Hunting for Trophy?


PDA






9mmforMe
February 1, 2014, 04:32 PM
I can see hunting for food, game management and even fur, but merely for sport and a trophy doesn't sit right with me.

The forum states that sporting challenge is part of what it means to be human...is it truly?

I'm not bashing anyone for what they do re: hunting, but I would like to learn more about the perspective of the sport hunter.

Respectfully,

Geoffry

If you enjoyed reading about "Hunting for Trophy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gallstones
February 1, 2014, 05:07 PM
"Trophy" kills are eaten just as non"trophy" kills are. So what's the problem?

Animals that reach an age and condition to be considered trophys are in their prime, they have already passed their DNA onto a generation or more and so shooting them doesn't remove those genetics from the population.

Those big impressive racks come at high cost in nutrients and calories, as does being an active breeder. What do you suppose follows after the prime of life in the natural world? Calories spent on breeding mean calories not available to sustain the animal should winter be harsh. What does that mean, they end up out of prime, weakened and become the easier prey if they don't just die. When these prime males are taken out it frees up resources for others, and they create openings for younger males--like sons--to come into their prime.

I can understand an attraction to the aesthitics of having "trophy" animals in the wild so people can go out and see them (maybe). But the aesthetics of a declining bull being eaten to death by a pack of wolves isn't as attractive.

What is being preserved by not harvesting them?

In regards to the sport of hunting, it takes a lot more hunting to locate a trophy. That seems plenty sporting.








Disclaimer: I'm not a sport hunter, just a Biology and veterinary major.

Arkansas Paul
February 1, 2014, 05:12 PM
I have a problem with wasting edible meat. That is all.
I don't care why you shoot it as long as the meat doesn't go to waste. I know hunters who love to hunt and are after big bucks only that don't even like to eat them. But they give the meat away to people who do like to eat it so there's no foul in my book.

Even the trophy hunters I know are repulsed by the idea of waste. The folks you hear about who just cut off the horns/antlers and leave the meat to rot are few and far between from my experience. They exist I'm sure, but I've never hunted with anyone like that.

Art Eatman
February 1, 2014, 05:19 PM
By and large, trophy-rack critters are smarter and wilier than the younguns, and thus are much more of a challenge to find.

You gotta cover a bunch of ground around a pasture to find the biggest buck. Then you gotta find him a second time in order to shoot at what you now know is the biggest buck.

Big bucks maybe make only one mistake a season, and if his one mistake was when you first saw him, you have your work cut out for you. :)

Big bucks taste good, too, if you know how to cook...

9mmforMe
February 1, 2014, 06:21 PM
I love venison, but have not had enough to tell between the younger bucks and the older... but I'd love the opportunity to try. :) I think my question was answered though considering that the meat is not wasted. Its good to know that the cut and run people are not many and if done is clearly a violation of proper hunting ethics...right?

Art Eatman
February 1, 2014, 06:58 PM
Many of the laws concerning hunting originated with hunters.

Get caught wasting the meat? In a fair number of states, now, you pay a fine and lose your gun, gear and vehicle. Hey, fine by me!

9mmforMe
February 1, 2014, 07:24 PM
Agreed.

climbnjump
February 1, 2014, 08:02 PM
Get caught wasting the meat? In a fair number of states, now, you pay a fine and lose your gun, gear and vehicle. Hey, fine by me!

Since I haven't done an actual survey of every state's game laws, I'm not going to say that ALL states have laws against "wanton waste", but I'm willing to bet that most do.

The penalties can be very high including loss of firearms, vehicles, hunting rights for years down the road, jail time and thousands of dollars in restitution.

Yes, there will always be a few bad apples, but for the vast majority of hunters - trophy or otherwise - respect for the animal and common ethics is all the "enforcement" that is required.

MutinousDoug
February 1, 2014, 08:32 PM
On the other hand; Don't go to Africa on a safari and expect to bring any significant amount of meat back with you. (It will be enjoyed in situ)

MCgunner
February 1, 2014, 08:36 PM
I can see hunting for food, game management and even fur, but merely for sport and a trophy doesn't sit right with me.

So don't do it. :rolleyes:

I'm not a "trophy hunter", just a hunter, but if a massive 20 point, 6 ft spread, 1.65x10^12 boone and crocket steps out of the woods, I'll shoot him! Heck, it'd be a mercy killing. With that much rack, he probably couldn't lift his head!

My wife's cousin is a "trophy hunter". He keeps some of the meat, but gives a lot to "hunters for the hungry". The stuff he's killed in Africa went to the natives there. He's just interested in the mounts. He's got an impressive "trophy room".

Me, I have a nice high point basket rack 8 point mounted, a Javalina, and a Mallard I took on public land near Tivoli, Texas. I've mounted a few racks on those 10 dollar antler mount "kits". Most of the deer I've taken over the years have been bucks, not really trophies, but some of 'em had decent racks for MY area. I don't have much acreage so the management technique here is "if I don't shoot it, one of the neighbors will". My wife's cousin has a $3K a gun managed ranch lease in deep south Texas. Me, I don't have HIS money. If I did, I might try to weasel in on his lease with him. :D Heck, he lives on 140 acres near Seguin, Texas and his boy is the only one that hunts it. It's bigger, but like my place, too little to really manage properly so he has no interest in hunting it, himself.

9mmforMe
February 1, 2014, 10:18 PM
Mcgunner,

I don't do it. :rolleyes:

Moreover, I was referring to what appears to be a small segment of hunters who will kill anything for sport and are not mindful of the age of the animal as you seem to be.

I would really like to experience a hunt actually, but I don't know anyone here in Indianapolis yet who I could accompany.

H&Hhunter
February 2, 2014, 12:23 AM
On the other hand; Don't go to Africa on a safari and expect to bring any significant amount of meat back with you. (It will be enjoyed in situ)

Actually Doug you can't bring ANY meat back with you from Africa. The USDA and Customs has laws against that. All meat meat is consumed or otherwise put to good use in Africa however.

Oleson
February 2, 2014, 09:23 AM
When I discuss hunting with non-hunters here in Norway, they often ask what we do with the meat if we hunt in other countries. Well, we eat it... Usually, you can't take any of it home with you, so we eat it where we are.
And some people tend to think that trophy hunting is a new thing. Well, you can see alot of trophies hanging on the walls around rural Norway, and many of them are pretty old.

Captcurt
February 2, 2014, 09:37 AM
I see more meat wasted on the side of the road. I live 4 miles from the city limits and I counted 13 deer killed on the road last year. Why someone doesn't pick them up is beyond me. Too lazy to get out of their car I guess.

Art Eatman
February 2, 2014, 09:45 AM
I have a bit of difficulty about getting all exercised over the malbehavior of a miniscule percentage of any group. It's a waste of psychic energy.

14 million big game hunters in the US. I take it for granted that a very few are evil, bad-nasty idiots.

However, based on my acquaintance with quite a few hunters, these last fifty years, my opinion is that as a group, hunters are more ethical than most.

Arkansas Paul
February 2, 2014, 10:22 AM
Captcurt I know what you mean. I've eaten more than one deer that was killed by a Chevy. Couldn't really tell the difference in the taste either. :)

hq
February 2, 2014, 10:52 AM
I have a problem with wasting edible meat. That is all.

In that case you have very little to worry about. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm also a trophy hunter, but as a matter of principle, of everything I've ever shot, every last bit of edible meat (or often even bones) that's even remotely fit for human consumption has been used for exactly that.

Over the years, I've donated several thousands of lbs of meat to underprivileged locals and natives in Africa. Basically, anything that isn't used by us or the outfitter, goes to charity free of charge. That, among other things, makes me feel genuinely good. Giving something to the community that lives in extreme poverty and is dependent on donations to survive.

In some sense, it's even better than eating the meat yourself. When you donate a kudu bull or a giraffe, you can be pretty sure that not an ounce goes to waste.

jmr40
February 2, 2014, 11:45 AM
If a monster buck and a small 4 pointer are standing side by side very few would choose the smaller deer. And there is sound scientific reasoning to shoot the larger deer at the end of it's life rather than the smaller deer in his prime.

The older buck has already had many years to pass on his genetics and may well be near the end of his life anyway. Better to be killed instantly by a hunters bullet than not make it through another hard winter and be eaten by coyotes and buzzards.

By passing up the smaller deer you give it a chance to live longer, get bigger and pass on its genetics.

Arkansas Paul
February 2, 2014, 03:00 PM
In that case you have very little to worry about.

I have no doubt of that.
Like Art said, hunters are most often the most ethical people you'll ever meet.

Gallstones
February 2, 2014, 03:07 PM
The State of Montana passed a law about mid 2013 that makes it permisssible to harvest road kill. For the most part that means any game animal you hit (or someone else hits)--except fur bearers--you can toss in the truck bed, the trunk, the back seat (whatever), and take with you to process for food. Unlike hunting, you can't field dress on the side of the highway, you have to take the whole carcass and do the butchering elsewhere. There is a form online and via smart phone to fill out and post to Fish and Game(?) notifying them that you have harvested a road kill. This is not unique to Montana, many states have had it for years.

Gallstones
February 2, 2014, 03:11 PM
Beat you to it (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9329103&postcount=2) jmr40 :p

Loyalist Dave
February 2, 2014, 04:06 PM
I don't care why you shoot it as long as the meat doesn't go to waste. I know hunters who love to hunt and are after big bucks only that don't even like to eat them. But they give the meat away to people who do like to eat it so there's no foul in my book.

Do you think a "foul" is committed if a person hits a deer with their car and fails to try to harvest some of that deer meat? :scrutiny:
I ask as 2038 deer were killed by cars in my county in 2011, and for a county that is a mere 496 square miles, that's 4 deer per square mile killed by cars. OH and 70% of the county is so densly populated, that no hunting is allowed.

We're not talking about decimation of a herd of Bison in the 19th century just for the hides and the tongues. Modern, trophy hunters do not normally, take a trophy deer every year. I don't think the animals are "going to waste", as the critters that feed on carcases, even if we don't like them, are part of the eco system, and have to eat too. Cars are killing a lot more deer and letting them lay for the buzzards and the foxes than hunters.

I hunt for meat, so when I'm not legally restricted on the sex of the deer to be harvested, whatever adult comes along is harvested to fill my freezer.

LD

sage5907
February 2, 2014, 04:52 PM
A true trophy hunter kills far fewer animals than other hunters and most of them are true conservationists in what they say and what they do. They recognize the value of the resource and most of them promote fair chase hunting. As was previously stated, most trophy hunters take only old mature animals that would eventually be overtaken by old age, disease and predators.

35 Whelen
February 2, 2014, 10:26 PM
After having hunted for 30+ years, I'm finished trophy hunting. I'm also sick of hearing someone tell me they saw/shot a buck/bull that would score XXX points. Who cares? In this day and age all that's required to kill a big buck or bull is $$$$$.

What I have learned is that, at least for me, "trophy" is now defined by the circumstances under which the animal was killed.

Killing a bull elk @ 11,000' then gutting, skinning, quartering and packing him out ones self makes a trophy.

Belly crawling to get in range of a buck, no matter how big he is, makes him a trophy.

Shooting a buck with a Colt SA reproduction makes him a trophy.

Watching my 79 year old Dad walk 3/4 mile to the stand (when men 50 yrs younger would've ridden an ATV)then shoot an average 8 point made that buck a trophy.

I could go on and on, but I really pity hunters who base the success of their hunts on the score of a set of antlers.

Make no mistake, I'll still take a buck with a large rack over one with a small one, but gone are the days when I pass a buck in order to wait on something bigger.

35W

H&Hhunter
February 2, 2014, 10:50 PM
I'm with 35w on this except that I'll add that my trophy standards are dependent on the area I am hunting. If I've waited for years to finally draw that fantastic trophy unit I'll be very picky. If I'm hunting run of the mill public land I'll be less picky. I agree and am also sick and tired of these guys who hunt with their wallets for bragging rights. A true trophy to me is any animal that you had to work for and makes you happy. That could be a doe or a cow or floats your boat. Some of "my" most memorable trophy are the animals I've assisted my children in taking.

MCgunner
February 2, 2014, 11:14 PM
I agree and am also sick and tired of these guys who hunt with their wallets for bragging rights. A true trophy to me is any animal that you had to work for and makes you happy.

AMEN! You probably know this, but in Texas, you can get a trophy if you can afford it. A managed south Texas lease like my wife's cousin has isn't cheap! But, ya know, he understands this, too. He isn't snooty about it. And, he doesn't waste meat. He won't shoot what I call a "meat deer", nothing, but what meets his standards. I don't begrudge him his fun. He has a heckuva trophy room. :D He's never hunted a small high fence operation, either. Those places somewhat sicken me. Like hunting in a zoo. The exotics are like friggin' pets in some of these places, like shooting your dog. But, that's another subject.

There are guided day hunts on places like the King or Kenedy ranches down here where they charge by the inch (antler inches) that can run 5 figures for a nice buck. They'll put you on one, the deer are managed on these ranches. Some ranches even have penned breeder stock, not just feeding programs and shooter standards, but genetic manipulation of the population. That's getting a bit carried away IMHO. Those places have HUGE bucks, but it ain't cheap...a pay to play thing for sure.

I just ain't THAT into it that I'd pay that kind of money for a "muy grande". I envy those out in the mountain states that can hunt public land with a chance at a nice one. The private land thing in Texas does kinda limit a working man's options. I don't think I'd care that much about it even if I could afford it, though. I'm happy taking an 8 point off my little place and filling the rest of my freezer with hogs. :D

hq
February 2, 2014, 11:25 PM
After having hunted for 30+ years, I'm finished trophy hunting. I'm also sick of hearing someone tell me they saw/shot a buck/bull that would score XXX points.

I think I'll never be finished with trophy hunting because - at least for me - a trophy isn't a mount but the story behind it and the memories it stands for. Some have been lucky shots, others a result of literally weeks of stalking but ask me about any of them and you'll hear a story. I'm not much of a storyteller and I have a bad habit of boring people stiff but like I explained 'decorating walls with dead animals' to my teenage daughter: they're not just dead animals, they're living memories.

There's no number in existence, be it points, inches or whatever, that can describe what a trophy really means. Several years ago my son wanted a shoulder mount of a young, small impala with crooked asymmetrical horns. A camp meat kill. I protested for a minute until I realized that it was his first big game kill ever and it ment the world to him. Now it's on his wall and he is at least as proud of it as I am of any of my trophies. It's the whole experience that counts.

Andrew Leigh
February 3, 2014, 12:57 AM
Man always hunts for trophy's, these are an expression of success.

Trophy job, trophy wife, trophy kids, trophy car, fail to see why this expression of individuality cannot be translated into hunting?

My problem with trophy hunting extends to that which one does not eat. Leopard, Lion, Hyena etc. But I am not hung up about this, each to his own. This side of the pond most species are carefully managed for sustainability, hunting is an industry that has it's stock like any other, and supply and demand will dictate price.

Trophy hunting is expensive. A Kudu bull sub 48" will cost in local currency R 5 000, you want over 60" then be prepared to pay in the order of R15 000. That meat right there is about 3X the price. The vast majority of hunters are meat gatherers, if the 60" was the same price as the 48" we would have no 60" bulls left so you see it is self regulating and self sustaining, the benefits go back into gamefarming. Commercial gamefarmers spend a lot of money buying good genes to keep the gene pool alive with trophy specimens.

Art Eatman
February 3, 2014, 07:32 AM
With few exceptions, I generally cut off the front of the skull and nail the antlers on a garage beam. As said, memories. In a sense, those bucks are near-immortal, so long as my memory holds out.

As I sit here at the computer, I can look up from the monitor at a not-monster mule deer set of antlers. I could take you to where I shot him, twenty years ago. I recall the day, the circumstances.

Memories...

Tony k
February 3, 2014, 09:15 AM
Some of those hunting TV shows give "trophy hunting" a bad wrap. I could see how someone who isn't familiar with hunting could get the impression that hunters travel all year long wontonly killing animals for trophy racks.

I've come accross poached animals where the racks have been hacked off and the only meat harvested is the backstraps. If that's what some non-hunters envision when they think of trophy hunters or hunters in general, they are way off base.

Me? I'd love to bag a "trophy" animal, but I hunt with the philosophy that a bird in the hand it worth 2 in the bush. I take the first clean shot on the first legal animal I see. I hunt mostly in wilderness areas or areas where vehicles are not permitted, and I'm sure as heck not going to spend hours or days hiking in only to pass up an animal because his rack wasn't big enough.

My dad and brother down in Texas hunt on private land and would lose their hunting priveledges if they shot a deer with anything less than an 8 point buck because down there is would be considered unethical. Different places have slightly different philospohys, but one thing that's pretty universal is that wasting meat is highly unethical.

My trophies are the freezer full of meat and the satisfaction of not having to buy meat.

oneounceload
February 3, 2014, 09:25 AM
Even the trophy hunters I know are repulsed by the idea of waste. The folks you hear about who just cut off the horns/antlers and leave the meat to rot are few and far between from my experience. They exist I'm sure, but I've never hunted with anyone like that.

The only times I have seen that were in gun magazines where they have articles about someone going solo and then all you see is him packing out with the rack on his backpack and no sign of what happened to the meat. Especially true with sheep and goat hunters.

Arkansas Paul
February 3, 2014, 09:48 AM
Do you think a "foul" is committed if a person hits a deer with their car and fails to try to harvest some of that deer meat?
I ask as 2038 deer were killed by cars in my county in 2011, and for a county that is a mere 496 square miles, that's 4 deer per square mile killed by cars. OH and 70% of the county is so densly populated, that no hunting is allowed.

We're not talking about decimation of a herd of Bison in the 19th century just for the hides and the tongues. Modern, trophy hunters do not normally, take a trophy deer every year. I don't think the animals are "going to waste", as the critters that feed on carcases, even if we don't like them, are part of the eco system, and have to eat too. Cars are killing a lot more deer and letting them lay for the buzzards and the foxes than hunters.

I hunt for meat, so when I'm not legally restricted on the sex of the deer to be harvested, whatever adult comes along is harvested to fill my freezer.

LD

No, I don't think there's any foul when an animal is hit by an automobile and left on the side of the road. Whoever hits the deer accidentally may not be in any position to retrieve and process the animal. It's not like they went out to intentionally run over an animal. Accidents happen and while it sucks that a game animal was killed on the road, sometimes it is not avoidable.

Much of this is opinion, but to me it doesn't matter that we're not talking about the decimation of the buffalo herds. Killing an animal purely to display the antlers and allowing the meat to be eaten by predators repulses me. I realize not everyone thinks the way I do. And as has been said, people who do this are few and far between.

Also, in most states, doing that is illegal and I'm glad.

The only times I have seen that were in gun magazines where they have articles about someone going solo and then all you see is him packing out with the rack on his backpack and no sign of what happened to the meat. Especially true with sheep and goat hunters.

I imagine the choice cuts are wrapped up in the hide and packed out as well, but it would be impossible for one man to pack it all out.
For that reason, I wouldn't solo hunt for sheep or goats.

MCgunner
February 3, 2014, 11:01 AM
No, I don't think there's any foul when an animal is hit by an automobile and left on the side of the road. Whoever hits the deer accidentally may not be in any position to retrieve and process the animal. It's not like they went out to intentionally run over an animal. Accidents happen and while it sucks that a game animal was killed on the road, sometimes it is not avoidable.

Unless they've changed the law, processing road kill in Texas is illegal. You're supposed to call 911, they're supposed to send a game warden, and the warden handles the meat IIRC. Supposed to go to a food bank or something. That's the story I've heard, anyway. I know folks that have taken road kill and butchered it. I guess they gotta catch ya. :D I've FORTUNATELY not hit a deer nor witnessed one hit. Living where I am, now, I'm not sure how long that record will hold up. More deer than people around here for sure.

Arkansas Paul
February 3, 2014, 11:04 AM
Yeah I guess if you're caught butchering a deer in your yard that would make folks suspicious of whether or not you're poaching or something.

I honestly don't know if Arkansas has a law about that or not. I don't think they do.

Mike1234567
February 3, 2014, 12:50 PM
I have a bit of difficulty about getting all exercised over the malbehavior of a miniscule percentage of any group. It's a waste of psychic energy.

14 million big game hunters in the US. I take it for granted that a very few are evil, bad-nasty idiots.

However, based on my acquaintance with quite a few hunters, these last fifty years, my opinion is that as a group, hunters are more ethical than most.

I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.:(

35 Whelen
February 3, 2014, 01:14 PM
I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.:(

Can you elaborate? I guess I'm asking if wasting the meat makes them the things you describe.

35W

Mike1234567
February 3, 2014, 01:31 PM
Can you elaborate? I guess I'm asking if wasting the meat makes them the things you describe.

35W
Yes, they kill squirrels that are causing them no harm and let them rot where they fall. They kill hogs and let them rot where they fall... okay, wild hogs deserve it. But they kill deer and let them rot where they fall. They kill whatever they see for no good reason and let the carcasses rot where they fall. THAT is the MAJORITY of those I know who "hunt".

35 Whelen
February 3, 2014, 01:50 PM
Tha twould upset me too. Shame that most of the hunters you know are that way.

35W

3212
February 3, 2014, 01:56 PM
As for roadkilled deer,in Pennsylvania you call the Game commission,they give you permission to take the deer and its yours.I often drive 100 miles to a favorite hunting area in the fall.During the rut I see dead deer by the road in the dozens.Sometimes 3 or 4 in one spot hit by a semi.Most of them are there for days.This fall I saw a guy in orange dressing out a buck in the grass median on a 4 lane.

Mike1234567
February 3, 2014, 02:00 PM
As for roadkilled deer,in Pennsylvania you call the Game commission,they give you permission to take the deer and its yours.I often drive 100 miles to a favorite hunting area in the fall.During the rut I see dead deer by the road in the dozens.Sometimes 3 or 4 in one spot hit by a semi.Most of them are there for days.This fall I saw a guy in orange dressing out a buck in the grass median on a 4 lane.

I like and respect that... hunters who take the initiative to avoid wasted life.

Arkansas Paul
February 3, 2014, 03:20 PM
Yes, they kill squirrels that are causing them no harm and let them rot where they fall. They kill hogs and let them rot where they fall... okay, wild hogs deserve it. But they kill deer and let them rot where they fall. They kill whatever they see for no good reason and let the carcasses rot where they fall. THAT is the MAJORITY of those I know who "hunt".

That would infuriate me.
I am usually a "live and let live" kind of guy. I don't go poking my nose in business that isn't mine. However, I would report the people who did that to the G&F Commission immediately. That is against the law in Arkansas, as well as most other states.

It is against the law to waste the hindquarters, shoulders or backstraps of deer (I think that applies to rabbit and squirrels too) and is illegal to waste the breast of game birds. Penalties include fines and loss of hunting privileges.

3212
February 3, 2014, 04:34 PM
As for the farm raised trophy deer.I am opposed to deer farming because it has helped spread CWD.

readyeddy
February 3, 2014, 06:20 PM
So long as all laws are followed, then I'm all for it.

If someone can afford to go to Africa and pay $30,000 to hunt lion legally as a trophy, then more power to him or her.

LRShooting
February 3, 2014, 09:32 PM
I didn't read any other posts, but Gallstones is right on. Very few people actually are purely sport hunters and waste all the meat, but those that do screw up the image of hunters for everybody else. Its kind of like guns. If guns weren't shown killing people and creating violence, than nobody would really have a negative view on them. There are far more leisurely, hunting, and self-defense uses for firearms than there are idiots who kill people with them. (excluding war)

Oleson
February 4, 2014, 04:09 AM
I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.:(

I'm not trying to be a smart*** here, seriously, but you need some new hunter friends.
People like that shouldn't be allowed to hunt. Or fish. Or breed.
Respecting life, be it for meat or trophy, is an essential component of hunting.

(This may be riddled with bad grammar. If so, sorry)

BigBore44
February 4, 2014, 05:34 AM
Trophy hunting in many places, especially Africa, is vital to the local economy. Nothing is wasted. And the money it costs to hunt these animals can be astronomical <also reintroduced to the economy. Some places as seen on TV like New Zealand, are farm raised animals that have been turned out a few days prior to the hunters flying in. How do I know? A close friend of mine is from New Zealand and she has family that does it. It's big business. She said its really sad to see "hunters" show up and be so proud that they shot such an impressive trophy. Most care less about the meat. They don't even eat it in camp. They just want to ship the head to their taxidermist.

Every year I come across at least 5 headless deer. Heck last year I came across 4 all lying next to each other. It made the local paper in fact.

Will I shoot a deer with a big rack? Absofrigginlutely. Have I? Idk. My biggest buck scored 130". But my trophies are measured by the memories I made with my friends while hunting. And we don't waste any meat.

Mike1234567,
Your "friends" aren't hunters. They are poachers. By ethics and by law. They are criminals.

Davek1977
February 4, 2014, 06:24 AM
Trophy hunting and "meat" hunting aren't somehow mutually exclusive. I enjoy the challenge of the sport, and if I were to simply take the first legal deer available to me, my seasons would be very short and unsatisfying. I typically get at least one "any deer" tag which means I can harvest one buck or doe, mule deer or whitetail (we have both). Most seasons, I could harvest a doe within minutes of shooting light. I don't like my season to be over that fast, and find absolutely no satisfaction in such a hunt. I have absolutely nothing against shooting does, and know its a necessary part of hunting in some areas. However, I like the challenge of hunting mature bucks, and despite what many people have told me over the years regarding bucks, I've never found the bucks I've shot to be any tougher or have poorer quality meat than any doe. Grain fed deer taste good, regardless of sex! If shooting a trophy somehow equated into wanton waste of meat, I'd certainly have an issue with it. If I eat my bucks, who is anyone to tell me I'm doing something wrong by challenging myself and holding out for something a bit above average? Often I also have a doe tag or two available to be filled. If I already have more meat than I can use, I sometimes use of of those tags, harvest a doe, and donate it to Sportsmen Against Hunger, who distribute it to food banks and needy families. I don't waste meat,and go out of my way on occasion to provide others with food they may not otherwise have....yet I consider myself a bit of a "trophy hunter" and darn right I hunt because I enjoy the "sport" of it,


I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill. I'd reevaluate the company you keep if the MAJORITY of hunters you associate with behave in such a manner. 26 years of hunting, and I can honestly say aside from varmints and the like, I've never seen a game animal intentionally left to rot, which leads me to wonder what kind of POACHERS you hang out with.....lets use the right terminology.....the people you describe DO NOT deserve to be labeled as hunters. They are unethical POACHERS. Don't sully the name of actual hunters by lumping those sorts with the rest

hq
February 4, 2014, 06:39 AM
BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.:(

It makes my physically sick even reading that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with hunting, quite the opposite as hunting is the last and purest link to food chain we still have left. When someone kills for just the sake of killing, without taking the responsibility to make use of the game to his or her best ability, it's not hunting anymore.

Varmints aside, there's no excuse. Even with them and some game management or safety-related secondary gain kills (wolf, lynx, raccoon dog, mink...) it's good ethics and good practise to use whatever you can, be it hide, using the carcass as bait (when legal) or anything else you can think of.

To give your friends a probably undeserved benefit of a doubt, can you please elaborate about the waste, please?

Sav .250
February 4, 2014, 07:41 AM
To each his own. Maybe that`s why high fence hunting is so popular.

Vol46
February 4, 2014, 08:05 AM
There are lots of folks who hunt, & lots of reasons for doing so. Almost without exception, the hunters I know are good stewards of the environment and the animals they hunt. Over the years, I have hunted with people who are wealthier than me, & can afford to go to places & have opportunities for trophies that are out of my reach. I have also hunted with people who have a lot less than I do (from a material perspective). They all hunt because they love it - maybe for different reasons.
It bothers me that so many are quick to label those that do not think the same way they do, or that shoot or hunt for a different set of reasons, or that are in a different socioeconomic situation, as bad or unethical people. As shooters and hunters, we have a lot in common. If we keep playing the game of "anyone who is not like me is evil or stupid" we play right into the hands of those who would deprive us of our second amendment rights.

ZeroJunk
February 4, 2014, 10:48 AM
I can shoot deer out my bathroom window. I am planting the place down in soy beans next year so it will just get worse. If not for trophy hunting there would be no hunting.

H&Hhunter
February 4, 2014, 10:57 AM
The only times I have seen that were in gun magazines where they have articles about someone going solo and then all you see is him packing out with the rack on his backpack and no sign of what happened to the meat. Especially true with sheep and goat hunters.

Oneounceload,

No offense here but this^^^^^^ is an extremely ignorant statement. The reason that you only see the horns on a sheep or a goat pack out picture is because the meat has all been boned out (that means stripped off the bones) and is internally packed in the back pack. The horns are tied down by the top cover on the top of the pack and don't fit internally which is why you see them and that is the only part of the animal that you see.

Having packed out 80 or more pounds + an additional 20 to 30 lbs of camp gear (That is every edible ounce on a mature ram or billy minus bones) of boned out meat off a goat or sheep over several mountains or river drainages in the high country I can assure you that it is a character building experience of the highest caliber. You should try it some time you don't need to hunt just volunteer to be a packer for a sheep or goat hunting outfit. They have serious turn over and are always looking for packers for some odd reason? ;)

Furthermore wasting game meat in Alaska and Canada (where the majority of sheep and goat hunting takes place)or anywhere else goat or sheep hunting occurs is a serious crime and will be punished heavily. You simply don't leave ANY edible meat in the field on a game animal in Alaska. ESPECIALLY not on a guided sheep or goat hunt where the outfitter will loose his license and pay a hefty fine and or do jail when, not if caught.

Two years ago I killed my goat on a solo hunt. I won't bore you with the details of the recovery other than it took place at above 13,000' altitude and it left me almost crippled for about 6 weeks afterward from the bruised tendons in my knees and ankles and the almost bone deep blister that developed on my right heel. Until you've hauled a combined 100+ lb load on your back on loose scree and boulders up and down 30 to 50 percent grades in the high country above the tree line it's impossible to understand just how grueling, painful and raw sheep and goat hunting actually is. In fact there are very few people who are mentally tough enough and physically fit enough to do a high country sheep or goat hunt and when you make it a solo hunt that narrows the pack to the tiniest portion of hunters who have the outdoor skill, ability, mindset and fitness to pull it off. Which is what makes a goat or a ram such an incredible trophy.

Arkansas Paul
February 4, 2014, 11:19 AM
In fact there are very few people who are mentally tough enough and physically fit enough to do a high country sheep or goat hunt and when you make it a solo hunt that narrows the pack to the tiniest portion of hunters who have the outdoor skill, ability, mindset and fitness to pull it off.

I have no doubt that this is true.
I think I could handle it mentally, but I'm nowhere near physically fit enough to tackle something like that.
If I had a few months to prepare I think I would jump at the opportunity to go on a guided hunt with packers packing out the animal. I wouldn't even attempt a solo hunt. I'd end up on the news with people out looking for me. That's probably the toughest hunting in the U.S.

Edventures
February 4, 2014, 11:36 AM
where I hunt deer ,the DNR held meetings did surveys and asked this question of the hunters and land owners in the area. We now have a state mandated 4 point rack on one side regulation. This basically says you cant shoot the 1 to 11/2 year old bucks. It also means more older wiser deer in the woods. I personally like going out and seeing the bigger deer with bigger antlers.
looking at at 160 / 170 class deer is a thrill . We harvest deer for the meat,
but the biggest antlers gets bragging rights for the year.

Arkansas Paul
February 4, 2014, 11:46 AM
I too am both meat hunter and trophy hunter.
I'll usually put a couple of does in the freezer (we're allowed up to 6) and then start looking for a big buck. I'll pass on small basket racks because with the amount of does we're allowed to harvest, there's simply no sense in shooting them.
Now I'm meat first, so if we weren't allowed to shoot does, I would be more likely to shoot a small buck.
Here in Arkansas, its 3 points on one side to be legal unless the hunter is under 16 years old. Then they get a buck of choice each year.

H&Hhunter
February 4, 2014, 11:48 AM
That's probably the toughest hunting in the U.S.

Without a doubt, that and hunting bear or lion behind hounds in the high country can be tougher at times but is a tie for overall toughness.

Mike1234567
February 4, 2014, 12:50 PM
It makes my physically sick even reading that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with hunting, quite the opposite as hunting is the last and purest link to food chain we still have left. When someone kills for just the sake of killing, without taking the responsibility to make use of the game to his or her best ability, it's not hunting anymore.

Varmints aside, there's no excuse. Even with them and some game management or safety-related secondary gain kills (wolf, lynx, raccoon dog, mink...) it's good ethics and good practise to use whatever you can, be it hide, using the carcass as bait (when legal) or anything else you can think of.

To give your friends a probably undeserved benefit of a doubt, can you please elaborate about the waste, please?

I used the term "friends" a bit loosely. They're friends but not close friends... neighbors. I moved to a rural area about three years ago. I don't get out much anymore so I haven't made any close friends here... just friendly acquaintances.

I fully support hunting as I know it's generally far more humane than our meatpacking industry... if one is careful and skilled. I also understand the pleasure of the hunt and maybe even the excitement of the kill. But I don't understand the joy of needless killing.

To make things clear... the folks I mentioned seem to enjoy killing for the sake of killing. I've always thought that as strange behavior... maybe a bit sadistic, if not bordering on psychopathic. These guys kill an animal and let it rot. I guess I'll just never understand.

Trophy hunting? Why not... as long as the meat is harvested... at least for someone.

oneounceload
February 4, 2014, 01:44 PM
H&H, that was meant as especially true with those folks who you see in the magazine and not intended as a broad brush - sorry if you took it that way

H&Hhunter
February 4, 2014, 02:44 PM
oneounceload,

I can especially assure you that the guys in the magazine pictures are doing it on the up and up. Whether the guy in the picture with the horns is packing out the meat or someone else is, the meat was recovered. You simply don't leave sheep or goat meat in the field even if you got your picture taken for a magazine.

Arkansas Paul
February 4, 2014, 02:46 PM
^ One thing is for sure. They aren't out there by themselves. Somebody took the picture.

Art Eatman
February 4, 2014, 03:14 PM
"...the folks I mentioned seem to enjoy killing for the sake of killing."

As near as I can tell, that's a distinct minority.

"I've always thought that as strange behavior."

Me, I'd call it closer to "weird".

H&Hhunter
February 4, 2014, 03:15 PM
AP

Exactly right these are inevitably going to be guided hunts which means that the meat is going to be recovered. It's simply too risky to break the law then publicly advertise it, not mention unethical, and stupid. I am having a hard time trying to figure out how a guy comes to the conclusion that the meat from a sheep or goat was left in the field to rot from a picture of a guy with ram horns on sticking out of his pack in a magazine picture?

If you see a picture of a red sports car on a public road in a magazine is it fair to assume that the car was speeding?

35 Whelen
February 4, 2014, 04:38 PM
Speaking of pictures in magazines, the first time my then 71 year old Dad and I skinned and quartered out a large bull elk as it snowed, then loaded it on horses and made the 2 hour ride out in the dark in even more snow, it occurred to me "this is the stuff you never see in the glossy pages of hunting magazines".

35W

H&Hhunter
February 4, 2014, 05:49 PM
Ain't that the truth..^^^^^

matrem
February 4, 2014, 06:07 PM
Even on a typical successful whitetail hunt for most of us, our "shining/ photogentic" moment- sure isn't when the hard work's happening.

splattergun
February 4, 2014, 06:47 PM
In most cases, it does not take very much skill or effort to shoot the first legal critter to pass in front of your sights "just for meat". The way I see it, as long as I'm out there putting in the time and effort, I might as well try to get the biggest, proudest, most healthy and intelligent buck in that neck o' the woods. Therein lies the challenge.

I have shot meat bucks, I have shot trophy bucks. I ate both with relish, but the trophies are much more personally satisfying, and a quick glance at the wall brings back fond memories that the meat buck just doesn't bring to the table. So to speak.

Just my way.

Mike1234567
February 4, 2014, 07:31 PM
I dunno... now that I think about it, I think trophy hunting goes against the natural order of things. In nature, predators seek out the easiest targets... the sickest, oldest and youngest. As far as I know they never intentionally go after the strongest, most able of the herd. Therefore, the weak are weeded out... not the strong. Trophy hunting does the opposite... weeds out the strong leaving the weak to propagate the herds. Isn't it logical that this will weaken the species over time?

matrem
February 4, 2014, 07:51 PM
Well, Don't fret that.
Our society is "evolving" in the opposite direction.
It will all equal out in time.
It always does.

Art Eatman
February 4, 2014, 08:00 PM
Dunno, Mike. I've seen a fair number of videos of a pack of wolves working on what looks like a quite-healthy bull elk. Generally, circumstance: Deep snow, mostly, in the videos.

I've seen two really nice mule deer bucks, lion-killed. Bucks, generally being more solitary, are more easily sneaked up upon than a group of does and yearlings.

Mike1234567
February 4, 2014, 08:23 PM
Dunno, Mike. I've seen a fair number of videos of a pack of wolves working on what looks like a quite-healthy bull elk. Generally, circumstance: Deep snow, mostly, in the videos.

I've seen two really nice mule deer bucks, lion-killed. Bucks, generally being more solitary, are more easily sneaked up upon than a group of does and yearlings.
Could be, Art. I don't really know. All I can remember is what I've seen on nature TV shows and read here-and-there. I've no practical experience.

Tony k
February 4, 2014, 09:08 PM
The hunting seasons are a little disapointing here in Oregon. You can get two deer, one elk, 1 cougar, 1 fall bear, 1 spring bear. The variety is great, but the problem with the elk and deer rifle seasons is that they are only 10 days long! That means for the average person you have two weekends per deer/elk season. That's why I don't pass up the first legal animal. If I was in a place where the seasons were several months long, yes, I'd be way more selective and try for a trophy animal.

Hey Mike 123456, it's too bad your impression of hunters is based on those people you described. Thrill-killing is kinda twisted. Wasting meat is unethical. I bet if you went out with most other hunters you'd get a much more favorable impression.

bad_aim_billy
February 5, 2014, 01:55 AM
I'm not bashing anyone for what they do re: hunting, but I would like to learn more about the perspective of the sport hunter.

Can't shoot does here, no elk to speak of to hunt in my area any more (wiped out by predators) so that leaves bucks. If I get one that looks nice on the wall, so much the better. But venison always trumps antlers. Always.

Davek1977
February 5, 2014, 03:58 AM
Me, I'd call it closer to "weird". I'd call it what it is....criminal. I wouldn't hesitate to drop the dime on someone like that. Poachers masquerading as hunters are vile despicable human beings that only make it tougher for real hunters, both in terms of harvesting games, and also in the court of public approval. They serve no purpose, and I'd do what I could to rid my area of the type

Davek1977
February 5, 2014, 04:05 AM
Therefore, the weak are weeded out... not the strong. Trophy hunting does the opposite... weeds out the strong leaving the weak to propagate the herds. Isn't it logical that this will weaken the species over time? No, thats not the case. By the time an animal has reached what most of us consider "trophy status" he has been breeding for a few years, spreading those "trophy" genes. A true trophy to many hunters is an old mature buck, one who is actually past his prime as far as fighting, breeding, etc go. These deer have little time left in the natural world regardless if shot or not. Even a buck cut down in his prime has already been breeding and spreading genes. How this would contribute to the weakening of the herd over time is beyond me. Too, if "non-trophy" animals are the only ones taken......if that is what you are implying should be done.....how do you ever begin to comprehend what that deer's potential is? How do you separate a 1.5 yr old buck that will someday score 170 B&C from a 1.5 yr old buck that will never begin to approach that size? A trophy buck isn't a trophy buck at birth...he looks like any other deer. Killing a trophy before he grows to trophy potential is still killing a trophy deer....but you have nothing to show for it in terms of a rack on the wall, and you'll never know it. Besides, if I'm going to eat the meat, which is central to this conversation, I want to eat healthy meat. By your view of things, I should be looking for a sickly animal of questionable quality to harvest, which again, just doesn't make sense to my way of thinking. If I'm going to kill a deer, I'm going to kill one that I am confident is healthy enough to consume, not a crippled diseased deer whose meat may or may not be even be safely edible

hq
February 5, 2014, 04:59 AM
Trophy hunting does the opposite... weeds out the strong leaving the weak to propagate the herds. Isn't it logical that this will weaken the species over time?

Not really. What constitutes a 'desirable' trophy often also means that the animal is evolutionally past its prime or at it, with a number of rivals ready to take over. Predators take whatever they can or have opportunity to take. Generally speaking, studies have been unable to find a significant effect caused by hunting, mainly because the sheer number of animals killed by predators is in several multiples of those killed by hunters. For example, an adult male lynx (50-60lb eurasian Lynx lynx rather than american Lynx rufus, speaking from my geographical point of view) can and often will kill up to one hundred whitetail fawns and does every year, and according to official numbers there are approximately 70-100 of them just in the area I mainly hunt.

Facts like that may give you some perspective. And I consider myself being a part of the same food chain too, trophy-quality antlers are an occasional bonus and I sometimes find myself selling a doe or two to guys who have spent their weekends chasing monster bucks and ignoring the primary purpose, venison.

However, I'm still slightly baffled. At one point you were concerned about the waste, ie. shooting animals and leaving them to rot. Now your point has shifted to trophy hunting. You described yourself a shooter and not a hunter so all kinds of questions are very understandable, but I'd like to know if there's still something that concerns you about the whole concept of hunting and principles involved.

Every now and then when we talk about hunting with my friends people may hear one or two things in our conversation, make assumptions based on their own misconceptions because things that are a given (moral and ethics, good hunting practise) aren't particularly mentioned, and may well think we're a bunch of trigger-happy bambi butchers. I'm not implying that something like that has happened to you in regard to your neighbors, but have you considered that it might be a possibility?

Mike1234567
February 5, 2014, 11:55 AM
The hunting seasons are a little disapointing here in Oregon. You can get two deer, one elk, 1 cougar, 1 fall bear, 1 spring bear. The variety is great, but the problem with the elk and deer rifle seasons is that they are only 10 days long! That means for the average person you have two weekends per deer/elk season. That's why I don't pass up the first legal animal. If I was in a place where the seasons were several months long, yes, I'd be way more selective and try for a trophy animal.

Hey Mike 123456, it's too bad your impression of hunters is based on those people you described. Thrill-killing is kinda twisted. Wasting meat is unethical. I bet if you went out with most other hunters you'd get a much more favorable impression.

I'm sorry if that's the impression I left regarding my thoughts about hunters. That's not at all how I feel about hunting or hunters in general. It's just the way some are here around me. I know these are just a few bad apples. While I don't have the stomach to hunt, and especially to dress a kill, I respect those who do so humanely and skillfully. Properly done, it's far more humane than our meatpacking industry.

RE reporting poachers to authorities: I haven't "witnessed" their kills. I only hear them bragging about them. They'll just deny anything I say.

Mike1234567
February 5, 2014, 12:00 PM
No, thats not the case. By the time an animal has reached what most of us consider "trophy status" he has been breeding for a few years, spreading those "trophy" genes. A true trophy to many hunters is an old mature buck, one who is actually past his prime as far as fighting, breeding, etc go. These deer have little time left in the natural world regardless if shot or not. Even a buck cut down in his prime has already been breeding and spreading genes. How this would contribute to the weakening of the herd over time is beyond me. Too, if "non-trophy" animals are the only ones taken......if that is what you are implying should be done.....how do you ever begin to comprehend what that deer's potential is? How do you separate a 1.5 yr old buck that will someday score 170 B&C from a 1.5 yr old buck that will never begin to approach that size? A trophy buck isn't a trophy buck at birth...he looks like any other deer. Killing a trophy before he grows to trophy potential is still killing a trophy deer....but you have nothing to show for it in terms of a rack on the wall, and you'll never know it. Besides, if I'm going to eat the meat, which is central to this conversation, I want to eat healthy meat. By your view of things, I should be looking for a sickly animal of questionable quality to harvest, which again, just doesn't make sense to my way of thinking. If I'm going to kill a deer, I'm going to kill one that I am confident is healthy enough to consume, not a crippled diseased deer whose meat may or may not be even be safely edible
I hadn't thought if it like that... makes sense. :)

Robert
February 5, 2014, 01:30 PM
I hunt for the experience of being in the mountains with my friends. I have a pretty damn decent mentor. Now if I can only nail him down 2014 4th rifle season. He is in pretty high demand during hunting. If I can learn to be even half as good as him I will be happy.

I hunt for meat, and though I have yet to connect with a nice cow elk I am not put off or depressed. Hunting in the mountains is very hard work. But what a sweet reward it is when it finally pays off.

buck460XVR
February 5, 2014, 01:42 PM
True trophy hunting is just taking legal, ethical hunting to the next level by either taking animals that are more mature and/or more elusive that most of the others in the area one is hunting. It is not the paying of big dollars to shoot a semi-domesticated 4 year old deer with a huge set of antlers, nor is paying someone else to do the scouting and stand selection so you just walk into the woods and shoot the animal when it comes along. This is just Trophy shooting. Shooting an animal just for it's horns in not a problem for me as long as it's done legally, ethically and there is not wanton waste of the meat. Doing anything else is just slob hunting and it happens just as much with non-trophy animals. As I said in the first part of my post, a trophy animal is one that is larger/more mature or more elusive than the majority of other in the area being hunted. My grandpa told me that if the largest fish in a pond is 5 lbs, then that fish and fish close to it are trophies. If the largest fish in the pond is 2 lbs, the same is true, even tho in another pond, a two pounder is a throwback fish. This is how I consider an animal a trophy. A 3 year old buck on heavily hunted public land is going to be harder to find and shoot than a 5 year old buck on a large private ranch that has been coming to the same feeder and not shot at or harassed all it's life. There are very few if any other 3 year old bucks on that piece of public land while there are many 5 year old and larger bucks on the private "pay to shoot" ranch. Put 'em side by side and most folks will consider the 5 year old the trophy, even tho it was shot eatin' corn at the feeder while the 3 year old was shot after the hunter figured out where it slept. One is a quality hunt and the other is just a shoot...what designates which is the trophy?

MCgunner
February 6, 2014, 11:41 AM
I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.




Yes, they kill squirrels that are causing them no harm and let them rot where they fall. They kill hogs and let them rot where they fall... okay, wild hogs deserve it. But they kill deer and let them rot where they fall. They kill whatever they see for no good reason and let the carcasses rot where they fall. THAT is the MAJORITY of those I know who "hunt".


I've been hunting since the age of 9 and know NOone like this. :rolleyes: I'd say, you should pick your acquaintances better.
'
I have shot coyotes and left 'em lay, ain't eatin' one, but they're destructive and a couple of ranches I've leased told me to shoot 'em on sight. I've shot 'em to keep 'em from gettin' my chickens, but then, I've shot dogs getting my chickens, too, totally legal in Texas. Yote hunters kill for the sport, not the meat. I see nothing really wrong with that, but I don't do it myself. The yotes I have taken were targets of opportunity. I've hung 'em on the fence to show the rancher what a good guy I am. :D I've found a few fur buyers around here and if I get into that next season, get a fur license, I will take 'em for the hides along with raccoons and other fur bearers I can make money on. I'll let the meat lay. As Jose Wales said, worms and buzzards gotta eat, too. Pigs, of course, MUST be controlled, though I don't really think they can be by hunting even from helicopters. Funny thing, though, I eat the pigs I shoot if I recover them. I'll no longer blood trail a wounded one, not worth the risk considering past experiences with that sort of thing.

BTW, I'm trying to keep politics out of this, but I HATE people who want to keep me from my lifestyle because they don't approve of it. You know, that 32 ounce big gulp is bad for you, so you'll have to buy 2 16 ouncers in OUR city. :rolleyes: Ban tobacco, bad for you, oh, but Marijuana is just fine. This is one reason I moved to the sticks, to get away from prudes in the city and their stupid ordinances making me live like they see fit. :rolleyes: All I'll say about that, but if all they wanna eat is Granola, I ain't there in THEIR faces telling them to eat Venison!.......if you get my drift.....

Arkansas Paul
February 6, 2014, 11:58 AM
^ Predators and hogs are a different story entirely.
Some don't think we should kill predators because they're not eaten or used in any way. I shot a bobcat this past season and posted pics on Facebook and caught some flak over it. Don't care though. I like hunting rabbit, squirrel and quail and bobcats, foxes and yotes will decimate those populations. I'll drop every one I see.
And its a standing rule at our camp that no matter what time of day or whether its prime hunting time or whatever, hogs get shot every time.

Mike1234567
February 6, 2014, 12:02 PM
MCgunner... I fully support hunting for food, predation and nuisance control and removal of crop or property damaging critters. I support trophy hunting too provided the meat isn't wasted. Just because I don't have the stomach for meat hunting doesn't mean I'm against others doing it nor does it mean I wouldn't if I had to.

Heck, my cat dragged in a mole the other day, darned ugly thing (the mole, not the cat):). It wasn't yet harmed so I scooped it up in a box and set it free on a vacant lot. The thing was completely helpless scrambling around on the smooth floor desperately trying to escape a painful death. It's short legs were slipping as he tried to find a place to hide. But when I set it loose on the sandy soil it disappeared underground in about six seconds. It's inability to walk on the slippery floor reminded me of my old pug with nerve damage... he drags his hind legs... but he's still happy.

There have been a handful of mountain lion sightings including what I'm sure must have been one directly across the street from me. Big cats and coyotes have no place in this area... most families are on two acres. Had I owned a firearm at the time I would have tried to kill it. Like I said, I don't like to hunt but sometimes it's the prudent thing to do.

MCgunner
February 6, 2014, 02:06 PM
MCgunner... I fully support hunting for food, predation and nuisance control and removal of crop or property damaging critters. I support trophy hunting too provided the meat isn't wasted. Just because I don't have the stomach for meat hunting doesn't mean I'm against others doing it nor does it mean I wouldn't if I had to.

Well, my rant wasn't directed at YOU, just there's folks out there that seem to want ME to have THEIR values or just die. :rolleyes: PETA types, liberals all. Well, just sayin' I don't expect them to start hunting if they don't like it, but don't expect me to turn vegan, either. LOL! Hunting, for me, is a life long passion. I was raised that way in the country. I'm not really a city type, visit, but won't live there. I much prefer four legged predators to two legged ones.

Right now, I'm after a black and white feral shaggy dog. I've seen it around, but my wife caught it killing my banty rooster the other day. Now, he's a shoot on sight target, no mercy. See, folks from in town come out here and dump their unwanted pets. THAT, to me, is a FAR worse affront to the animal kingdom than trophy hunting, whether the meat is donated or eaten by the hunter. Rest assured that the person that is a REAL, actual trophy hunter, is ethical. I've used my wife's cousin as an example. What he don't eat, he donates to hunters for the hungry. And, when he goes to Africa, well, others have addressed that, the meat gets eaten. Can't bring it back to the US, so it gets given away there.

Folks like H&H and my wife's cousin are REAL trophy hunters. Folks YOU are talking about are just pricks. Don't slander the trophy hunter by comparisons to those pricks. :rolleyes:

Only unethical people I know are not the kill 'em and let 'em rot types you describe, but trespassers. I know one guy in particular, used to work with him. He has taken nilgai on the Kenedy ranch, taken big bucks on national seashore down in what we call "the land cut" south of Corpus. He had this Carolina Skiff (a boat) and an ATV he loaded in the bow with ramps. He'd go down there, run to the national seashore where all the big bucks went a week after season opened, off limits, deer ain't stupid. Well, his oldest boy went down there and got caught by a game warden. Lost his boat, ATV, even impounded the kids TRUCK! Hope the hunting was worth it. :rolleyes: I think guys like that get off to the thrill of hiding from the po po or something. I just cannot relate.

Anyway, after this guy's kid starts his one year in the pen, yep, up the river on a felony trespass, this idiot father of his is planning to get a friggin' hovercraft because it doesn't leave any tracks for the game wardens to follow by air....:rolleyes: You can't fix stupid, I guess.

9mmforMe
February 7, 2014, 12:39 PM
This thread has turned into a monster of great information. Please keep this going. I have learned a ton!

35 Whelen
February 7, 2014, 01:30 PM
I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.:(

Jut a curiosity question: If you don't hunt and don't like it, what made you come to the Hunting Section of THR?

35W

H&Hhunter
February 7, 2014, 02:18 PM
BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots..

That is kind of ironic because ALL of the animal rights people I know are evil, bad-nasty ignorant idiots..

buck460XVR
February 7, 2014, 02:35 PM
I don't hunt because I don't need to and don't like it. BUT... the MAJORITY of those I know who do occasionally hunt... are evil, bad-nasty idiots... who waste the animals they kill.:(

That is kind of ironic because ALL of the animal rights people I know are evil, bad-nasty ignorant idiots..


wow....I'm glad I don't have your circles of friends and acquaintances.:eek:

Most of the Hunters I know are safe, ethical and responsible outdoors-men and conversationalists. They donate to and support many outdoor causes besides hunting and the monies they spend on their sport is one reason we have any wildlife left in this country. Most of those folks that are animal rights folks(not all of them are anti-hunters) are fairly intelligent and highly informed. They just have a different opinion on some things than I do. For someone to generalize that either or both are idiots is....well, idiotic.

Mike1234567
February 7, 2014, 04:09 PM
Jut a curiosity question: If you don't hunt and don't like it, what made you come to the Hunting Section of THR?

35W
Just searching "New Posts".

Mike1234567
February 7, 2014, 04:13 PM
That is kind of ironic because ALL of the animal rights people I know are evil, bad-nasty ignorant idiots..
Actually, most folks to the extreme right or left of most any subject are usually hard-headed, closed-minded and brain-washed. That stated... I'm hard-lined on a number of very controversial topics.

hq
February 7, 2014, 04:39 PM
Most of those folks that are animal rights folks(not all of them are anti-hunters) are fairly intelligent and highly informed. They just have a different opinion on some things than I do.

You seem to have better 'animal rights' folks on your side of the pond, it seems. While, personally, I'm strictly against animal cruelty, things have gone so far out of proportion with the vast majority of animal rights people that it almost tragicomic. While I love animals - we've had about half a dozen dogs during last 30 years or so, in addition to other animals ranging from rodents to horses - I have too much background in psychology and behavioral sciences to let the baseline of ability to metacognitive thinking blur. That's the main reason I don't shoot primates (unless they're trying to steal my car, that is).

The distinction between a pet that has lived its life with humans and is for the most part dependent on human care and a wild animal is another thing. A pet is a family member, wild animal is a part of the food chain, which is a point often missed by animal rights groups. So is the fact that human beings are a part of nature, not just some supreme deities fed by endless convoys of trucks bringing kik peas for food from the tropic or urban city dwellers detached and purposefully ignorant of the reality of food chain and other realities of life.

Sometimes I remind them that plants are living organisms just like animals and digesting them for nutrition deprives them of their "right" to live just as it does a deer or cow. Typically they don't like anyone reminding them of that.

Probably the craziest thing is that when I wear a fur coat, I sometimes get a lot of flak from so-called activists, and when I honestly tell them that the wolves weren't bred in a cage but I shot them myself in the wild, they go ballistic. I could go on and on about how plant-based fibers aren't that different and even synthetics have harmed the ecosystem, but I've learned not to bother.

I'm intimately familiar with psychological brainwashing techniques - heck, that's what I do for a living in a clinical setting - and well-funded organizations like PETA use a vast variety of them to recruit "activists" and influence public opinion. Even my daughter was harassed last week for having a FAUX FUR collar in her jacket. People aren't crazy, they're people, and the 1930's should have taught us something about the power of systematic mass suggestion and proficient use of brainwashing techniques. People never learn. Never.

The propaganda has succeeded in giving hunting a bad name. Don't believe me? How many times you've had to explain a non-hunter that whatever you do adheres to strict ethical principles? Exactly. What used to be a given and among hunters still is, need reaffirmation and explanations these days.

Speaking of which, this thread is one example of it. Food for thought.

H&Hhunter
February 7, 2014, 05:04 PM
Most of those folks that are animal rights folks(not all of them are anti-hunters) are fairly intelligent and highly informed.

buck460,

The whole premise of "animal rights" is born from ignorance, misinformation and left wing radicalism. While I am a firm believer in the welfare, proper treatment, care and conservation of animals. The issue of extremist animal rights activists has nothing to do with the care and proper treatment of animals. Animal rights groups have done NOTHING zip, zero to improve habitat or better our wild lands through conservation Peta run animal shelters are 90% kill shelters. They are all about controlling people and very little to do with the betterment of animals. Animal rights is a cult not a science.

Animal rights folks, highly informed? Not hardly! Anthropomorphic, uninformed radicals with an agenda is more like it.

MCgunner
February 7, 2014, 08:14 PM
The whole premise of "animal rights" is born from ignorance, misinformation and left wing radicalism. While I am a firm believer in the welfare, proper treatment, care and conservation of animals. The issue of extremist animal rights activists has nothing to do with the care and proper treatment of animals. Animal rights groups have done NOTHING zip, zero to improve habitat or better our wild lands through conservation Peta run animal shelters are 90% kill shelters. They are all about controlling people and very little to do with the betterment of animals. Animal rights is a cult not a science.

Animal rights folks, highly informed? Not hardly! Anthropomorphic, uninformed radicals with an agenda is more like it.

What he said. :D Couldn't say it better, so ain't gonna try.

T.R.
February 14, 2014, 09:27 AM
I'm a meat hunter for the most part and have taken many does and medium sized bucks. But when I pay for an out-of-state guided hunt, I expect to shoot a mature animal or larger than average.

TR

Art Eatman
February 14, 2014, 10:38 AM
A ditto for H&H. I've sometimes shortened it to 'Animals don't have rights. People have responsibilities."

buck460XVR
February 14, 2014, 11:56 AM
A ditto for H&H. I've sometimes shortened it to 'Animals don't have rights. People have responsibilities."


Sorry, but I have a very loyal bird dog layin' at my feet, that to me, has the right to a long and happy life beside me, because we as humans bred her to do so. While I am a hunter and kill animals, I believe they have a right to live a life free in the wild and when killed by a hunter, the right to a quick and humane death. While I wear leather, I don't think that animal, bred by us to provide food and clothing, needs to be abused before death, just because some joker thinks it's fun to torture a animal with a cattle prod. Anybody here disagree with me? Tell me again, how this is "born from ignorance, misinformation and left wing radicalism.". What a joke. Putting all animal lovers/responsible hunters into the same pea pod as extremists is like saying H&H has the same mentality of a Poacher in Africa killing Rhinos and leavin' them there to waste after cuttin' off thier horn...or those fishermen that net sharks and throw them back alive after cuttin' off their fins.


As for the statement " Animal rights groups have done NOTHING zip, zero to improve habitat or better our wild lands through conservation!".

The WWF is considered by many as a "animal rights" group. It is also one of the fiercest supporters of Communal Conservancies in Namibia and protecting Tiger habitat in India. These areas are for creating sustainable populations of wildlife to be enjoyed by future populations while allowing for the hunting and controlling populations and developing income for those that live there.

I know, to many the word "animal rights" automatically brings up the image to folks dumping blood on New York models wearing fur coats and the sneaking of cameras into domestic Turkey operations showing animals living on a foot of feces and cannibalism from overcrowding. Dictionaries differ as much on their definitions as we do. My definition of Animal Rights is giving them the right to not to be abused or exploited inhumanely. To give them the right to live as God intended and not how a few men want.

The definition of "Animal Rights" is as ambiguous as the term "Trophy Hunting". One cannot use words like always, never and should not use broad generalizations to define them. There are extremists, slobs and poor examples of human interactions in both.

Sun Tzu warrior
February 14, 2014, 11:59 AM
Since the beginning of hunter/gatherers man has pursued the largest game animal he could find, to provide the most protein possible, for his tribe. Hunters then hunted in groups to enhance their chances of sucess. The larger the animal the bigger their of meat was. The largest animal most of the time means what many here describe as a trophy.
On my hunting ground, Does are taken for meat, and a trophy is any Buck you are willing to mount. The reason for this, is we have an improper buck to doe ratio, and if we do not solve this problem, mother nature will, in the form of blue tongue, anthrax, chronic waste desease, deer car collisions, or just plain old starvation.
I do belive that what a trophy is, should be decided by the person who takes it, if you are willing to have it mounted, it is a trophy to you. (I don't hunt with folks who can just throw money around, to justify taking a lesser deer)
In high agricultural areas where there is a lot of corn and soybeans grown, the bigger the deer, the more marbled the meat.
I have 4 "trophies" on my wall and none were easy to come by. After 40 years of hunting that is an average of 1 every ten years, even though they were all taken in the last 10 years.

To me, any time I can set myself up to have any deer right under me, weather or not I harvest it, my hunt was sucessful!

H&Hhunter
February 14, 2014, 10:12 PM
buck

You are confusing care and compassion for animals with animal rights. Or maybe you're not if not please let your animal rights extremist buddies know that you are hunter and let us know how it works out for you.

hq
February 15, 2014, 04:13 AM
buck

You are confusing care and compassion for animals with animal rights.

That's amazingly common, mainly because it's one of the main strategies of so-called "animal rights" activists. WWF is (or at least has been) very, very far from the likes of PETA because they face the facts of nature and food chain and include humans in it, instead of building propaganda on the claim that we are an entity complete detached from the "nature".

In essence, wild animals are a cognitive but not metacognitive vehicles of energy transfer from sunlight and photosynthesis all the way up, in what is commonly called food chain. The basis of all life on earth. Being unquestionably cognitive, they deserve a certain amount of respect from metacognitive humans. Their responses to pain and, ultimately, destruction bears close resemblance to that of metacognitive mammals like us, which triggers responses related to protective instincts not unlike maternal instinct. But ONLY when perceived metacognitive abilities are erroneously attributed to them.

There has been quite a bit of scientific proof of basic cognitive abilities in plants, but animal rights activists don't seem to be the slightest bit concerned about - say - acacias, which have been proved to communicate with each other when threatened and respond by rapidly changing their chemical composition. Activists are even superficial enough to prefer furry, cute animals over actually threatened species whose appearance doesn't trigger instincts like I described earlier.

Playing the affection to individual animals we have as pets and using that affection to mirror the feelings towards wild or production animals in general is common. Some people actually change their thinking and logic this way. "Murder" is defined as taking the life of a member of the same species. Anything else, for gain of any kind is either primary or secondary gain as defined by food chain and basic urges and needs, be it survival, procreation or anything else.

Bringing sadism into the equation is far-fetched and in my opinion, not High Road. While many animals have it in their natural behavior, cats speding a lot of time torturing and playing with their pray being a prime example, the standards of society and metacognitive abilities make it a medical condition among humans. Just like unfounded "compassion" is; even a few hundreds of years ago misguided "compassion" towards food chain was lethal, detrimental to one's survival. Nowadays it isn't. That has made it possible and (relatively) widespread.

This is a very complicated psychological and behavioral issue and in the context of a bulletin board I can only scratch the surface by bringing up some major factors that have lead to its existence in modern society and exposing the strategies used to manipulate people into believing that how they think and what they do is "right". It has a lot to do with perceived moral supremacy, feeding it with carefully thought out propaganda and appealing to some of the very primal instincts we all have by grossly misguiding them.

All in all, animal rights movement has the vast majority (even all) of the attributes of a religious cult.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hunting for Trophy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!