File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I hate that guy. No one should be allowed to kill polar bears...they are way to cool. Anyway, i was wondering, is it even legal? he was hunting in Alaska.
>> Anonymous
He could always say he was defending himself.
>> Anonymous
>>241271
with a bow? He let dogs loose on the bear first...
>> Anonymous
We should arm the bears.
>> Anonymous
They froze to death on the walk back to their camp, lol.
>> Anonymous
>>241276
where did you get that information?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>241364
I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
>>241364
it would have been cute if the bear wasn't so scary....
>> Anonymous
Yea, kinda sucks that polar bears WILL TRY TO EAT YOU if they see you. Mainly because food is so scarce in the arctic, so if a human comes along...oh well.

And Polar Bears are becoming endangered, if they are not already are.
>> Anonymous
>>241270

Those fucks add bows to the photos because there is some stupid law that it's not illegal if you kill an endangered species outside USA with a bow and not a rifle.

I saw lots of photos like that from Africa.
>> Anonymous
>>241364
cue the benny hill yakitty sax music
>> Anonymous
>>241469
lol I was just thinking that.
>> Anonymous
No.241414
And Polar Bears are becoming endangered, if they are not already are.

learn to english
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241278
>We should arm the bears.
>We should armor the bears.
>armor the bears
>Panserbjørne
>> Anonymous
>>241270
Yes, it's legal to hunt polar bears. They aren't protected by law anymore(though they might be covered by the the ESA in the future), so stop your crying.
>> Anonymous
I don't think polar bears are at all rare yet. They could be one day, but not yet.

Still though I would shoot both the people in the photo square in the face were I given any sort of chance to do so.

A few species inspire that feeling in me when I see them being killed. Top would be the Tasmanian Tiger.
>> Anonymous
Can't say I've seen many Tasmanian Tigers getting hunted. They are protected these days.
>> Anonymous
>>241835
I think I love you, anon.
>> Anonymous
>>241876
Yeah, let's go ahead and RAGE, then think about committing a crime when we see people doing something perfectly legal.
>> Anonymous
Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger Tasmanian Tiger
>> Anonymous
LOOK AT ME. I'M A BIG MAN. I CAN KILL ANIMALS WITH WEAPONS.
>> Anonymous
>>242227
Yeah, he should totally have killed that polar bear with his hands and teeth!
>> Anonymous
>>242249
I'm sure there are a few people out there in the world that could have. Personally I would have no objections to a battle like that.
>> Anonymous
Unfortunately there are quite a few people out there that think that killing a large predator somehow makes their penis bigger.
>> Anonymous
>>242257
Only the ones with very small penises to start with.

I have never met a woman yet who expressed any interest in the size of my penis. And, before you ask, I'm about "average".
>> Anonymous
>>242257
Or they just enjoy hunting and penis compensation has nothing to do with it, which some radical animal rights activists can't seem to get into their head.

Shit, Theodore Roosevelt was a noted big game hunter, and he didn't need to compensate for anything.
>> Blackarachnia's giant robot tits !bXU0gE0lts
The Polar Bear will be extinct soon anyway, with or without hunting.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>242482
Seconded.
>> Anonymous
>>242482
Big game hunting? Why? Why not stick to animals we have a problem with, like deer? Sounds like penis size has more to do with it than you would think.
>> Anonymous
Sick fucks
>> Anonymous
>>242549
Because white-tails, rabbits, and nutria look and act nothing like bears?
>> Anonymous
>>242491
global warming fag
>> Anonymous
>>241461
so many things wrong with that post.
>> Anonymous
>>242626
Then that's your problem.
>> Anonymous
>>242639
Sounds like it's the bear's problem, doesn't it?
>> Anonymous
Ehh, personally, I don't think anything that a hunter kills will ever be impressive.

Oh...there's a stuffed tiger in the living room...what? You say that you killed it?

Congratu-fucking-lations for you. You hid and shot something with a rifle, which any monkey with enough patience could do.

Buck hunters, all you do is sit up in a tree or some shit and have FEEDERS that attract deer, and then shoot it.

You are now manly. Congratulations.

I'll be impressed when someone wrestles down a buck and kills it with a dagger or bow and arrow, not a fucking sniper rifle.
>> Anonymous
>>242788
dude, did you not see the bow

also, tracking prey, following wounded prey, etc

don't base it all on some redneck sitting up in a tree.
>> Anonymous
>>242792

Oh, no. I wasn't talking about the pic.

That's pretty badass if he didn't just switch the weapons to get the pic. Killing a polar bear with a bow's pretty awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>242788
Feeders?
That's not hunting. That's shooting up a petting zoo.
Real hunters stalk their prey until the time is right, not lure out animals used to people around it with promises of dinner time while sitting up in a tree.
>> Anonymous
>>241461
how can american law state what is and isn't illegal outside of america you stupid fuck
>> Anonymous
>>242482
lulz butthurt hunterfag "NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ME"
>> Anonymous
>>242792
enjoy sitting in your hide by a river waiting for something to shoot faggot, also if you have to track a wounded animal you must suck too much
>> Anonymous
>>242830

Here's the sniper faggot that sits in his treehouse with his "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" sign on the door eating popcorn and watching Spongebob until he is alerted to a deer eating the feed he left out, and then he shoots it and goes "OH MY GOD I'M SO MANLY I SHOT SOMETHING WITH ANTLERSSSS" and then jerks off over the corpse.
>> Anonymous
My uncle used to hunt wild pigs when he was a younger man. My family are all farmers so our immediate reaction to rabbits/wild pigs/wild dogs etc is SHOOT IT!! My uncle, however, used to go a few steps better. He had at least one good pig dog with him, preferably two and he'd wander off into the bush. And he used to kill the beasts with a knife; he had a rifle in the truck if the dogs got badly injured, but it was never used on the pigs. The only things he used were the dogs and the knife. That's a real hunter. If you're going to kill and animal for pleasure as opposed to protecting self/land/stock/eating you show some respect to both the beast and yourself. Hiding in a tree with a sniper rifle, hiding behind a snowdrift with a telescope is both disrespectful and unsporting.
>> Anonymous
>>242871
he'd be a real hunter if he used nothing but his bare hands.
>> Anonymous
Lulz if we're talking about over population within species, as well as controling it, then in reality we should be hunting each other.
Next time you go hunting you should just shoot at each other.
>> Anonymous
ITT too many people stuck in the Mesolithic.
>> Anonymous
>>242871
nice. some wild boars hunters still do that around here (france), too
>> Anonymous
>>241270
There's a million polar bears, or at least there was at one point.

Nothing of value was lost.
>> Anonymous
>>242788
>sniper rifle

I'm glad nobody uses sniper rifles to hunt, then.

I don't see why people get upset over hunters. It's a natural thing to kill an animal for food, and hunting tends to bring in money for the state, as well as clear a few pests from the region in the case of varmint hunting.

Maybe some of us just watched Bambi too much as kids, but it's a little childish to get this upset, and it really shows why animal lovers are mocked these days.
>> Anonymous
>>243099
>>242788
I think it's fine for food. Not for just killing or mounting though.
>> Anonymous
>>241270
>>242824
America tries to do this all the time you stupid american fuck.
>> Anonymous
The problem with hunting and calling what is hunted "pests" is the clear ignorance that we ourselves are the most overpopulated pest on the planet.

We are superior so other animals (and natural plant life) have to live and die to our standards. Arrogance beyond belief, but the truth.

Not only that, but then we go out and do it when there is absolutely no need to do it, such as this.
"I killed me a big hairy thing, this makes me hard". If they like shooting things so much, they should join Bush's blind charge in Iraq and help decrease the actual problem species.
>> Anonymous
The thing that I absolutely love is how the people in here who hate hunting, are the same ones who would shit a brick if natural predators lived in the area. Around here there's a huge problem with deer, but anytime grey wolves get brought up about being reintroduced the same anti-hunter people start protesting that the wolves would eat their babies.
>> Anonymous
>>243623
Comes with being the dominant species.

An animal species is breeding rapidly, destroying vegetation, ruining the soil, or making the habitat uninhabitable for another species?

Shoot it, poison it, or introduce more of its natural predators into the area. That's how it works.
>> Anonymous
>>241270
Yeah, if Polar bears go extinct the entire ecosystem of the planet will just come crumbling down.
>> Anonymous
>>243623
Yeah, you're a real paragon of all that is good and righteous.
>> Anonymous
>>243624

See, now that's total bullshit.
I am 100% against hunting, but I'm all for predators killing their prey.
Do you know why?
Because a wolf doesn't go out with a gun and shoot the deer only to mount its head on the wall and then look to his friend and go "Hey, Joe, did you see what I just shot!? I think my dick's five inches bigger now."

Predators can't access a grocery store, and they only do it to eat. It takes their energy and effort, and the prey has a chance.

When people sneak out and mask their scent and sit up in a tree with binoculars and a gun, there's no contest there, and yet they act like they just shat out a fucking diamond.
>> Anonymous
>>242876
We should probably go to starving third-world countries and start killing people, yes.
>> Anonymous
>>243646
Yeah, using the one natural weapon nature gave us is really un-fucking-fair. That deer that hunter killed probably lived a better life than the cow he bought at grocery store the week prior.
>> Anonymous
>>243648
If that's sarcasm, what's the difference? our species is a problem, we're overpopulating more and more by the day, it's probably the most serious problem we face. We're running out of landmass to produce food, we're running out of natural resources and the resources we do have are being spent on justice wars instead of investing it in new ways to generate power, etc..

>>243645
Never said I was, I am just pointing out the cold hard logic. We are doing BOTH that which is immoral AND illogical, so we can get a raging hard-on over the death of something that doesn't need to die.
>> Anonymous
>>243624
Well, with deer the way it is, Wolves wouldn't even touch babies or cattle, or pigs for that matter. Build fenses, advise people to call the authorities if they see a grey wolf eating out of their garbage, and tell parents to WATCH THEIR FUCKING KIDS SO THEY DON'T GET EATEN BY A WOLF. I bet there are a lot of Christians where you live, huh?

When you "hunt" deer, you're basically hunting a very skinny cow. They don't have the fear of man, they'll probably eat out of your hand before you shoot it.
>> Anonymous
I can quell my righteous fury around people that hunt deer and pheasants and rabbits and shit (even if I still want to blind them). I suppose there is the "it's food" excuse, and I've known a couple of nice people that were hunters.

But big game hunters? Never. These are people that feel the need to kill something to boost their ego. And no animal, no matter how much of a 'pest' it is, or how insignificant it is, is inferior to a man's pride.

I can accept that sometimes humanity comes into conflict with the natural world, and despite my wishes humans will put themselves above other species. When people do that for survival, it's understandable. When people do that for convenience, it's irritating. When they do it out of ignorance, it's saddening.

And when they do it out of dick-waving bravado? It's "convince them to take you hunting with them then shoot them in the back of the skull and convince the judge it was manslaughter"ing.
>> Anonymous
>>243747
Every so often an Anon comes along who restores some of my faith in humanity. Thank you.
>> Anonymous
if humans didn't hunt and eat meat we would be as dumb as chimps. the reason we are smart is the protein in our foods. we developed it as we were first starting out (christ fags go away). also big game hunters don't just cut off their heads and leave them. that meat from the polar bear will last them atleast a year.
>> Anonymous
I often get The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber and Shooting an Elephant mixed up, since I read them in high school near each other.
>> Anonymous
phillip pullman would be sad. or Lyra would
>> Anonymous
>>243918
See>>243747
>> Anonymous
>>243918
So tell me anon.. what is the taste of polar bear?
>> Anonymous
>>243918
EVOLUTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY

JESUS YOU PEOPLE ARE FUCKING RETARDED I CAN'T STAND IT
>> Anonymous
Yes, evolution does work that way, dumbass. Take a fucking anthropology course sometime, kay?
>> Anonymous
Stupid poachers
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If the guy goes into some of the coldest places in the world to shoot a freaking bear (endangered ones especially) for the hell of it, he's already a moron.
>> Anonymous
>>244405
Polar bears aren't endangered. Way to fail.
>> Anonymous
>>243747
You're too gutless to ever try that though.
>> Anonymous
>>242832
You're the same kind person in multiplayer for any given FPS who bitches at snipers for camping and waiting until they have clear shots instead of running around like noisy chickens with their heads cut-off.
>> Anonymous
>>241364

Did the dude escape?
>> Anonymous
>>243650
How are we a problem? I don't think you know what nature really is. Mankind is no less a part of nature than any other animal. We do not destroy the environment, we change it. Some animals adapt and thrive, others die out. The ones that die out have their ecological niches filled either by us or by other species much better suited to the current natural balance.

Nature is not some peace loving hippy like you seem to think it is. Long before humanity ever came along animals were out-competing one another and driving one another to extinction all the god damn time. Too bad for the wolf or bear or the tiger, they are dead-end designs that are gradually being out-done by the most efficient predator in Earth's history.

Too bad for the Panda, another dead-end that has no purpose to its existence. I could care less as they go extinct because in the end the only animals that matter are the ones that we use to feed ourselves. The rest could die off and it would not make a difference. Too bad for them they invested in claws, teeth, and strength. All those things are obsolete when up against something that can build a sniper rifle or jet engine.
>> Anonymous
>>244474
on point to this: what happens when the next animal up the evolutionary chain shows up? will they go "oh don't kill the humans they're endangered we need to keep them around." or will they just wipe us out? it's really only a matter of time, unless of course evolutionism is wrong and creationism is right lol
>> Anonymous
>>244476
I don't think you quite grasp how evolution works. A lack of genocidal supermutants and UberMensches is not evidence in support of creationism.
>> Anonymous
>>244476

They're already here, and they're called microbiological disease.
>> Anonymous
that winey mitherfucker who said they done care if pandas go extinct shoud realise that we really are the inferior breed of animal , we have3 no teeth or claws so we need guns, but that dosnt give us the right to judge what gets to live of die with the criteria of how usefull they are to us, we just kill this planet so really if we wanted to help out humanity we start hoeing them down by the millions, there will still b too many left
>> Anonymous
>>244500
underaged b&
>> Anonymous
>>244476
They'll wipe us out if such an animal ever comes to exist. It's more likely that a man-made or natural disaster will destroy us, thus we won't be around for the next best thing to kill us. A superior creature would be purely logic driven with no need for emotional care or morals. A machine, basically.
>> Anonymous
>>244500
You're right. We don't have sharp teeth or claws, we can't run terribly fast, our immune systems aren't as robust as some other animals, and most of our senses are pretty average.

What we DO have is an extremely efficient brain which allows us to make and use tools, and solve complex problems that would completely baffle many animals.

That's why we're on top, and until Chimps start luring us to trees with our own piss so they can give us a dose of .270 aspirin, that's how it's going to be.
>> Anonymous
>>244510
The problem is, you can't function reasonably without emotions. There are people whose emotional brain areas have been damaged leaving them to live a life dictated by pure logic... and failed in their lives horribly, because they didn't have the emotions to tell a bad logical outcome from a good one. Whatever might overthrow us will have emotions. They just may not be human emotions.
>> Anonymous
>>245010
They fail because they live in a world that is governed by emotional beings. So of-course they fail. If they had a powerful enough mind to simply quantify things in mathematical terms they'd do very well. However having your emotional side turned off doesn't make you a genius. You'd need to already be one beforehand. In any case, we're probably a very long time from ever making an actual thinking computer. When we do though, we'll have created a superior lifeform.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>245016
You're beginning to sound like a Dalek.
>> Anonymous
>>245381
He's from some British show, isn't he?
>> Anonymous
>>245383
Yes. It is called Combat Amphibians.
>> Anonymous
>>245385
Sounds intriguing.
>> Anonymous
>>245385
lol
>> Anonymous
>>245016

Well, emotions are in the framework of every somewhat intelligent being on Earth, whereas higher logic and reasoning skills are pretty much just human/primate territory.

You'd think that if you rip out the framework, the whole thing would crumble in on itself.
Being able to completely reason past emotions would be ideal, not simply not having them.
>> Anonymous
>>243918
I'm glad you're not serious, lolol.
>> Anonymous
>>244472
They're still running around that vehicle to this day, friend.
>> Anonymous
>>243623
"is the clear ignorance that we ourselves are the most overpopulated pest on the planet."
Do you really feel this way?
If you really do in fact feel this way, then be part of the solution, and not the problem.
Take a sharp object down the road, but not across the street. I predict /Fail for you in any rate.
>> Anonymous
>>244255
"Take a fucking anthropology course sometime, kay?"
Oh RLY?

Sheesh, So many brainwashed kids laping up the propaganda that the universities are peddlein' these days. and your quiet egocentric in your own special way. "dumbass"
>> Anonymous
>>244476
I think a lot of people are missing something. We are on the verge of true AI, and if you put a bunch of AI into machine bodies. We will face a threat that can theoretically outthink, out fight and out hunt us.

the terminator movies are based on this premise. and its not so far fetched. No one has ever coded mercy or compassion into an AI yet.
>> Anonymous
>>245812
Here's the big question: what would motivate an AI to kill people. Humans are full of insticts that drive us to kill, rape and torture, but an AI has none of that baggage. It has to be built to be a killer to become a killer. Otherwise it has no reason to think of genocide is any more fun than designing the plumbing of a city sewage system.
>> Anonymous
it is not legal to hunt polar bears, the only ones that are legally able to hunt them are Inuits
>> Anonymous
polar bears are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
>> hsn
just let them protect themselves. the second amendment is the right to arm bears, no?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>246040
>> Anonymous
>>245880
Efficiency. It wouldn't hunt a bunch of inferior organisms using up all of its resources and threatening its existence. The Una Bomber, who was a very smart man, wrote about this very convincingly. It doesn't have to be something that happens in in a microsecond (like in Terminator). We could grow to have a society so complex that only machines can be trusted to run it. So efficient, that we don't need to work. We'd become a useless burden on the system and would gradually be phased out.
>> Anonymous
>>245395
Or, you could just not have them to begin with and so not even need to waste time reasoning past them. Emotions are quite primitive. A more evolved creature might have no need of them. In either case, a being which can completely reason past them might as well be emotionless anyway.

Such a being would do away with all the superfluous and artificial trappings of society. The kind of society such a creature would create would be quite alien to the one we have now. The only thing that would matter would be pure efficiency and productivity.

No entertainment...

No taking care of the elderly...

No mercy for the mentally retarded...

No economic classes...

I imagine they'd adopt something resembling an ant colony.
>> Anonymous
>>246132
>It wouldn't want

typo
>> Anonymous
Its perfectly legal to kill a polar bear. For the military that is. And that incurs only and ONLY if the polar bear is getting dangerously close to a submarine while its ice breaking its way through icy water. "Polar Bear contact 50 meters portside sir. Shall we call repel borders?" "Very well." "Repel Borders Repel Borders Port Side." "Taking contact out." TATATATATAT!!!!