Ohio Hunter Triggers International Outrage With YouTube Video Of Speared Bear

We recently followed the controversy over the shooting of “Cecil the Lion” by an American dentist Walter Palmer from Minnesota. There were other trophy hunting stories that enraged people around the world. (here and here and here). Now, a trophy hunter appears to be vying with Palmer as the most hated man on the Internet after he filmed and posted his killing of a black bear with a homemade spear. Josh Bowman has been denounced around the world for his video from Alberta, Canada as he celebrated the slow killing of the bear.


Bowmar, 26, is a bodybuilder and a former All-American javelin thrower at Heidelberg University who apparently dreamed of stabbing a bear to death with a spear. The Columbus, Ohio native is shown with the dead bear with its intestines falling out of its stomach. He is shown dancing and cheering the kill. Other hunters have denounced him for a kill that might have taken up to 20 hours for the bear to finally die.

Bowmar killed the bear a day after his wife Sarah killed another bear with a rifle. Bowmar can be seen gleefully celebrating what must have been an prolonged death of this bear, saying “I just did something I don’t think anybody in the world has ever done.” There may be a reason for that. Hunters have said that they are disgusted by the videotape and Bowmar’s thrill kill.

Bowman was able to lure the bear with the help of guides John and Jenny Rivet, who run livinthedreamproductions and features scores of dead black bears and other animals on their website. I will admit that I have never understood trophy hunters. I have been a hiker and backpacker for decades and love seeing bear in the wild. I could not imagine seeing such majestic animals in the wild and then wanting to kill it to some how possess it for myself. I recently discussed how the famed East Pack of Denali National Park has been likely lost after a hunter waited just outside the park to shoot the last male from the pack. Nevertheless, I know many hunters who are some of the most serious environmentalists and respect their sport. However, the glee of slicing open the stomach of a bear makes most hunters and non-hunters recoil.

Here is the video:

84 thoughts on “Ohio Hunter Triggers International Outrage With YouTube Video Of Speared Bear”

  1. Paul Schulte

    The fact that the woman in the Roe case lied about being raped is irrelevant to the argument presented concerning the right to abortion. Her attorney’s did not argue that abortion should be constitutionally protected because a woman was raped. Her case would almost certainly have been heard by the SC even if she had told the truth how she became pregnant.

    By the way, why do you call the woman in the case Roe? Do you not know that Roe is not her name – it was a pseudonym used to protect her identity – and that we now know the identity of the woman involved in the case. Her name is Norma McCorvey. Her identity became known sometime in the 1980s.

  2. Well Paul I see that you have bought into one of the many myths about Planned Parenthood. I suggest you do a more thorough job of researching the history of Planned Parenthood. You might start with this article at NPR. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population

    While it is true that Margaret Sanger was a supporter of eugenics it was not a form of eugenics that advocated for reducing the black population. Furthermore, blacks were not forced to get abortions in those early years of Planned Parenthood, just as no one is forced today to get an abortion. The rights of blacks at the time of the founding of Planned Parenthood were not being denied by Planned Parenthood but rather by the white majority population through the use of state power and force. Sanger’s efforts to bring affordable contraception to all women, including poor blacks, was in fact supported by NAACP founder W.E.B. DuBois . Today about 60% of Planned Parenthoods abortion clinics are in majority-white neighborhoods according to a 2014 Guttmacher Institute survey.

    But let’s assume for the moment that the myth you accept as truth were actually true. This would have no bearing on the objectives of Planned Parenthood today. There is no effort to reduce the black population in this country. There is, however, a demonstrable effort on the part of conservatives, mostly for religious reasons, to deny women, including black women, the right to own and control their reproductive choices. It appears that you are part of that effort. Any person or group that works to restrict the rights of any other person or group for moral reasons alone or primarily is acting on tyrannical impulses.

    1. peltonrandy – NPR has not reported a story correctly in the last 10 years. You need to be more careful with your sources.

      The fact that Roe was rape was a fact in evidence.

  3. Paul Schulte,

    First, congratulations on 35 years.

    I am sure that I don’t have to point out to you that had you attempted to marry your significant other prior to 1967 in most parts of the country you would have been prohibited from doing so. This prohibition was justified on moral grounds. So I am surprised that you don’t get that employing only moral reasons for making an act illegal is a weak and poor justification for doing so. There needs to be greater justification, some secular reason for enacting laws that restrict the rights of any group of people. And those secular reasons must be very compelling. No one group’s rights are legitimately restricted for anything less than an exceptionally compelling societal or state interest. No such interest exists in the case of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. I maintain that the desire to end a woman’s right to choose to end her pregnancy for solely or primarily moral reasons is a tyrannical desire and the act of taking this right away from women would be the act of a tyrant, no matter what moral justification is offered to rationalize the act.

  4. One additional thought Paul. Just because something is thought by you and others to be morally wrong does not mean it should be legally prohibited. For example, it was thought by many, mostly religious believers, to be morally wrong to allow a black person to marry a white person. As a consequence interracial marriage was legally prohibited for decades until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1967 in its Loving v. Virginia decision. There are likely some people today who still hold that interracial marriage is immoral and because they think this believe that it should be illegal. But unless you are one of those individuals, I presume you agree that it should not be illegal. One needs greater justification than moral objections alone to restrict the rights of a class of people.

  5. Paul Schulte

    Republicans don’t use any tactics to court anti-religious fanatics. First, if such a group exists they are relatively small and Republican’s feel no need to court their vote. Secondly, most of the Republicans of whom DarkScholar82 is speaking are themselves religious fanatics so of course they are going court support from their fellow religious fanatics without regard to the injury this does to the rights of all those who are not religious fanatics. Keep in mind that there are many religious people/believers who also do not share your view that a woman should not have a right to choose abortion. There are many religious believers who actively support a woman’s right to choose. A majority of the women who have had and have abortions are practicing Christians. Yet they don’t share your view that some of their fellow believers have a right to impose their anti-abortion views on them. Read the article to which I have linked. Based on the survey cited in this story – which is actually posted at a christian website – some 70% of women who have had abortions are Christians.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/70-of-women-who-get-abortions-identify-as-christians-survey-finds-150937/

    According a recent Pew study, “… 56% of U.S. adults say it should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 41% who say it should be illegal all or most of the time.” So a majority of your fellow citizens don’t share your view that you have a right to impose your moral view on women. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/5-facts-about-abortion/). Since some 70% of the U.S. population are Christians and presumably share the same general moral worldview as you, it stands to reason that a large number of your fellow Christians don’t share your moral view on the issue of abortion. Yet you claim a moral duty to impose your view on the millions of Americans who do not share your view.

  6. Any dictionary will do Paul Shulte. I presume you have one in your home or are able to use an online dictionary.

    On the contrary, I can easily get the term “unborn child” past my lips if I wish to speak about things that don’t exist, just like I can also say words such as unicorn, dragon, fairy, leprechaun, etc. That which is still in a woman’s womb is not a child. It is a fetus. Again, just because you use the word incorrectly does not mean I am in any way required to do likewise or accept it when you do so.

    That some states have adopted laws that allow for charging someone with two homicides when a pregnant woman is killed only means that those state legislatures have a majority of individuals who are as wrong as you when it comes to the issue of a fetus. As I said before you and others who think as you do may have the strength in numbers to use the power of the state to impose your moral views on others, but this only means you are acting as tyrants.

    As for moral duty, no one has a moral duty to deny or limit the rights of any class of individuals who exercise a right unless the act of exercising their right actually infringes upon the rights of another person. And before you jump in and argue that a fetus is a person, this simply is not the case. A fetus is not a person, nor is it an entity with rights that can conflict with or supersede the rights of the pregnant woman. A fetus is not an independent entity with agency. It is a part of a woman’s body. And the woman – as a consequence of the right of bodily autonomy and self-determination – has the sole right to choose to continue or end her pregnancy. Any moral duty you have to change a law is the duty to change a law that denies a class of individuals rights that are due them. There was a moral duty, for example, to change the laws that permitted discrimination against African-Americans and women. Why? Because those laws did in fact deny rights to independent and living individuals. This criterion is not met in the case of abortion. Anti-abortion laws do not restore rights to a person or class of persons. They deny a right to a particular class of people.

    When you act on this moral duty you claim for yourself in the way that your are advocating you are behaving as a tyrant. And all tyrants should be resisted by liberty-loving people.

    1. peltonrandy – when Planned Parenthood was devised to slow the growth of the black population in the United States, whose rights were they taking away? The rights of blacks to have a larger population? But does anyone actually have the ‘right’? Rights that are given are rights that can be taken away. You can see how the SC has chipped away at Roe v. Wade (a case that probably would not have gotten to the SC if Roe had not lied about being raped).

      As for how my fellow citizens feel, that means nothing to me. I do not run with the herd. Only 11% of the people think Hillary is honest, yet 44 % still will vote for her. How even 11% can think Hillary is honest is beyond me.

  7. @Paul Shulte

    “But if the father wants the child and the mother doesn’t, then the father should get full custody upon birth.”

    You are free to think this. But you haven’t the right to use the force and power of the state to impose this view on a pregnant woman. The woman has the right alone to decide whether to continue or end her pregnancy. The man has no right to use the instrument of the law and the state to force a woman to give birth if she does not want to. Her bodily autonomy supersedes any claims the man has. Furthermore, the woman’s right to bodily autonomy also supersedes whatever claim the man makes on behalf of the fetus because the fetus actually has no legal rights that trump the woman’s right. Rights attach only to a member of our species afer it has been born and then has an existence independent of the woman. While in the womb the fetus is not an independent entity and thus has no rights that supplant the rights of the pregnant woman. Furthermore, it is my view that any claim that the fetus has rights is a very questionable claim.

    “No state interest described by fetal rights advocates has enough force to override a woman’s fundamental rights of privacy, bodily integrity, and self-determination. . . . Until the child is brought forth from the woman’s body, our relationship with it must be mediated by her.* — ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/whats-wrong-fetal-rights.

    “…an embryo or a fetus is not a person, and a woman has a right to seek an abortion. However, that does not mean a fetus has no value: A fetus is enormously valuable to the pregnant woman and the father who want to have a child. Just as a woman has a right to abort a fetus, so she has a right to carry it to term, unmolested by others. Although the fetus does not have rights of its own, the pregnant woman has rights; thus, the government properly protects her body, its contents, and her choice to bring the fetus to term.” — https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/02/fetuses-dont-have-rights-pregnant-women-do-this-distinction-is-crucial/

    Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Even if Congress or the courts were to grant personhood rights to the fetus those rights should not overrule the rights of the pregnant woman. It is the woman’s legal and moral choice how to proceed with a pregnancy. If you abridge the woman’s right to bodily autonomy in the way you are advocating then there is no logical reason to defend the bodily autonomy rights of any person. Under your view the majority can impose its moral view and strip any group of people of their bodily autonomy and self-determination right simply because they have a moral objection, even though the target of the imposition does not share that moral objection. If the act being contemplated by the person claiming a bodily autonomy right is an act that in no way causes injury to the rights of those imposing their moral view then I argue those seeking to impose their view have no legitimate right to do so. A woman aborting her pregnancy does not injure your rights or the rights of any other existing member of the society or body politic. Therefore you and the other members of the society and the body politic have no legitimate right to impose your moral view upon her. You have the force to do so, but not the right. Imposing your view simply because you have control over the mechanisms of state force only makes you a tyrant.

    1. peltonrandy – you cannot get unborn child past your lips, can you? Strange that a woman can abort her unborn child and not incur penalties but if someone murders the mother and unborn child, they will be charged with a double homicide. Just how do they work that out?

      Actually, if I feel I am morally right then it is my duty to change the law.

      1. Paul Schulte The homicide laws regarding “unborn babies” have been imposed by anti-abortion activists in the Republican Party in order to advance their own agenda. These laws represent attempts to court religious fanatics at election time.

        1. DarkScholar82 – and what do they use to court the anti-religious fanatics at election time?

  8. @Paul Shulte

    “I have used all the words correctly.”

    No you have not. Consult a dictionary. It is not about my comfort level. You incorrectly think that your viewpoint makes me uncomfortable. You haven’t that kind of influence on or over me. Nothing you say can is capable of making me feel uncomfortable. My self-esteem is in no way tied to what you say. My objection is that you are actually using the words incorrectly. You have redefined them. Again, consult a dictionary.

    1. peltonrandy – is there a particular dictionary that you are most comfortable with?

  9. When I lived in CT, deer were a problem. I had a dead deer in my driveway. Apparently hit by a car and got to my driveway and died. My husband was out of town, so I called every animal control office and was told though I had not hurt the deer it was on my property so it was considered my responsibility. One place said they would send someone to move it off the driveway so I could get out of the garage. When he got there and pulled the legs they came apart. This deer was rotting. But now I had a health hazard. They came and took the remains away.

    The problem is as we expand our housing further into wild habitats we encroach on their home. So now to build houses further into these habitats the builder’s responsibility is to catch the animals and take them to various preserves. Sounds good, except the driver would let them all out a couple of miles away. Hunters had to get licenses and had a limited amount they could kill. Once the hunting started the deer left the area, they are not dumb.

    Where we live now in CA, we hear coyotes at night. And mountain lions have been spotted. Our drought has brought them further down hills for food. The smaller animals are already down the hill. There is a significant decrease in rabbit and squirrel sightings. Our dog barks hysterically so we turn on outside lights to verify the back yard is safe and take her out with a flashlight.

    Human beings have taken their home away. And we still build. 2,000 more houses next year.

    1. Sandi Hemming – we put motion sensors on our backyard lights. They are a big help.

  10. I have continued the discussion only because you keep making remarks that need to be challenged. You keep misusing words, redefining them to suit your purpose.

    My apologies. You are of course correct that you were not the one who first injected abortion into this discussion. I went back through the thread and found that it was Antonio who first mentioned it. And I did post a reply to Antonio’s original abortion reference. However, your misuse of the word baby, followed later by the misuse of the word child, in stating your views are what prompted my replies. Stop misusing words in arguing your case. I also object to what appears to be your view that a woman should not have the right to abort her pregnancy. If I am incorrect in concluding that you hold this position, then I will cease my arguing with you.

    Agreed – you and I have a different set of moral sensibilities. My argument with you, however, is not over the differing moral perspectives, but over what appears to be your view that your moral view should be permitted to dictate to a woman what her choice should be concerning her pregnancy. As I have said before a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and privacy trumps your moral sensibilities as well as mine. You do not have the right to impose your moral view on a woman’s right of bodily autonomy and privacy. You do not have the right to impose your moral view on a woman’s right to reproductive choice. You are free to exercise your moral view on the choices you make for yourself. You are not free to insist, as I think you seem to be doing, that your moral view should prevail where it concerns a woman’s reproductive rights. The woman’s moral view concerning her pregnancy is the one that should prevail where it concerns decisions about her body.

    1. peltonrandy – I have used all the words correctly. My use of the words makes you uncomfortable, but that is your problem, not mine. I am not going to change verbiage just to make you feel good about yourself.

      I also do not think that a woman has autonomy over the baby’s life. I believe that the father’s wishes need to be listened to. For instance, if the father does not want the mother to have the child and she still has it, the father should not be required to support the child. But if the father wants the child and the mother doesn’t, then the father should get full custody upon birth.

  11. DarkScholar82

    I share your criticism of Paul Shulte for bringing abortion into this thread. And I apologize to you and any others here for any frustration my engagement with Shulte over this issue may be causing you, as well as for my participation in the redirection of this thread from its original content. I cannot, however, let his misinformed comments about abortion go unchallenged as long as he keeps making them.

    1. peltrandy – I am not misinformed about abortion, I just have different moral values than you do. BTW, I did not bring abortion to this thread, however you and Graystudent have continued the discussion.

  12. Paul Shulte

    I’ll agree that in the examples you provided it is not equitable. But when it comes to a person’s body, equity is not the governing principle. Just because the father contributed the sperm does not give the father any rights when it comes to the woman’s choice concerning continuing or ending the pregnancy. Her right to bodily autonomy and privacy supercedes, in my opinion, any right the father may claim as a result of contributing the sperm.

    “Do you think the law should treat a woman who has aborted a child as a fit mother? Clearly she has killed one child.”

    Yes, I most certainly do consider the woman who has an abortion as a fit mother if she takes proper care of any children to whom she gives birth. Having an abortion does not make a woman unfit to be a mother. I know some women who have had an abortion, then later had children, who are more than fit mothers. I know some women who have never had an abortion, have children, and certainly don’t do a very good job of taking care of them. The point again is that having an abortion says nothing at all about a woman’s fitness to be a mother. And no she has not clearly killed a child. Until that fetus actually exists the woman it is not a child. Like the term baby, child is yet another term that does not apply to the fetus. You are once again redefining a term to suit your own purpose. Definition of the term child: “a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.” This does not describe what is in a woman’s womb.

  13. @Paul Schulte

    “peltonrandy – babies (I consider all unborn as babies) feel pain and are killed regularly.”

    You are of course free to do so. But please have enough intellectual integrity to accept and acknowledge that you are intentionally misusing the word baby. The definition of the term baby does not include unborn fetuses. Just because you think of them as such does not make them babies. And in no way does your choice to redefine the term alter my argument that a woman’s right to control her reproduction gives her the right alone to make decisions about whether to continue or end her pregnancy. You have no right to make that choice for her. The right of bodily autonomy and privacy is about as close to an absolute right as exists. You nor I nor anyone else has any place in that choice unless specifically asked by a pregnant woman for your thoughts or advice. And even then the choice still remains hers.

    1. peltonrandy – consider two situations.
      1) woman gets pregnant, father does not want the woman to have the child. She does, carries it to term, sues him for child support.
      2) woman gets pregnant, father wants the child, but the woman doesn’t. She aborts the child. There is no avenue for him to stop her.

      Both participated in the conceptual act, however only the woman has a say in the result. It is not equitable. The law leans too far towards the rights of the mother. Do you think the law should treat a woman who has aborted a child as a fit mother? Clearly she has killed one child.

  14. There is nothing wrong or “hypocritical” about telling someone that a thread about animal welfare isn’t the place to bring up abortion. It is an irrelevant issue that you and others are using as a red herring. Peltonrandy and others have only been responding to the use of that red herring. Complaining that someone would comment on what you say when you’ve posted a comment to a public forum is hypocritical, or at least deeply ironic, in my opinion.

    1. DarkScholar82 – hypocritical is exactly the word. However, since you don’t know what a rant is, I will cut you some slack.

  15. Some people have difficulty grasping why other people promote protecting animals when babies are aborted. Their tunnel vision does not accept that some people protect both and that there is a perception ( true or not) that babies have more advocates and laws to protect them and the animals have almost none and the laws that do exist are ineffectual. This is not a zero sum game. Many of the first animal advocate leaders in the United States where Holocaust survivors. Somehow they found the way to extend compassion beyond their own personal agenda. There are many hands to carry society’s burden that they don’t have to toil on one job to completion before the next.

  16. @randyjet

    “Black bears are dangerous and kill people, but they are not as aggressive as grizzlies.”

    There is a much stronger case to be made that humans are dangerous and kill far more people, not to mention other sentient creatures. And they are far more aggressive than grizzlies.

  17. @Antonio

    “I especially find it especially hypocritical when they condemn this fellow but support abortion or euthanasia.”

    No hypocrisy here since killing the bear is not equivalent to abortion or euthanasia. If you could or would think clearly about this rather than thinking through what appears to be an intellectual lens of ideologically-induced dogma you would understand the error in equating abortion and euthanasia with this act of cruelty and savagery toward a sentient organism.

    1. peltonrandy – babies (I consider all unborn as babies) feel pain and are killed regularly.

      1. Paul Schulte This thread is not about abortion. That issue is irrelevant here. If you want to rant about your pet cause, go somewhere else.

        1. DarkScholar82 – Wasn’t talking to you. Mind your own business. BTW, if you think that is rant, you have not lived.

          1. Schulte You are in a public forum. If you don’t want people commenting on what you say, conduct your conversations in private.

            1. DarkScholar82 – Think hard about what you wrote to me and then refer back to what I originally wrote and who I wrote it to. The word hypocritical springs to mind.

  18. @Hugh Beaumont

    “Thousands of babies killed every day in abortion mills,…”

    This is factually incorrect since what is in the womb is not a baby. Baby is a term applied to a newborn, not the fetus in the womb. Also, at least up to the 20th week a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and privacy gives her sole decision-making over whether to continue or end her pregnancy.

  19. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/hunter-who-used-spear-kill-8644973

    Hunter who used spear to kill bear could face charges over the brutal slaughter

    Could it be that when people protested even though though they were told it was legal, that the truth came out?

    His story is falling apart. Perhaps his guides will share as they did not report the cruelty.

    Interesting to hear his love of animals rant. There would be some level of reality if there was a need of animal flesh in human nutrition.

Comments are closed.