Hunting for Trophy?

[Mike1234567]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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]

^ 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]

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]

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. 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.

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. 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.... You can't fix stupid, I guess.

 

[9mmforMe]

This thread has turned into a monster of great information. Please keep this going. I have learned a ton!

 

[35 Whelen]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. Couldn't say it better, so ain't gonna try.

 

[T.R.]

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]

A ditto for H&H. I've sometimes shortened it to 'Animals don't have rights. People have responsibilities."

 

[buck460XVR]

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]

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]

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]

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.