Two women who enjoy killing animals with a bow and arrow

This is the story of two women who enjoy killing animals with a bow and arrow. It’s a difficult one to write, because it’s difficult to get into the head of, and understand, someone who enjoys killing animals for recreation.

Lady huntresses
Please click on the image to see it larger (opens new window). Two women who enjoy killing animals with bow and arrow
Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles: Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

The two women in this article are famous with a bow and arrow. One is know for killing big game, including a lion. The other is known for killing a barn cat named Tiger. As my research will show, both had a similar upbringing, with fathers who enjoyed hunting with their daughters. Apparently there’s a whole new movement out there for women who enjoy hunting. Personally, as a nurturer, I can’t grasp the attraction of holding an animal as it dies, knowing I willfully caused its death for my own pleasure.

Kristen Lindsey, Texas

Kristen, age 31, has achieved worldwide fame (not in a good way) since she bragged about a cat named Tiger being her first bow kill. The first words we heard from Kristen were:

“My first bow kill, lol. The only good feral tomcat is one with an arrow through it’s head! Vet of the year award … Gladly accepted.”

A lot of people can’t understand Kristen and her enthusiasm toward killing. Her father, Jack Lindsey, most likely played a major role in his daughter’s love of hunting. Jack had a registered business in his home state of Wyoming called Lazy Boot Outfitters, Inc. from May 8, 1987 until the status was revoked for tax reasons in March 11, 1993. The reference for this, along with more information from the Wyoming Secretary of State can be found here.

For those of you unfamiliar with outfitters, they run hunting related businesses, which includes guiding hunters to the best spots.

Kristen grew up with a father who not only hunted, but ran a hunting business. This doesn’t excuse her actions, but it does throw some light on why she thought she’d done a good thing when she committed her first bow kill.

In Kristen’s blog she stated her current interests as:

“Current interests: Living my days to the fullest, finding the meaning of happiness, killing things or trying to kill things (animals, a full glass of whiskey, hangovers, etc), my friends (both near and far), spending time with my dad, the outdoors in general, fly fishing on Shell Creek until it’s too dark to see, hunting with my dad and better yet…learning from my dad as we hunt”

Kristen Lindsey, as well as her family have received death threats. The case has been turned over to the Austin County District Attorney’s office, who state they are still investigating.

Rebecca Francis

Rebecca (I believe she’s around 41 years old) has achieved worldwide fame (in both a good way and a bad way), and has the same type of upbringing as Kristen. In an article written by The Herald Extra,it’s stated:

“Rebecca Francis has been at home in the wild since she was 8 or 9 years old. “My very first memory” of hunting, she said, “is sitting by my dad and just absolutely being frozen to death waiting for an elk to come by.” And after that? “I wanted to go every single year.”

“On April 15, comedian Ricky Gervais slammed Rebecca after seeing her stretched out smiling next to a dead giraffe she had killed. Although Rebecca didn’t respond directly to Ricky, she did speak out that she was “honoring the life of a dying giraffe.”

Rebecca has received several death threats since the photo of her lying next to the giraffe went viral.

As it turns out…

As it turns out, Rebecca offers all-female bow and arrow hunting trips. Apparently there are a lot of women out there who like to kill animals (e.g. Melissa Bachman). From what I understand, the animals Rebecca hunts and the places she hunts them in are legal. Unlike Kristen Lindsey, who is in violation of Texas anti-cruelty laws, including intentional actions and failure to act.

Did Kristen follow fellow bow and arrow huntress Rebecca Francis, and possibly looked up to her as a fellow hunter? Their photos went viral around the same time, and both had “daddy training” at a young age. Rebecca is well-known among female hunters, which you can see simply by Googling her name.

What do the readers here think? The physical resemblance and family background are uncanny. Any women bow and arrow hunters out there who care to comment on why they enjoy killing animals?

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

136 thoughts on “Two women who enjoy killing animals with a bow and arrow”

  1. As to Woody, aka a million stupid monikers, I have only one main thing to say:

    QUIT FEEDING THE TROLLS, folks.

    You’re losing anyone who wants to have any useful or serious discussion by enabling all this ridiculous disruption to occur. And that ends up REDUCING the support for Tiger or other animals we want to see justice done on behalf of. Trolls aim to upset others, so why would anyone want to encourage their sick psychoses in the world? Let them become so leper-like that they do away with themselves instead.

    Reply
  2. I appreciate Lee, as a hunter herself, weighing in here, and wish THOSE kinds of hunters would put a lot more effort into fighting against the trophy hunters and other so-called ‘sport’ hunters. Better yet, I wish they’d all just stop killing animals because I still can’t agree with the rationalizations or end results.

    The only time I could even begin to imagine killing any animal myself (as a food source), would be if I were in some unfortunate and likely very rare situation where I was was starving to death, still wanted to live, and there were no non-poisonous plants, seeds, grains, etc. to eat instead, and no potable water either. Even then, I’d most likely first try and find an already-dead (but not rotting) animal (or insects) to eat if I had to. I liken the experiencing of real sorrow upon an animal’s death and yet in the same breath SQUELCHING that INITIAL and innate, spiritually “core” response, to Temple Grandin’s same defeatist stance. As Jeffery Masson critiqued, “she can never take the next step to questioning what she does…One moment of true insight, when she cried, was quickly stifled by a dumb cliché. It is an argument used by many people who become very annoyed if you say that we wouldn’t want our children born into a world where they would be murdered, no matter how humanely or painlessly, after having lived for just a few months or years…Dr. Grandin never asks the only relevant question here: Is it right to do this at all?”

    Listen, if you killed me, then thanked me for UNwillingly giving up my life to you, your gratitude doesn’t whimsically and magically ABSOLVE you of taking my physical life away. And were I still living, I’d be GD FURIOUS at you for doing so! For all you know, I had family who were then going to grieve and suffer, and maybe even die TOO (if they were dependent upon me for their own sustenance), all because you killed ME. Basically, I’d be screaming, “how DARE you?!?!”

    Reply
  3. As a woman hunter, I take offense to having to share that title with these two hunters. No animal on this planet has a natural defense against any of man’s shooting weapons. There is nothing courageous about killing animals for sport.

    Shame on trophy hunters!!! Their only interest is the trophy and NOT the meat.

    The only reason to kill is for survival and self-defense. Killing kitty-cats NEVER falls into either category.

    My family eats what ever I have harvested and each time I feel extreme sadness for the loss of a life, after which I give thanks to God for providing my family with meat. I have NEVER killed for pleasure. I only take the shot if I am absolutely positive it will be a quick kill. I loathe those who allow the animal to suffer a lengthy death. There have been many animals that walk away because I do not have a clean shot at them; too many to count.

    Reply
  4. I think the point is being missed entirely. This so-called vet killed her neighbor’s cat for “fun.” Many say the cat didn’t die right away; meaning he suffered. Hunting for necessity is not what she did. Hunting for sport was not what she did. Killing her neighbor’s cat IS what she did! As if that isn’t bad enough- she callously bragged about it on FaceBook.
    So anyone- male or female- who hunts and eats the meat, or tans the hide, or whatever- that’s totally up to you (while I don’t particularly care for hunting as a “sport).
    The point remains- Lindsey, in particular, took an oath to help animals. She then killed a domesticated animal who belonged to her neighbor. In addition, she was the cause of his suffering. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! Hunt wild animals if you want to hunt. But killing a domesticated neighbor’s cat is criminal and needs to be dealt with criminally.

    Reply
      • Au contraire mon idiot! (I presume “idiot” is the same in both English and French so as not to confuse the idiots.)

        There is so much RIGHT with what she did on so many levels.

        Not to mention, that she was within her LEGAL rights to destroy that cat (owned or not). Why do you never comment on that? Surely your self-professed history of being involved in legalities would find that interesting. But no, you are afraid to approach it from that point of view because it would reveal you for what you truly are — a poseur.

        Reply
        • It is a felony to kill a cat in the manner she killed Tiger. Stop ranting and read up on Texas law. Oh wait-you already did! Breaking the law in Texas has already landed you in hot water before. I have an idea! Offer your legal services to Kristen.

          Reply
          • WRONG!

            No crime of any sort was committed. The cat had no evidence of it being owned by anyone at the time of the killing. And even if it was, the most that she could be fined was the value of that cat — about 2-cents on today’s market, if lucky. According to Texas law, it is perfectly legal to kill a cat to stop it from destroying all the native wildlife on anyone’s land (just one of many reasons you can LEGALLY shoot someone’s trespassing vermin cat). This is also true in every state. Whether you want to believe it or not. It might be worded differently in each state’s laws, but that is the overwhelming law everywhere. You can’t just cherry-pick those bits of laws out-of-context and convince yourself that it is illegal. That’s just plain self-deceptive, manipulative and completely psychotic.

            Pay particular attention to the sections pertaining to, “It is a defense to prosecution …” Meaning, that those animal cruelty laws are not applicable in those instances. She was perfectly within her legal rights. I hope they have excellent lawyers. They’ll own anyone who has tried to destroy their lives.

            Texas Law

            Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS.

            (a) In this section:

            (1) “Abandon” includes abandoning an animal in the person’s custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person.

            (2) “Animal” means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal.

            (3) “Cruel manner” includes a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.

            (4) “Custody” includes responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of an animal subject to the person’s care and control, regardless of ownership of the animal.

            (5) “Depredation” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.001, Parks and Wildlife Code.

            (6) “Livestock animal” has the meaning assigned by Section 42.09.

            (7) “Necessary food, water, care, or shelter” includes food, water, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain the animal in a state of good health.

            (8) “Torture” includes any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.

            (b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

            (1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

            (2) without the owner’s effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

            (3) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person’s custody;

            (4) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person’s custody;

            (5) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;

            (6) without the owner’s effective consent, causes bodily injury to an animal;

            (7) causes one animal to fight with another animal, if either animal is not a dog;

            (8) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack; or

            (9) seriously overworks an animal.

            (c) An offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), (5), (6), or (9) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a state jail felony if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section, two times under Section 42.09, or one time under this section and one time under Section 42.09. An offense under Subsection (b)(1), (2), (7), or (8) is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section, two times under Section 42.09, or one time under this section and one time under Section 42.09.

            (d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

            (1) the actor had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the actor or to another person by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code; or

            (2) the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific research.

            (e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) or (6) that:

            (1) the animal was discovered on the person’s property in the act of or after injuring or killing the person’s livestock animals or damaging the person’s crops and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery; or

            (2) the person killed or injured the animal within the scope of the person’s employment as a public servant or in furtherance of activities or operations associated with electricity transmission or distribution, electricity generation or operations associated with the generation of electricity, or natural gas delivery.

            (f) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful:

            (1) form of conduct occurring solely for the purpose of or in support of:

            (A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or

            (B) wildlife management, wildlife or depredation control, or shooting preserve practices as regulated by state and federal law; or

            (2) animal husbandry or agriculture practice involving livestock animals.

            (g) This section does not create a civil cause of action for damages or enforcement of the section.

            Out of all those many reasons that you can legally kill someone’s trespassing vermin cats for them, I just love this one most of all …

            (e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) or (6) that:
            (1) …
            (2) the person killed or injured the animal within the scope of the person’s employment as a public servant or in furtherance of activities or operations associated with electricity transmission or distribution, electricity generation or operations associated with the generation of electricity, or natural gas delivery.

            When all else fails, just say that you couldn’t fart whenever their cat was around. It was interfering in “natural gas delivery”! It would be perfectly legal according to the law. Methane is methane! According to the vagueness of that law, it does make it perfectly legal. Methane is often used to heat with and cook with, recognized as a valid bio-fuel. There’s more than one way that methane is “delivered” — sometimes naturally and in small quantities. When telling others about this I think I’ll call it the “Fallen-Felonious-Feral-Feline-Fart-Defense”. 🙂

            You might also find it interesting … that according to those laws, if it is eventually determined that that cat did have an “owner”, then the “owner” can be fined and convicted under several of those animal-cruelty laws. 🙂 This is precisely why all animal-neglect, animal-abandonment, and animal-endangerment laws exist on the books in every county of every state to stop fools from killing their own domesticated-species pets. Sometimes landing in jail for years for doing so.

            Reply
            • I wonder if “Elisa”/”Irish” has started to comprehend why all her “Examiner” articles are being censored from any replies. Guess what: lawyers are using her articles to pursue her for legal recompense for slander and libel. LOL Run Elisa, Run! 🙂 Ooops, it’s too late. ROFLMAO!

              Reply
              • No I voluntarily close the comment section on the majority of my Examiner articles. And the person named Reality Bytes who threatened a 7 year old boy is the one who should worry about lawyers. The mother is ready to press charges.

                Reply
                  • I close them myself on the majority of the articles. The only ones I really have trouble with I’ve sent you a new article to do. They’re by Animal_Proponent and Reality Bytes. You have to understand most of my Examiner writing is on cats and dogs needing out of the shelter or rescues needing help after they pull a cat or dog out of the shelter. Comments aren’t really necessary on those. I just don’t have time to go back in to every article where those two fools are spouting gibberish. It’s easier just to close the comments to everyone. I wish I could remove them on a comment by comment basis but its all or nothing.

                    Reply
              • Oh dear Woody, only you uses “ROFLMAO”. And to suggest that Elisa can be sued for defamation because of what she writes is laughable. Absolutely laughable. It would never happen. Firstly, what she writes is not defamatory in anyway and secondly, there are millions of examples of defamation on the internet particularly on Facebook and no one does a thing about it because it is impractical due to legal costs and damages would be miniscule. The whole thing is unworkable. The internet giants accept that.

                Reply
            • You are wrong again and I believe it can be proved she committed a crime: Firstly none of the defenses apply apply. Secondly, vets have stated that the cat was not dead when the photo was taken. This means she tortured the cat which is obviously a crime.

              Woody don’t ever use the word “psychotic’ again on this site, please. Just stop it.

              Reply
    • She didn’t shoot that cat “for fun”. She destroyed it so it wouldn’t skin-live and gut-alive thousands of innocent animals and all their offspring that would starve to death or never be born. Destroy any 1 free-roaming cat = save the lives of countless 1,000’s of animals from being tortured to death by that 1 cat. If you can’t wrap your brain around that simple equation in how to prevent the suffering of animals, then it would explain the childish tactics you use in editing the names of others, more immature and ignorant than kindergartners.

      Reply
      • Just stop, Jimbo. Nobody cares or reads your rants anymore but newbies. Get on with your sad, lonely life.

        Reply
        • The only people who don’t care are those who promote the existence of free-roaming cats who torture to death all other animals, including torturing to death their own cats. No stray cat dies of old-age you know.

          Self-deceptive much?

          Why all you animal-torturing cretins are not locked-up in prison for life yet is anyone’s guess.

          Reply
      • Thank you so much for all your rants! Now I know who to look for in my website’s comments. Thanks again for allowing me to know who to block in my comments! I can’t wait to get started!

        Reply
    • Exactly! And she appeared very happy in killing Tiger. THEN she said she was awesome. Every time she opens her mouth she sticks her foot in it. I’m not surprised she hasn’t granted any interviews about what she did.

      Reply
      • Of course she was happy. Thinking about all the THOUSANDS of animals that would no longer be skinned-alive and disemboweled-alive by that one stray cat. You just don’t get it, do you. Kill ANY stray cat by ANY means will stop the senseless torture of thousands of native animals that actually belong here.

        That’s okay. As long as you keep throwing your cats in front of cats, guns, and loaded bows & arrows, you get to whine how all your cats are being LEGALLY destroyed so you get attention for your own miserable self. Because that’s what this is really all about — if you don’t throw cats where they will be legally destroyed, however could you get attention in life? Nothing else on earth would give you the attention you demand. So you use your cats like little animal-sacrifices to manipulate everyone for that attention that you so desperately crave. Kill some more cats for attention for yourself. I’ll just laugh even more.

        Reply
          • It is hard for me to get it into my head what it must be like to have a genuine threat of an outdoor cat being harmed by a person. In the UK it does happen, of course. There are several well publicised examples annually but this type of risk to cat health appears to be greater in the USA or perhaps it is just talked about more in the USA.

            Reply
        • the THOUSANDS of animals that would no longer be skinned-alive and disemboweled-alive by that one stray cat

          Gross exaggeration and stupid. There is no evidence that cats do this. Hunting of prey by domestic cats is greatly exaggerated and cats don’t skin animals alive. People do though in China! – for the cat meat market. Charming humans.

          Reply
          • Birds are in more danger from skyscrapers. Gonna go knock down all the buildings in the cities to protect the birds? It’s not the cats that are the danger to wildlife. It’s urban development.

            Reply
        • interesting, Betty, cuz if im not mistaken cats r incapable of “skinning” anything alive. keeping an animal alive while skinning gives the connotation of doing it 4 pleasure, & u have 2 have higher brain function 4 that…as well as opposable thumbs which cats do not have. raccoons r a vermin-like creature with opposable thumbs, but 2 do THAT, & NOT eat the meat evinces desire, pleasure, cognition, foresight, & knowhow. there is another animal that can b vermin-like that could do THAT…man. WE put value on the skins of animals. we ALSO tend 2 obsess on things WE r interested n. u do tend 2 go on & on about how an animal incapable of skinning, skins so many other “innocent animals”. it does make one wonder about YOU, Betty, cuz we ALL know that when we do something we know 2 b wrong or truly reprehensible 2 another we find ways 2 make it seem less. maybe by calling them something different than what they r, “animals” 4 example. the more i read what u have written(past & present)red flags keep going off n my head. now I havent profiled n a little while so i may b a little rusty, but my gfs former partner from The Bureau, n Texas, seems 2 b interested n u, or someone like u. im sure someone DID mention Texas, right? so since cats cant do what u r so sure they r doing(they can “gut”, etc, but actually skinning something is a little different), 2 thousands of helpless animals no less, & u strongly believe they should b “tossed n front of cars”, correct? is there anything else u might like 2 explain 2 us, like how all this happened, where u saw it, & when. u sound like u really want 2 help stop this from continuing. maybe with more information we could stop it. unless u r simply trolling with the modus operandi of pissing people off & creating problems. so, which is it…Betty? i dont mean 2 offend anyone, & i dont generally “roll” like this, bringing my gfs position up on a comment, but something doesnt add up.

          Reply
  5. So, Betty, the only ways cats can die are being shot through the head with an arrow while caught in a trap and being restrained and then held up by the shaft of the arrow while still alive, or being hit by a car? First of all, nobody suggested the latter was preferable in any way. Second, and more importantly, if you think those are the only two ways a cat can die, you are not only a sadistic sociopath, but you are also incredibly, unbelievably stupid and ignorant.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Lee Cancel reply

follow it link and logo