveying what I'm thinking, not justifying mine or the actions of others. Technical advancement is natural for me. I'm lazy and am always seeking out easier ways to do things. I also find my successes rewarding. It's not for most animals. A bear in the wild probably doesn't do anything differently today than the way its ancestors did things thousands of years ago.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 You're justifying yourself right now - that's the point of criticism and discourse. And your use of the "natural" as a sort of " 'nuff said" sentiment about your view is a disservice to your own argument. It is not enough to say that something is natural. Our advantage is not natural, it's decidedly technological. And defining as "natural" EVERYTHING one feels disposed to do gives it a breadth that makes it virtually meaningless, even if you could show it to be desireable.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 And yeah, technology is an advantage exclusively enjoyed by humans, but that is not a free-for-all license to abuse it. If you're to make the argument that our advantage and dominance is justified by some natural survival imperative shared by everything, you still have more work to do in justifying consumption beyond what survival demands. On the other hand, if what you're saying is that we can just pursue whatever because being disposed to it makes it natural.. slippery slope!
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie Human beings stand apart from the rest of the life on the planet due to their ability to innovate using ever increasing technological know-how. Without this ability, the guy in this video would be the prey, not the predator. An expandable scale is necessary to determine what's natural for the guy to do because the options approach infinity as time approaches infinity. Because of this, what's considered natural to do today may not be so tomorrow.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Now it seems like all your saying is that natural is a variable term that describes whatever stage of the game we're at - which basically makes it so relative as to be meaningless. You could even say that it's in Douchebag's nature to shoot bears for fun, and it's in my nature to disapprove, and so the argument from what's natural can be used to justify both positions. This is a philosophically poor path to take. You have to reach intersubjectively common ground.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie I don't have to do anything. People can have as much or as little fun as they'd like while partaking in a legal activety in a legal manner. In fact, I've been to this video so many times now with this circular conversation of ours that I'm starting to think about doing something I've never done before.... I'm getting a bear tag and am going bear hunting this weekend. I'm a damned good hunter so I see a new rug for my shop floor in the near future. Wish me luck!
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 "I don't have to do anything." You're an idiot. IN discourse, ONE has to reach intersubjective commonground in order to AVOID circularity. Obviously nobody is going to make you do so, but most people feel compelled to do things by their own sense of instrumental reason and not just by force. You're an unfortunate exception, and it's impossible to get you to do anything productive or intelligent without forcing your hand. Good luck not being an asshole for the rest of your life.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie No my friend, it is YOU that's the idiot. You should kill yourself because that's the only way you can stop leaving such dreadful footprints on the world. Good luck to you too w/regards to not being an asshole the rest of your life. If you follow my advice in my second sentence, both your problem and everyone else's will be solved.
JaleelJohanson62 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie you sir have posted waaay too much comments on this video,"have you made this video your home",are you a crazy? look at all those long comments you posted, hunting is bad hunting is good fucking who cares,if you really defend your views so much you would have been making a difference out there instead of commenting here. you are an attention whore and you are using youtube as goto place instead of doing what your supposed to do away from your responsibilities.do not reply pls
dheer730 1 week ago
@Superlativesweetie this video has your name written ALL over it, literally. GET A LIFE
dheer730 1 week ago
@Superlativesweetie yea it kinda does. i mean come on, there arn't really that many hunters now anyway. were not killing too many bears or deer. we endanger animals in other ways such as useing draino or weed killer. not that i am an enviornmentalist.
sandstar102 3 months ago
@sandstar102 I wasn't saying that we are all as assholish as these hunters - that is not the case, they are a special breed of douchebag. I was just responding to the suggestion that humans are justified in their cruel dominance because it's natural and because millions of years ago the planet was comperably dominated by a bunch of lizards with even LESS concern for the wellbeing of everything else on the planet than us. It's the "at least we're not those guys" argument. It makes no sense.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie whatever dude ur an idiot u have no idea wut ur talking about ur treating this like its such a bad thing to hunt when its not alot of things would b different and not for the better either
borncountry100 3 months ago
@borncountry100 This from the imbecile who thinks the bears are comin' to get us. I sincerely hope you're speaking from personal experience, you ass-hat.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
@Superlativesweetie ......So animals which hunt are wrong?
MacDonaldSeumas 3 months ago
@MacDonaldSeumas Some of us are. In this case, yes.
Superlativesweetie 3 months ago
There's something about killing top predators like bears and wolves that is so disheartening. Why can't you kill a deer or a moose or something. Predators are never as numerous as prey animals. </3
ZombehWolf 5 months ago
That bear might have kids to feed back, but she'll never return to them. (I am not going to curse you, dear hunter. I am just putting forward my thought. Btw, I am a non veg but I restrict myself to chicken and fish). I believe hunting shouldn't be allowed for the bigger mammals.
abhisheksuraj 5 months ago
Yes, it is same bear.
Cougman1978 5 months ago
There we go, good hunting ^^
TheStrangebutReal 6 months ago
Your tree ? He peed on that tree earlier... And you know what that means.
Unte99 6 months ago
I really liked both of these videos you posted Justinburton7. Thanks for uploading! Bear hunting looks like an adrenaline filled adventure!
elliotberg 6 months ago
You eat bear? How does it taste? I have nothing against hunting IF YOUR EAT IT.
But, quick question, would you eat human meat?
If not, why?
leanrio 6 months ago
@leanrio -.- what!?
FoXracing5185 6 months ago
@leanrio umm because thats our own species duh and dat would be called cannibalism and thats not humane
jcorrea1911 5 months ago
goodjob dude! how does bear meat taste like chicken haha
chase1953 6 months ago
awp pro!
fiqx87 6 months ago
ied say kill em all
Omellykim 6 months ago
Are you the shooter or the cameraman? That must have been a fun trip hunting bears, on the otherhand, a bit intimidating. lol
mac4life2 6 months ago
If they kill it for food then no problem, if they killed it just for fun then fuck them and one day karma will visit them and their families.
5029 7 months ago
people make me laugh, the people saying OH MY GOD how could you do that, well us country people dont live in no town or city thinking oh look inst he cute, fuck no that meat will taste good and the blanket will keep me warm and head will look good on my wall, Kill the dam bear, all you city people get a life, go make a video of your car on 22'' inch rims and shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!
tazzbuel 7 months ago
Why Do people have a problem Killing something that wouldn't hesitate to rip their faces off .....Too Few Hunters So Many regulations Bear populations are fine ..Fire Away :) IMO Bear taste like Shit :( You Might have dropped Him with one shot, If your hand hadn't been shaking like a lil school girl ;p
Bauks420 7 months ago
what do you shoot your deer with?
EstesAurelius 7 months ago
Are you living in russia and need that for meal or what?
Jensbolte 7 months ago
FUCK YOU
You're so craven !
Signing KingKushTV
Jensbolte 7 months ago
KILLING BEARS WITH A GUN IS WRONG......SHOULD DO HAND TO HAND COMBAT WITH A BEAR
KingKushTV 7 months ago
if u dont like animals getting killed then dont watch the video........ Great Job Man Fuck that bear lol
jasonHadley420 7 months ago
Fuck that Bear.. lol best part at the end... thats what u get for jumping on my tree lol
jasonHadley420 7 months ago
Get that stupid bear... Kill kill kill
jasonHadley420 7 months ago
lol, the bear came back??! he could see that comming, when he scared that guy with the big gun! now you wil be a coat!
periesicsd 7 months ago
Nice video justin!!!also nice bear
rocknry09 7 months ago
Nicely done man i have a huge bear in my woods im hoping to get this season!
pwoitalla 7 months ago
If you don't like the video.... Don't watch it! I really could care less if you think hunting is wrong!
justinburton7 7 months ago 27
@justinburton7 agreed these people are little bitches every one has there opinion but its not right when they say just go try to bitch at us and say that they are defense less no they arnt and thats crule i dont think it is but every one has a opinion but really shut up do u think we care about ur little hunting mean WE DONT CARE IF U DONT LIKE IT DONT WATCH IT
grady2248 6 months ago
@justinburton7 ppl iz stupid how do they think they suppose to eat then itz eat or b eaten
StackVicious 5 months ago