Fox turns tables on man with intent of killing it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/17/fox-shoots-hunter_n_809921.html

"According to Reuters, the hunter approached the fox after wounding it, intent on killing it with the butt of his rifle.
However, the two ended up getting into a tussle, and the fox managed to trigger the rifle, shooting the hunter in the leg."

Gods idea of what goes around comes around.

Ive always been for hunting when the hunter is doing it for food or maybe even supplies, or if its a pest damaging your property and/or lively hood, but i think hunting for pure sport is stupid and meaningless....

Hope the guy gets better and everything but finishing off an animal with the butt of your gun doesnt seem like a very smart idea, let alone the fact that it seems like a cruel way to end somethings life when you have a firearm right in your hands to do so, though im not a hunter so maybe theres something about that method that im missing.


Obviously the picture of the fox on that page isnt the same fox but ill admit it made me laugh, i can picture him thinking "Come at me bro"

I eat sleep and breath hunting. I hunt for meat so i hunt every thing from small game like rabbitt and tree rat up to moose. The only way i would finish some thing off by busting it in the head, would be because i had no other means. Even then i would be danged if i would use my rifle. Now if he is say... a trapper who makes some side money with furs. I can see him not wanting another hole in it. Yes trappers some times do shoot animals when they chance apon them.

It's possible it was hunting it for the hide, in which case he was trying to save as much of the hide as possible. But maybe not, since people generally just trap them and then put a .22 to the head. Foxes are small, seems like a good jab with a rifle butt would do the job quickly and humanely as long as its done right.

Didn't Hufinton Post put up an anti-OC rant a little while back?

I'm thinking the link and clicks just adds to their income potential from advertisers.

point of the story...unload if your gonna butt it!

well if the man was indeed a trapper than i cant be entirely regretful that he shot himself, trapping is a horrible way to hunt, especially if you do it for sport. How the hell is luring something with food headfirst into a trap and shooting it in the face from 3 feet away while it cant do anything considered sporting? I guess if you need a pelt to sell bad enough to bash somethings head in then its wortj taking the risk of shooting yourself like an idiot.

Trappers don't trap for sport, the do it for extra income, or in some cases, their primary income. You definitely can't expect them to make any money by hunting them the way sport hunters hunt. A bullet to the head from 3 feet is far more humane than taking a crack at a deer from 150 yards and hoping you get a vital hit. Do you eat meat? A bullet to the head is certainly more humane than electrocuting an animal unconscious, then cutting the main artery and letting it bleed to death, as is done with beef in the U.S.

If you are luring/baiting it headfirst into a trap, that sounds like using a cubby or running pole set with a bodygripper which is designed to KILL the animal. So in that case, the animal should already be dead. You are from Maine, and it is legal to use small bodygripper traps that way for ermine, marten, fisher, mink, and raccoon.

The other methods of trapping utilized in north america are snares/cable restraints, foothold traps, and box or cage traps. Use of foothold traps ( aka "steel jaw leghold") on certain animals was employed for research, relocation, and restocking where that specie had been exterpated many years before ( before modern game laws). The list includes lynx, fisher, timber wolf, red wolf, Mexican wolf, coyotes, and river otter. All captured with the trap the animal activists villify to no end, yet these animals were able to be released with minimal injury.

Trapping is the #1 way to capture certain animals- you just can't be lucky and find a fisher and then dart it for a relo prodject. Would you shoot muskrats swimming in water(possible ricochet)? You can trap more raccoons in one night with much much less effort than running your coon hounds around in one night ( though running the hounds can be quite exciting). So if wildlife management is your goal, you choose trapping for certain species. Removing excess amounts of these plentiful to overpopulated animals, helps the habitats and the remaining animals be healthy. Many of them can also be pests to poultry and livestock, and sometimes killing dogs and cats. Coyotes are a major PIA for some farmers and to many suburbanites. Foxes tend to be a poultry killer. There is a marten species that does extensive damage to people's cars in central europe! Raccoons are all around pests, getting into attics and barns and being plain destructive, and going after poultry, as well as being a main killer of wild ducklings and bunnies.

As to dispatch, if you have a live holding trap you can opt to use blunt force trauma to the head, stunning the animal by a blow to the muzzle to render unconcious and then crushing the lungs by standing on the chest ( works very well on fox), or shooting it ( recommended for coyotes, raccoons, badgers, and possums). For wildcats ( bobcat and lynx) you can easily and quickly choke them down with a snare or catchpole.

One thing those who have complained about the hunter not shooting the fox and trying to club it instead have not addressed is: where he lives. Belarus. Ammunition is not inexpensive nor is it easily available.

my problem with him butting it is...YOUR SUPPOSED TO UNLOAD FIRST!

Q-Tip said:

Trappers don't trap for sport, the do it for extra income, or in some cases, their primary income. You definitely can't expect them to make any money by hunting them the way sport hunters hunt. A bullet to the head from 3 feet is far more humane than taking a crack at a deer from 150 yards and hoping you get a vital hit. Do you eat meat? A bullet to the head is certainly more humane than electrocuting an animal unconscious, then cutting the main artery and letting it bleed to death, as is done with beef in the U.S.

Click to expand...

So one cruelty justifies another? Cool. That must be why we live in such a wonderful, living world!

You are also incorrect about trapping, its not doen ONLY for extra income or food. Look on youtube, theres no shortage of videos where dudes brag and gloat about trapping animals and how fun it was to leave it there until it starved or how much it squirmed when they beat its head in.

we are long past the point in this country where people need to hunt for food so hunting has become less of a survival activity and more of a sport or hobby. People go out and get thousands of dollars in gear so they can wait, pretty much invisible, in some blind way up in a tree to take a pot shot at a deer and hit it right in the ass or something, track it down and stop it to death so they can have a manly story to pass around the lunchroom at their 12 dollar an hour factory job.

Some people just enjoy hurting and torturing other living things and unfortunately, there are too many shitty irresponsible hunters who do it "just for fun".


And as far as trapping animals for extra income, i dont agree doing it for pelts. If you trap animals and dispatch them with respect and use the intelligent brain that nature gave you and sell the meat and people survive off it then thats great. But beating somethings head in until its unconcious and then standing on its chest to crush its lungs just so some rich skank in california can have a foxfur coat is the kind of thing that makes everyone involved seem like lower life forms.

Think about it, people stand on something thats living and breathing, and feels pain, to crush its chest and kill it in a horrible way so that someone can wear a pretty coat for a few months before they give it away and buy a new one.

Claytron said:

So one cruelty justifies another? Cool. That must be why we live in such a wonderful, living world!

You are also incorrect about trapping, its not doen ONLY for extra income or food. Look on youtube, theres no shortage of videos where dudes brag and gloat about trapping animals and how fun it was to leave it there until it starved or how much it squirmed when they beat its head in.

we are long past the point in this country where people need to hunt for food so hunting has become less of a survival activity and more of a sport or hobby. People go out and get thousands of dollars in gear so they can wait, pretty much invisible, in some blind way up in a tree to take a pot shot at a deer and hit it right in the ass or something, track it down and stop it to death so they can have a manly story to pass around the lunchroom at their 12 dollar an hour factory job.

Some people just enjoy hurting and torturing other living things and unfortunately, there are too many shitty irresponsible hunters who do it "just for fun".


And as far as trapping animals for extra income, i dont agree doing it for pelts. If you trap animals and dispatch them with respect and use the intelligent brain that nature gave you and sell the meat and people survive off it then thats great. But beating somethings head in until its unconcious and then standing on its chest to crush its lungs just so some rich skank in california can have a foxfur coat is the kind of thing that makes everyone involved seem like lower life forms.

Think about it, people stand on something thats living and breathing, and feels pain, to crush its chest and kill it in a horrible way so that someone can wear a pretty coat for a few months before they give it away and buy a new one.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you aren't from Kaliforiea? You sound just like the uptight snobs that control things down there.

You are using the antis loqic. "A few people do it so it must be bad". Same thing they say about gun control.

See here is the thing, since people have moved away from being hunter/gatherers (for the most part at least) and we have become industrialized, that creats a burden on the animal kingdom. No one killing them means too many of them and the start to die from starvation, malnurishment, and all sorts of diseases.

By managing the amount of animals in an area at a given time through both sport hunting and sport fishing the department of fish and game can help ensure that there is an appropriate number of animals in a given area. This helps to lead to prolonged lives, healthier lives and a more diverse animal population.

So tell me again how is sport hunting bad for the animals?

Claytron said:

So one cruelty justifies another?

Click to expand...

I never said that, it's just a fact of life that both happen and both are necessary for our survival. I only advocate killing animals in the most humane way possible. Beating one over the head repeatedly or intentionally shooting it in the wrong place is inhumane. A hit in the head hard enough to kill it or knock it unconscious or shooting it in a vital area is humane. It's as simple as that.

Not sure what part of the country you live in, but where I'm from people hunt to save money on meat. $.50 in ammo can supply a family with enough meat for several days.

There is no difference between killing animals to sell the meat and killing them for the fur. You'll either kill them for the meat or you'll sell their fur to buy things you need (i.e. food, which includes meat). Trapped animals are generally not killed inhumanely. A .22 to the head (for smaller mammals) is about as instant and painless as it gets.

Claytron, did you bother to read my post at all?

Ask away. Here at OCDO, a genuine trapper, me. So ask me whatever you want. Yes a FEMALE TRAPPER. I'll tell you all the nuisance animal stories too. I can post pics of mange covered foxes too if you like. Should I tell you about the sick raccoons?

Did you know that animal activists and the Brady Bunch are the same genus? It's like the short tailed and long tailed weasel, but they are both weasels nonetheless.

I suppose you buy into the animal rights idiots' junk they spew up there in ME. The lynx worth 300.00 on the Quebec side is some sort of god on the ME side.

XD40coyote said:

Claytron, did you bother to read my post at all?

Ask away. Here at OCDO, a genuine trapper, me. So ask me whatever you want. Yes a FEMALE TRAPPER. I'll tell you all the nuisance animal stories too. I can post pics of mange covered foxes too if you like. Should I tell you about the sick raccoons?

Did you know that animal activists and the Brady Bunch are the same genus? It's like the short tailed and long tailed weasel, but they are both weasels nonetheless.

I suppose you buy into the animal rights idiots' junk they spew up there in ME. The lynx worth 300.00 on the Quebec side is some sort of god on the ME side.

Click to expand...

"that animal rights junk" Oh yeah, THAT animal rights junk. its so obvious that we can all refer to it as "that" animal rights junk i guess.... i must be out of the loop because im not sure what you are referring to. Im talking about people who trap and then let their prey die from starvation, or leave it long enough to gnaw its own limb off before crawling away and being picked at by scavengers.

As far as the "brady bunch" goes.... i dont follow them or their policies or opinions so i apologize if you cant generalize me into a corner by assuming i follow some set of trendy political rules when determining whats right or wrong. A skilled hunter or trapper using their skills to make money by taking animals in a humane and respectable fashion is a good thing. People who set up 200 traps and only check 100 because of bad weather, thus letting handfuls of animals starve to death while strung up by the leg or neck is bad.

People in this world like fox fur, bear fur and mink fur etc, and as long as the demand for it is there then there will be people to fill the role, the concern is whether or not they do it in an intelligent and respectful way. If someone traps and hunts the proper way with skill and dignity then thats better than not doing so, but i still cant agree with the act of doing it just so that, like i said before, some rich lady in new york can get her fancy mink coat of the month.

devildoc5 said:

Are you sure you aren't from Kaliforiea? You sound just like the uptight snobs that control things down there.

You are using the antis loqic. "A few people do it so it must be bad". Same thing they say about gun control.

See here is the thing, since people have moved away from being hunter/gatherers (for the most part at least) and we have become industrialized, that creats a burden on the animal kingdom. No one killing them means too many of them and the start to die from starvation, malnurishment, and all sorts of diseases.

By managing the amount of animals in an area at a given time through both sport hunting and sport fishing the department of fish and game can help ensure that there is an appropriate number of animals in a given area. This helps to lead to prolonged lives, healthier lives and a more diverse animal population.

So tell me again how is sport hunting bad for the animals?

Click to expand...

Funny how you bring up pests as your counter argument yet i believe i said i dont have a problem with people trapping PESTS but still think it should be done humanely as possible while still taking care of the problem efficiently.

Also funny hwo you either dont realize or dont care to acknowledge the many animals brought close, or all the way, to extinction by hunting and poaching.

Didnt we used to have white buffalo or something? We probably did dude. DID.

We SHOT the white out of them.

Claytron said:

Funny how you bring up pests as your counter argument yet i believe i said i dont have a problem with people trapping PESTS but still think it should be done humanely as possible while still taking care of the problem efficiently.

Also funny hwo you either dont realize or dont care to acknowledge the many animals brought close, or all the way, to extinction by hunting and poaching.

Didnt we used to have white buffalo or something? We probably did dude. DID.

We SHOT the white out of them.

Click to expand...

Never once did I use the word pest. I did however bring up over population being a great threat to animals of ALL kinds, which you conveniently ignored. I also specifically stated that because people (read "natives") were no longer hunting them for subsistence then there is a possibility for overpopulation.

I also did not say that extinction has not happened in the past.

The key thing to remember though is that was 50-100 years before people even thought of something like a department of fish and game and hunting licenses and bag limits and kill reporting and game management.

There is a reason for these things as they allow for a normal sized population of various species within a certain area. Enough so they can procreate but not too much to where they no longer have resources.

I am not saying the system in place right now is perfect but if you love animals so much would you rather see them die a quick painless death or see them waste away to nothing through a slow and painful process due to lack of sufficient resources?

White buffalo are genetic anomalies. They are not a breed or a species. They still exist.