What Trophy Hunting is.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harve Curry

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
1,756
Location
Black Range of New Mexico
Reading another thread brought this topic to mind, alot of people don't have an appreciation for what goes on with a trophy hunt.

The meat, the hide, the mount are all used. More is used then possibly some meat hunters because they are throwing away the hide and mount.

In a trophy hunt you pass up alot of shots on animals. Say the hunter spends over $10000+ and if the hunter has one simliar at home he will most likely drive his guide crazy by letting it go:what:

Imagine glassing a 6x6 elk from a mile away, moving on HIM and the tree he was last seen at, getting within 50 yards because you been in your socks for the last 400 yards or more, watchin every wisp of a breeze, your ready to shoot with your 58cal Hawken , he's at least a 350" score and then you pass because you don't need him and can hunt some more.

But that's OK, you go on and hunt more, glass more, see more country, take pictures, see game you ain't even hunting and get close. And maybe you'll get another shot that week. The important part is your hunting.
Somebody said once that the best hunt is when you have spent all the time you have available to hunt, and shoot your game on the last minute of the last day.
 
I don't have any problem at all with (environmentally responsible) 'trophy hunting' - I am however curious (this thought crossed my mind reading H&H's thread) about which portions of the game you're allowed to bring home from africa for a mount. I'd like at least the hide or something from that elephant after going to all that work.
 
I'll say first off that I don't hunt. I don't have a problem with folks who do, just that sitting in a tree stand in the rain in November while waiting to shoot a deer I'll have to drag uphill out of the woods isn't my idea of a good time.

That said, I think a lot of people (myself once included) have a problem with "trophy hunting" because they're under the mistaken impression that trophy hunting involves shooting an animal, cutting off the part you want to take home and hang on the wall, and leaving the rest to rot. I for one know better than that now, but I'm sure lots of people don't. And lets face it, if any hunter did do such a thing the other hunters on this board would be the first to criticize him.
 
From what I see, trophy hunting is a very physical sport. Walking up and down those hills in the rain and snow would be tough work. I argue with a hunting co-worker who says shooting a treed mountian lion is not a sport. I say it's a lot like varmint hunting in getting rid of an overabundance of animals. And those climbs would be grueling.

I mostly hunt small game (phesants and rabbits) and figure if I don't see anything, at least I get a good walk in.
 
I have no problem really with trophy hunting. I am admittedly not a big hunter. Basically because I have always had horrible luck or I just plain suck at it. Now it is basically just varmits for me. I just have a few questions to the big trophy hunters out there.

Do you think it hurts natural selection to go out and kill the biggest and most likely strongest of the species? It seems like this would promote the weaker and deformed ones to being more plentiful. This seems like that the longterm strength of the species would be affected by killing the best and most dominant animals.
 
Jeeper ,

For example, by the time a trophy quality buck deer or bull elk has reached maturity he has spread his gentics for quite a few years and could be breeding some of his offspring. He's reached his prime and will start aging and regressing. I have seen old bull elk with white spindly antlers so arthritic and lame the cows would wait for him and call to him to get a move on. So you are getting him just before old age, or a lion or coyote does him in.
 
I'd like at least the hide or something from that elephant after going to all that work.

Stand,

ON a non trophy elephant the only thing you are allowed to bring home are the tail hairs which are made into braclets and other jewlery.

I had a braclet made for each of my girls at home and one for me and gave the rest of the hair to local weaver so he could sell the wears he produced from them.

Every other piece of the elephant went to the local villages along with my licence and trophy fee. Elephant hide sells for a premium and is some of the finest leather available.

I argue with a hunting co-worker who says shooting a treed mountian lion is not a sport.

Halvey,

I've got a cure for people like this..I offer to take them on a Mt lion behind hounds. Hound hunting in Mt lion country undoubitly qualifies as one of the most physically demanding types of hunting on the planet..Bar none.;)
 
I don't have any problem with other people trophy hunting so long as they use the meat and such too. Personally, I have little interest in trophy hunting as I find the mounting of heads to be a little on the grotesque side of things. I will never criticize another for putting mounted heads in their house, but you won't find them in mine. If I go to your house and there are mounted heads, I will probably look at them and ask you about the hunt where you got the animal. If you come to my house you'll have to look at photos to see the head of the animal I harvested (assuming I actually get to harvest one). The most I might do is bleach out the skull and mount that to show off the antlers, but I probably will never have a head taxidermied.

When I put in for an elk tag I put in for a cow hunt for a couple reasons. #1 At least according to some people the cows taste better than the bulls. #2 I have little interest in collecting antlers. #3 Cow tags are way easier to get. Unfortunately I didn't get drawn. But I have yet hear of ANYBODY in AZ getting drawn for any rifle elk hunt. I did hear about one guy that got drawn for an archery elk hunt but that's it.

When I put in for deer, I would have applied for a doe tag, but in AZ this year they didn't authorize a single doe tag except for a juniors only hunt in 12A West. So, I'll be going after a mulie buck. But, I'm not going to pick a deer based on antler size or anything else. The first legal deer to cross my sights gets the shot. It'll be my first ever hunting trip, and I will be in no mood to be picky. If it's a monster buck with state record rack, great. If it's a spike, just as good (maybe better as the meat will probably be higher quality).

However, I am still emminently jealous of H&H and his numerous African hunting trips.
 
There is a place in Colorado called Harmony. It is on the road between Estes Park and Trail Ridge, up from Boulder. In Harmony, there is (or used to be) a big house once owned by a big game hunter. Each room is full of "trophies" from different parts of the world. There is a "North American Room", an "African Room", etc. If H&H Hunter comes along, he could probably recount the history of it, as he has no doubt been there.

I am philosphically opposed to trophy hunting, although I have absolutely no problem with meat hunting. For whatever reason, I share the American Indian's reverance for animals, and consider their killing for sport only a despicable waste.
 
So are you "philosphically opposed" to trophy hunters who also use all of meat, hide, and whatever else they can? Or is it simply the use of the head as a trophy that you don't like? Or is it any hunters for whom sport is the primary purpose nevermind how mcuh of the animal they ultimatly use? Or is it hunters who go out, kill an animal, take the head, and leave the rest to rot that you don't like? If it's the last of those options describes you, I suspect you'd find almost everybody here in agreement with the sentiment that such wonton waste is wrong. Personally, so long as the hunter makes use of every part of the animal that he, practically speaking, can, I don't have any truck with him (or her). Regardless of what they do with the head.
 
I am a freezer hunter, just the way I was brought up. Hunting is about sustaining the family through winter.

I do not mind people that trophy hunt so long as they utilize all they can of the animal. Shooting and taking only the mount, I will go off on them every time.

The other aspect I can not get behind is hunting over a feeder :uhoh: WTH is that all about?

Shooting some critter that has been conditioned to rely on people for food or shelter is just plain wrong, in my book.
 
I'll go along with sumpnz. As long as the hunter uses as much of the animal as possible, what he does with the head or antlers matters not to me.
and consider their killing for sport only a despicable waste
Not only a waste, but, at least in Colorado, wasting game meat is a Felony, and will cost you your license, a big fine, and possible loss of your firearm and your vehicle.
 
Not only a waste, but, at least in Colorado, wasting game meat is a Felony, and will cost you your license, a big fine, and possible loss of your firearm and your vehicle

Good law. In California, game wardens have enormous power, and are armed.

Not to go OT, but the area I live in has lots of deer. Several times a year deer have been found dead with an arrow stuck in them, apparently bled out or died of infection after many days of suffering. Just last year everyone was on the lookout for a deer with an arrow sticking through its neck. Some ******* around here is using random deer for bow and arrow practice. :cuss: :fire: This is not a wilderness area, it is rural, but with small towns.
 
While selling a gall bladder from a Black Bear will get you in bigger trouble.

I have a handful of "trophies" from hunts, spent bullets, elk ivories etc. I've never shot a 'trophy" elk or deer or antelope... but sure have eaten a lot of game.

Rob
 
To me all animals wether cows, small bulls or whatever if hunted in and collected in a fair chase and an ethical maner are "Trophys".

If I ever found someone killing an animal chaoping of it's head and letting the meat rot we'd have a wee little problem on our hands. This does not include in my opinon control shooting or culling of various varmints.

Many people seem to think that is what "sport hunting" or "Trophy hunting"is. Notthing could be further from the truth..

I would like to invite Riley back to my original post about my recent African trip.

Riley please come back read some of the facts associated with African hunting and the benfits it provides for habitat, wildlife, and the indiginous population..I am not asking you to change your beliefs just educate yourself with some information about "trophy hunting."

When you speak of the revrence the american indian has for animals I am just curious have you spent any time with Native Americans or hunted with them?

I lived in rural Alaska for 5 years and I've got a bit of a different outlook on the "revrence" many native people have for their natural resources..
 
Bottom line, trophy hunting is what some guys like to do. It is no more noble, in line with conservation, more esthetically pleasing, or more 'sporting' than any other type or style of hunting.

Some folks are into it, and thats fine. I am not, and thats fine too.

I will say that its been a long time since I have read on a gun board, so much misinformation about hunting. Generalizations are usually something to stay away from, but judging hunting with zero experience, or frame of reference should be avoided too.
 
Generalizations are usually something to stay away from, but judging hunting with zero experience, or frame of reference should be avoided too

HAHAHAHAHA! That's like saying you have to be a pedophile to say that child molesting is wrong.

That's a good one.
 
smilie_barf.gif
 
H&H-

I will educate myself more about the conservation aspects of trophy hunting before I pop off again. Regarding Native Americans, I have not hunted with them and I was not referring to our contemporary Indians.
Heh. There are a bunch of Chumash Indians who live around here, some are nice guys, but most are slobs who enjoy visiting construction sites and claiming they saw some Indian remains just to stop work and get on TV. I was talking about the traditional values of tribal people 150 years ago. Sure, part of their reverence for animals came from the belief that an animal could carry the spirit of an ancestor. On a larger scale, however, they had a respect for all life that does not generally exist in our consumer oriented society, that includes contemporary Indians. Sorry about the confusion.
 
True to my stereotype, short of monkey brains, I have eaten and will eat just about anything because I'm asian.

If you are mounting the head, that's probably because your grandma doesn't make like goat head soup as well as mine..

I don't agree with "trophy hunting" if there is waste. If all the meat is consumed, and the hide etc.. is used (preferably by the locals) then I have absolutely no problems..

I have a wallet made from the tailhairs of someone's hut. Beautiful.. The locals got $$$ and meat, and I'm sure the hunter got a few memorable pictures and a new method to lose weight..

I personally believe that if you go hunting, the adreneline alone will make it a demanding sport.
 
Just to clarify, if I am lucky enough to shoot a deer this November, I intend to use pretty much everything but the gut pile. I'll let the coyotes make use of that. But even from the gut pile, I'll probably retreive the heart and liver and give that a try assuming they aren't destroyed by the bullet (never eaten either organ from any animal before - not too sure I'll be into the liver as it kinda weirds me out to eat something that is designed to de-toxify the body). Obviously the meat will be going into my freezer. The hide will most likely be tanned and used for anything from using the hair for trout flies, to buckskin jacket/gloves, to whatever else I can think of. For the head, well I'll either cut out the antlers and skull cap, or have the skull bleached (with antlers still attached of course) with the brain probably left for the coyotes. My dogs will probably get a lot of the bones (and hooves) to chew on. If I can do anything else with the bones, I open to suggestions.
 
OK. That's not trophy hunting. Trophy hunting (correct me if I'm wrong) is killing an animal just to mount its head on your wall. It is the same as poaching. Poachers will kill an elephant, for example, saw off the tusks and leave the carcass to rot. Trophy hunting=Poaching. Interchangeable. Now H&H went to Africa, at great expense no doubt, and killed several big, dangerous exotic animals. I assume the heads will be shipped back to him in Colorado, where he will mount them on his wall(s). There are apparently mitigating factors, in that the meat will be consumed by dirt poor Africans? The hides presumably have value, correct? The fees H&H paid are somehow used to promote conservation and education in that part of the world? Am I close? Educate me.
 
Are you close: Ish. But only in the sense of not being quite so far out in left field and admitting or at least implying that my intentions for what to do with the deer I harvest are not objectionable.

Trophy hunting does NOT equal poaching, at least to most of us here. To most of us, trophy hunting means going after the animial that is the most impressive or distinctive example that can be found, killing it, and the, in addition to mounting its head on a wall, using nearly all of the rest of the animal for food, leather, whatever they can think of. If I EVER come across a person who cuts the head off the deer/elk/whatever and just leaves the rest (or if they just take the backstrap and nothing else) I will perform a citizen's arrest and call for law enforcement. It is not only immoral, it is unethical, and illegal to do such a thing. It harms all hunters and demeans the animals to do such a thing.

Implying that H&Hhunter's activities in his recent trip to Africa were somehow analagous to poaching, and simply "mitigated" by him giving the meat to "dirt poor Africans" is insulting to him, to the Africans who benifited from his hunting, and to all of us who are hunters or (as in my case) aspiring hunters.
 
Am I close? Educate me.
I think what we are saying is that the "trophy hunting" you are railing against pretty much doesn't exist.

I can remember but a handful of cases here in Colorado where "guides" were poaching animals for the purpose of just keeping the heads. When they are caught (and they usually are), they pay thousands in fines, do jail time, and never hunt in this state again.

These criminals don't warrant the name 'hunter', and nobody I've ever met in a hunting camp would have any use for them.
 
Trophy hunting,

My definition.

Day 1-3 of a 7 day hunt Looking for Mr. Macho manly bull elk.
Day 4-5 Looking for a little less Macho Manly bull elk
Day 6 Settling for a legal bull
Day 7 praying to see a legal bull

In any case any elk or any other species I'm hunting is used consumed and processed wether it's a 412 bull or a spike. That is trophy hunting. And the added bonus is that if it is 412 bull I'll process the cape and antlers and probably have it mounted this process does not ruin the meat....

Rileys problem is that he's been led to believe that trophy hunting means that you shoot something and leave the meat in the field so that you can take the head??

Trophy hunting=Poaching. Interchangeable. Now H&H went to Africa, at great expense no doubt, and killed several big, dangerous exotic animals. I assume the heads will be shipped back to him in Colorado, where he will mount them on his wall(s). There are apparently mitigating factors, in that the meat will be consumed by dirt poor Africans? The hides presumably have value, correct? The fees H&H paid are somehow used to promote conservation and education in that part of the world? Am I close? Educate me.

Trophy hunting pays the bill to stop poaching..Period. Trophy hunting assigns value to animals that would otherwise be poached off because they are a pest. You may think the elephant is the most noble animal in the world the "dirt poor African" considers him a pain in the ass because he eats his crops and has been known to kill his family members. having elepahnts around becomes much more agreeable when the "dirt poor African" can make some money because elephants are around and it's also comforting to know that if Mr elephant gets a little to cheeky he will be taken care of and the "dirt poor African" still makes money off the deal.

After Mr. cheeky elephant is killed at great expense by H&H the meat goes to feed the "dirt poor Africans" the hides are given to the comunal land trust association and sold along with the bones feet etc. The fees that H&H put out also go to the tribal trust and are then used to build schools, hospitals and land improvment projects. That was the contractual agreement that the safari company entered into when securing the rights to hunt on this land also known as the CAMPFIRE program.

The safari company who H&H hunted with joins into a land use agreement with the tribal trust. They pay the communal trust a fee every year which allows them to hunt on the land. In exchange an agreement is reached in which the land is to remain wildlife friendly and also pays for the anti poaching units.

Now pay attention Riley here's the really important part..

If people like H&H don't go to Africa and pay to hunt these animals. Then no one pays the tribal land trusts. The native "dirt poor Africans" have no choice but to start killing off the animals and eating them and selling their ivory on the black market at highly reduced rates from what they would recieve from a big bad "trophy hunter". because they can't go to wild oats market and buy their food. That option is not available to them. Now the animals that the big bad "trophy hunters" payed to hunt have no monatary value to the locals therefore are no longer protected. And the local "dirt poor Africans" no longer are gainfully employed by the Safari company and now they don't have ANY money. You see the Safari industry is the #1 source of income to many rural African natives. Many of the natives in the comunal trust land areas are employed by the safrai firm in fashion or another. It is literally the only source of income available to these people. A tracker at a major Safari firm makes about 500% percapita income of the other "dirt poor Africans" outside of hunting areas. Many of the trackers I know have cars, houses and send their children to private schools not to mention enough money left over to buy cattle and land. And that my friend is a major step up from the average Joe in the bush

The next thing that happens and has happened time and again in Africa is the trees get cleared away for low yield farming in which plots of land are farmed for a year or two untill the soil is depleted then the people move on to the next plot. The animals that aren't killed off from snaring and ivory poaching move out of the area into continually shrinking habitat. Soon there is no Habitat left for them accept small land masses called parks which are operated at great expense to the already financially strapped countries in which they exist. These vast tracks of land that were once habitat healthy and game rich hunting concessions become desolate waste lands void of game. The parks become overpopulated with elephants who have the nasty habit of striping an eco system bare in short order when that system is beyond it's carrying capacity.

The park is forced to quietly begin culling elephants at incredible expense to the country (they do it quietly because they can't afford the bad publicity they'd get from the anti hunter types who are partially responsible for this in the first place) . That means shooting whole family groups at one time usually from a helicopter cows, bulls calfs, young and old. Thousands in a year sometimes otherwise the carrying capacity of the park will fail entirely and a mass starvation will occur. What used to be a highly profitable bussiness now becomes a major financial drain.

All of the SNAGG's (Sensitive new age guys & gals) in Berkley can now sit around at their shockra crystal therapy meeting and congratualt each other on making the world a better place by stopping us big bad ego driven trophy hunters from hunting those poor exotic beatifull animals in Africa and everywhere else too!

When in reality the end reult is A massive population and habitat decline. And a major revnue and income source for the "dirt poor African's" has now been removed.

But hey somehow the the fuzzy legged tatooed city dwellers feel that this is a better option for the animals and people of Africa.

Go figure.......

Gee maybe even the same people who feel better off when you're disarmed. Because it's sure as hell the same type of fuzzy logic that premitts the anti gunners to draw the conclusions that they do.

And just by the way what is exotic to you as a city dwelling American National Geographic subscriber is as common as dirt in the bush of Africa. Don't think that because it doesn't live in your back yard that it's rare.. A common misconception among strangers to Africa.

Sincerly

H&H Damn Proud to be a HUNTER!!!

When you take the emotion out of it it's really a prety simple picture. No hunting funds no animals outside of parks in Africa period. I don't expect you to go get a double rifle and start chasing buffalo but I would appreciate it if you'd at least try and learn some facts before making these sweeping unture statements.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top