Alabama boy gets death threats for hunting 1,000-pound monster pig

I'm pretty sure it was a 50 caliber handgun, but I could be mistaken.

I mean, look at the size of that revolver, that's no 9mm.

You don't think 12 shots and three hours would be enough to take it down at that caliber? I know it has a low velocity, but it's certainly not lack on stopping power.

Wow, it doesn't look nearly as big from that perspective.

I think it doesn't look as big in that photograph because the photograph on the original post was either edited, or the picture was taken in a way to make the boars perceived size larger.

"Jamison Stone shot the huge hog during what he and his father described as a three-hour chase."

Sorry, but look at these two...

They sure as hell are not taking part in any three hour chase.

Is the father the one that's lying down?

By 3 hour chase I'm sure don't mean on foot, maybe on ATV's or something like that...

It was bought and then shot, if you read the follow up article above.

Maybe they let it go first, but I have a feeling they knew exactly what they were doing.

It IS animal cruelty, it's just not that big of a deal.

I've read the article. It was loose and roaming when it was shot (hence, why they had to hunt it), but of course they knew what they were doing. A hog that big causes a ridiculous amount of damage and it isn't reasonable to keep it as a domestic animal for long, if at all. The best choice was to kill it and I don't see how that's animal cruelty, unless you're of the opinion that killing animals at all is cruelty. Whether or not it was wild or domestic makes little difference, IMO.

But that animal was domesticated and WASN'T causing any damage. If that were the case I wouldn't mind.

I don't think killing animals is cruel.

I think that buying one with the intention of enjoying watching it die is cruel.

How is this different than buying a kitty in a store and stabbing until it dies when you get it home?

But it wasn't killed by its owners, it was killed by its owners neighbors who were technically not supposed to kill it, but couldn't be faulted for it since it was running wild. And considering a pig's burrowing instincts and its sheer size, it would definitely be causing damage while running wild.

The metaphor should therefore be something more like, you bought a giant pet who could crush your car and/or kill you just by running around, and unable to care for something so large, you let it loose and your neighbors shot it when it wandered into their yard and started uprooting small trees.

This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a kitten.

"The not-so-wild pig had been raised on an Alabama farm and was sold to the Lost Creek Plantation just four days before it was shot there in a 150-acre fenced area, the animal's former owner said."

No, this animal was bought and then killed for sport. Not by their neighbors, not by someone nearby, by the people that bought it.

And like I said, I don't care if they were going to kill it because it was dangerous. If that were the case that would be totally within their rights.

They bought this animal and killed it four days later.

They shot it a bunch of times and watched it bleed to death for three hours.

From a legal standpoint, that's no different than buying a kitten and murdering it for fun.

If it needed to be put down, that's fine. But this was not about that. This was about sport, about watching an animal suffer for fun.

The Lost Creek Plantation - a hunting preserve, not a private home - was owned by Eddy Borden, the pig was shot by Jamison Stone. Jamison Stone and his family did not own the pig.

Also, "Stone said state wildlife officials told him that it is not unusual for hunting preserves to buy farm-raised hogs and that the hogs are considered feral once they are released."

He hunted and killed a feral hog that was not his on a hunting preserve that was also not his. He did not buy it and kill it just to "watch it suffer for fun." You're assuming intent on the part of the hunter, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that he didn't intend for it to be a fast, clean kill. There's certainly nothing to suggest that he stood there and watched it bleed to death for three hours, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that the reason it took so long to die (if indeed, it really did take that long), was because it was just laying there, suffering as it was shot. If that were the case, it probably would have died pretty quickly. It was more likely running all over the damn place and the kid couldn't get a clean shot no matter how many times he tried.

I don't know a hunter alive who has fun waiting for three hours for his prey to finally go down.

Also, I got my facts mixed up in my former post and thought they were not actually supposed to kill the pig, but after a re-read it appears I was mistaken, they had the all-clear.

My mistake, it wasn't his hunting reserve.

In that case, it's like buying an animal to let someone else kill it for profit.

Would this really be acceptable with any other domesticated animal?

And the pig was there for FOUR DAYS, I hardly consider that enough time for something to go "feral." And regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it was bought to be killed for sport.

Do you see the legal issue there? Are we to make exceptions in our enforcement of animal cruelty laws? Is it ok to buy and kill some animals for fun and not others? From a legal standpoint, it's completely inconsistent as it stands.

This is a case of animal cruelty.

But it already is okay to buy and kill some animals and not others. Chickens, for instance, are fine to buy, raise in your backyard, and then kill when you want some fresh meat, or sell to a neighbor for dinner. Though this pig was a domesticated pig, it was hardly a pet. It was kept on a farm as goods, and was sold as such. Since a slaughter house wouldn't take it, it was taken by a hunting preserve. I don't see any legal problem with it.

The only substantial legal argument you could have for this being animal cruelty is that it took so long for the pig to die, but if you find him guilty of animal cruelty because the kill wasn't quick enough, then you open the door for ANY hunter to be prosecuted for animal cruelty if his kill takes too long to die. So any hunter who ever misses the shot by an inch and a two-minute bleed takes a half-hour, any hunter who is still inexperienced and accidentally wounds without killing, any hunter who makes a mistake, ever, can be prosecuted for animal cruelty.

You may as well just make hunting illegal, and I can tell you how well that would go over.

I say again, cruelty is in the intent (or in negligence), and I doubt this boy's intent was to make this animal suffer for any longer than necessary (and as he was not the animal's owner, he wasn't negligent).

But the argument I was making is that it was bought with the intent of killing it for sport.

When you buy a chicken and kill it for food, that's not the same thing.

We're talking about buying an animal for the purpose of killing it for sport. I see that as no different than setting your cat loose on a hunting ground and killing it.

hahaha......valid point....no article. Someone's trying to see if they can get something on air that isn't even real.

Dude,

The link is at the bottom of the synopsis...

And there have been several other stories linked as well.

If you new anything about pigs it takes less than a week pig to become wild. If you have more questions that need to be resolved either google it or use wikipedia.

Considering the unusual size of the animal it seems as though using a pistol with much less firepower than a rifle is a really odd choice of weapon. Common sense would seem to dictate that pistol shots (at a distance no less) on a animal that size more than likely wouldnt deliver a killing blow. People (not me of course) could be forgiven for thinking that taking potshots at a massive boar from a distance isnt exactly in keeping with good sportsmanship.

Im just saying!

True. It would have been nice if his cruelty to the pig instead sparked honest, intelligent debate over what is and what is not hunting, and what line was crossed in this instance.

I think that one problem is this situation evokes such a visceral response from people--I mean the picture above alone is enough to make one want to vomit.

In my opinion, this was not hunting. This was animal abuse committed by a minor.

True, psychedelic -- but cows are below us on the food chain too.

Can we really call it "brave" or "skillful" or a "sport" to walk up to a cow and shoot it 12 times?

Setting aside the humane or inhumane aspects of hunting -- as far as actual bravery and skill goes from a purely non-hunters perspective it doesn't seem to be too dangerous hunting deer nor to difficult to kill it with a high-powered rifle and scope.

Does it take good aim to be a hunter?

Absolutely. And that is a serious skill.

But sitting in a tree and waiting for a deer or turkey or what-have-you to walk by and then blowing it's head off with a high-powered rifle?

Not exactly seeing how that is any different than simply skeet shooting.

Again, in both cases (shooting deer and shooting skeet) the only real skill involved is riflemanship and accuracy -- so one could wonder why people insist on killing live things as opposed to inanimate clay targets.

I mean, really, it's not like hunters these days are indians tracking the deer for DAYS across the frozen tundra wearing only animal skins and relying on flint knives. You're in a tree stand, wearing thermal underwear and Gortex and using highpowered rifles with scopes hunting animals that are absolutely terrified of humans and will run away at the first whiff of human scent.

Seems like the odds of success are firmly weighted in the humans favor. Not very sporting.

Crob have you ever talked to a real hunter, or better yet hunted anything yourself? Or do you generalize just because its acceptable so long as you are the one dealing out the generalizations?

Ricky84 -- You always think I'm putting people down. Not true. Yes I've gone hunting and, yes, aside from marksmanship I didn't feel there was a whole helluva lot of "hunting" really involved. It's more like fishing. Maybe you have a totally different perspective. What is your hunting experience like? Have you foregone the tree stand the the deer scents and actually tracked a deer for 3 days and killed it using only a flint knife? If you have then I will acknowledge that THAT is true hunting.

But in regards to this particular article -- would you say that this was true sportsman hunting? Seriously, I don't think the pig was sprinting at the hunting party like a cougar. The kid shot it 12 times with a pistol and it took 3 hours to bleed to death. In this particular instance, I think we can see why people may be a little annoyed at the boy. It almost ranks up there with hitting it with your car and calling it "hunting."

Define natural. Humans are gifted with unusual intelligence, giving us the ability to make .454 Casull magnum revolvers, which we then use to kill very large animals that are below us on the food chain.
Animals are food, fur, and pets.

So a higher intelligence is a basis for killing whatever we feel like just for fun?

Could the same be true of humans against humans?

By the way, there is no food chain and we're certainly not at the top. Things eat whatever they need to survive, their power, skill or choice is irrelevant.

Ok maybe I did think you were trying to be offense, my mistake. I’ve gone on a couple hog hunts. It wasn’t really my thing to be honest. I’d rather go fishing and crabbing. I’ve never gone deer hunting (although deer venison is magical) because deer down here are the size of dogs and their pretty hard to come by.

You are correct, people have a right to be annoyed. Then again I doubt most people understand how resilient a wild animal can be. I remember my dad told me he shot a possum nine times with a rifle and it didn’t die, and that was a rifle. Truth be told its hard as hell to kill a boar with a pistol even if it’s a large caliber like a 454 or .50 caliber.

12 times is not unheard of, especially with a boar. It is sloppy as hell though and very fucked up considering they let it bleed to death. In the end a real hunter would not let a hog suffer like that child did, that’s because a real hunter is going to eat his kill. If this story didn’t come out of Alabama I would swear the hunter was a weekend Yankee survivalist trying to compensate for a lack of man meat.

cro

When you wound an animal, you kill it.
Is it the kids falt that after 12 shots it still didnt die? Not at all. But im sure after the first few shots it wasnt going anywhere. it would have suffered longer without the rest of them, and even one shot is enough to cause suffering in the animal for the rest of its life.