twoblink
Member
I was going to add the disclaimer that varmints don't count... rabbits, gophers (see my 416Rigby thread!!) should be shot... The destroy the environment and vegetation..
What Trophy Hunting is.....
- Thread starter Harve Curry
- Start date
- Status
and
NOW I GET IT!
I was wrong, and I apologize. What you say makes perfect sense and I can see how it benefits everyone. I was stupidly only looking at one small part of the equation. Thank you for taking the time to explain the whole story.
NRA4LIFE
Member
H&H, thanks, that made my day. Been there done that, too many times to even remember now.
"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"
Mind if I add one, based on my "trophy" pronghorn hunt last year?
Day 8 Summoning the gods of hunting to see a doe or a fawn in the driving snow and horrible cold to use your either sex tag on to bring home some of Mrs. NRA4LIFE's favorite game meat to be able to say that I hadn't just spent the last week and a half sitting around drinking beer the whole time.
"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"
Mind if I add one, based on my "trophy" pronghorn hunt last year?
Day 8 Summoning the gods of hunting to see a doe or a fawn in the driving snow and horrible cold to use your either sex tag on to bring home some of Mrs. NRA4LIFE's favorite game meat to be able to say that I hadn't just spent the last week and a half sitting around drinking beer the whole time.
Last edited:
sumpnz
Member
Riley, glad to see you've come around. If only it were that easy to convice everyone of the benifits of "trophy" hunting.
H&H - If I ever have the money for an African hunt, I'll be calling you.
H&H - If I ever have the money for an African hunt, I'll be calling you.
No harm, H&H.
"Trophy hunting" is not what I thought it was. Rather than re-state my misconceptions, howzabout a summary so I can get it straight:
Safari hunting assigns a (fairly high, by local standards) monetary value to animals that would otherwise be pests. By pests, I mean a detriment to the local population in terms not only of a constant danger, but also contributing nothing to the local standard of living. The only possible value they may have, in the case of elephants for example, is the ivory. This of course encourages poaching by the locals.
Now when an area has something the rest of the world wants, an industry is created, bringing in outside $$ and increasing the standard of living for the locals. This in turn encourages the proliferation of the commodity, in this case big game. Please note that FWIW I've never had any objection to meat and/or sustinence hunting. Since I eat beef, pork, and chicken, that would be a hypocrital stance.
The various safari companies enter into agreements with now organized communal groups in the local areas for the purpose of trading this commodity. So, instead of a bunch of tribal people having virtually no source of income, and being overrun by dangerous animals who themselves are being squeezed into smaller and smaller habitats, we have a viable, structured (to some degree, anyway) economic system. Everyone benefits in the long run, even the big game.
I am still absorbing this and thank you for putting me on the right track.
"Trophy hunting" is not what I thought it was. Rather than re-state my misconceptions, howzabout a summary so I can get it straight:
Safari hunting assigns a (fairly high, by local standards) monetary value to animals that would otherwise be pests. By pests, I mean a detriment to the local population in terms not only of a constant danger, but also contributing nothing to the local standard of living. The only possible value they may have, in the case of elephants for example, is the ivory. This of course encourages poaching by the locals.
Now when an area has something the rest of the world wants, an industry is created, bringing in outside $$ and increasing the standard of living for the locals. This in turn encourages the proliferation of the commodity, in this case big game. Please note that FWIW I've never had any objection to meat and/or sustinence hunting. Since I eat beef, pork, and chicken, that would be a hypocrital stance.
The various safari companies enter into agreements with now organized communal groups in the local areas for the purpose of trading this commodity. So, instead of a bunch of tribal people having virtually no source of income, and being overrun by dangerous animals who themselves are being squeezed into smaller and smaller habitats, we have a viable, structured (to some degree, anyway) economic system. Everyone benefits in the long run, even the big game.
I am still absorbing this and thank you for putting me on the right track.
twoblink
Member
Day 9, exchange recipes with the natives on how to make elephant soup? Or that is just me? 
Diggler
Member
Now that the big picture of trophy hunting is understood, apply that to newspaper recycling.
When the demand for trees goes down because of massive recycling efforts, the price goes down for timber as well as the financial incentive to keep the trees around.
Then it becomes more profitable for the landowner to sell off the land to build a strip mall rather than to selective-harvest tens of thousands of dollars worth of timber every ten years or so.
As our beloved morning radio talk show host Jim Quinn says, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
When the demand for trees goes down because of massive recycling efforts, the price goes down for timber as well as the financial incentive to keep the trees around.
Then it becomes more profitable for the landowner to sell off the land to build a strip mall rather than to selective-harvest tens of thousands of dollars worth of timber every ten years or so.
As our beloved morning radio talk show host Jim Quinn says, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
Riley in a nut shell yes...
While I was in Zimbabwe last week a local man was killed by a buffalo. This buffalo had been wounded by poachers the day before. The poor fellow involved was simply walking home and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The buffalo charged him at short range and instantly killed him. the local villagers called the Safari operator and a hunter who was paying for the privlidge dispatched this buffalo.
Elephants are a huge pain in the rear when it comes to farming. They love to eat fresh green stuff grown in the local farm plots. As you can imagine a herd of elephants can put a serious hurting on a maze field in short order. Not to mention they can become extremely aggresive and deadly when confronted in this situation. More than a few people are killed every year trying to chase elephants from their fields.When this starts to get out of hand an elephant or two is harvested from the area. A foreign hunter pays for the privlidge of hunting the elephant. the elephants are smart and will leave that farming plot in short order after a meber of their herd has been hunted. The money from the license fees and all of the products from the elephant go back to the community.
Trophy hunting is also used to keep populations of various animals in check at a profit verses an expense to the local economies.
While I was in Zimbabwe last week a local man was killed by a buffalo. This buffalo had been wounded by poachers the day before. The poor fellow involved was simply walking home and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The buffalo charged him at short range and instantly killed him. the local villagers called the Safari operator and a hunter who was paying for the privlidge dispatched this buffalo.
Elephants are a huge pain in the rear when it comes to farming. They love to eat fresh green stuff grown in the local farm plots. As you can imagine a herd of elephants can put a serious hurting on a maze field in short order. Not to mention they can become extremely aggresive and deadly when confronted in this situation. More than a few people are killed every year trying to chase elephants from their fields.When this starts to get out of hand an elephant or two is harvested from the area. A foreign hunter pays for the privlidge of hunting the elephant. the elephants are smart and will leave that farming plot in short order after a meber of their herd has been hunted. The money from the license fees and all of the products from the elephant go back to the community.
Trophy hunting is also used to keep populations of various animals in check at a profit verses an expense to the local economies.
Here's how an aspect of "Trophy" hunting works in Colorado. Although there is good hunting on the (vast) public lands in Colorado; hunting pressure, better feed opportunites and weather migrations tend to make private land hunts a better chance to harvest any animal - trophy or meat. Many hunters pay a guiding or trespass fee for a fair chase hunt on private land. A lot of these ranchers or farmers are barely hanging on to their property by the skin of their teeth. The money they can get from charging for hunting on the lands they own keeps them from having to sell their property. So it keeps a ranch/farm family on their land, and keeps the property from being developed into 35 acre ranchettes.
Here is what happened to a Poacher/Head Hunter in Colorado recently...
http://wildlife.state.co.us/news/press.asp?pressid=2835
4 months in jail, $27,500 fine, loss of 5 firearms, possible lifetime hunting suspension in CO and 18 other states - not a light sentence.
And Riley - please don't take this as a flame- but the Native Americans were just trying to survive. They would do just about anything to get an animal on the ground. I'm mostly familar with the Plains and Mountain tribes out west here, and some of the things they did to survive were not too ecologically friendly. Do a web search on "Buffalo Jumps" and see what you find.
JohnDog
Here is what happened to a Poacher/Head Hunter in Colorado recently...
http://wildlife.state.co.us/news/press.asp?pressid=2835
4 months in jail, $27,500 fine, loss of 5 firearms, possible lifetime hunting suspension in CO and 18 other states - not a light sentence.
And Riley - please don't take this as a flame- but the Native Americans were just trying to survive. They would do just about anything to get an animal on the ground. I'm mostly familar with the Plains and Mountain tribes out west here, and some of the things they did to survive were not too ecologically friendly. Do a web search on "Buffalo Jumps" and see what you find.
JohnDog
JohnDog-Thanks for the link. That seems to demonstrate that the law views (my former interpretation of) "trophy hunting" with the same contempt I do. However, I now understand better that safaris to Africa are within a legal framework that is beneficial to all.
cooch
Member
an alternative viewpoint
This is going to annoy some, but if all your hunting is about is meat.....then come over to my place and shoot a sheep.
That got your hackles up?
Trophy hunting has always been about being selective. Not taking the first animal to cross your sights because that is the easier way.
In effect, the way some people describe "pot" hunting on this thread , it becomes little more than farming-without-fences.
If the difference is in the effort put in and the depth of the experience, then trophy hunting in essence is merely about putting in MORE effort and giving yourself MORE of the experience because you've set your goal on achieving a more difficult objective.
I know that most of you are a product of your background.
You're inhabitants of areas with a typically cool climate and hunters of indigenous game that are good to eat.
Now take yourself to some of the areas I've hunted. (Inland Australia)
The animals involved are pests and damage the environment. "Ethics" would suggest the removal of as many as you can shoot.
When you're on foot in extremely difficult country, exactly how are you going to remove the edible meat?
Factor in that the ambient temp is 110 Fahrenheit, and that meat begins to spoil before you're half-way back to the vehicle.
Now tell me why the objective of my hunt shouldn't be the best set of horns or tusks that I can find? And why I shouldn't hang them on the wall while I've left the rest to rot.?
We're talking about game animals, not Sacred Cows.
If the best outcome for the environment, the animal population and the people involved (individual hunter, hunters generally.... and non-hunters) does not involve meat recovery - then making meat recovery the pivot upon which to hang your definition of "ethics" is just so much bullsh...
NOTE.........
I am not telling anyone what does and should pertain to their area. Merely asserting that ethics ain't determined by subjective emotions that are a product of your limited experience and environment.
Savvy?................ Cooch
This is going to annoy some, but if all your hunting is about is meat.....then come over to my place and shoot a sheep.
That got your hackles up?
Trophy hunting has always been about being selective. Not taking the first animal to cross your sights because that is the easier way.
In effect, the way some people describe "pot" hunting on this thread , it becomes little more than farming-without-fences.
If the difference is in the effort put in and the depth of the experience, then trophy hunting in essence is merely about putting in MORE effort and giving yourself MORE of the experience because you've set your goal on achieving a more difficult objective.
I know that most of you are a product of your background.
You're inhabitants of areas with a typically cool climate and hunters of indigenous game that are good to eat.
Now take yourself to some of the areas I've hunted. (Inland Australia)
The animals involved are pests and damage the environment. "Ethics" would suggest the removal of as many as you can shoot.
When you're on foot in extremely difficult country, exactly how are you going to remove the edible meat?
Factor in that the ambient temp is 110 Fahrenheit, and that meat begins to spoil before you're half-way back to the vehicle.
Now tell me why the objective of my hunt shouldn't be the best set of horns or tusks that I can find? And why I shouldn't hang them on the wall while I've left the rest to rot.?
We're talking about game animals, not Sacred Cows.
If the best outcome for the environment, the animal population and the people involved (individual hunter, hunters generally.... and non-hunters) does not involve meat recovery - then making meat recovery the pivot upon which to hang your definition of "ethics" is just so much bullsh...
NOTE.........
I am not telling anyone what does and should pertain to their area. Merely asserting that ethics ain't determined by subjective emotions that are a product of your limited experience and environment.
Savvy?................ Cooch
Diggler
Member
I strictly trophy hunt for deer because my wife doesn't like venison. She will, however, eat deer jerky or hotsticks.
Most years I don't get a buck. The years that I do, well, let's just say that a 150 - 200 lb buck makes a LOT of jerky. Before we got together, I shot at least 2 deer a year and ate all of it.
Trophy hunting is just a way for me to keep my freezer from getting overfilled. The downside is that every time I kill something, it costs me several hundred dollars (I don't shoot anything that won't go on the wall).
Most years I don't get a buck. The years that I do, well, let's just say that a 150 - 200 lb buck makes a LOT of jerky. Before we got together, I shot at least 2 deer a year and ate all of it.
Trophy hunting is just a way for me to keep my freezer from getting overfilled. The downside is that every time I kill something, it costs me several hundred dollars (I don't shoot anything that won't go on the wall).
sumpnz
Member
Cooch, with all due respect, for the most part we're talking about deer and elk hunters in the USA, as well as people like H&H who go to Africa and do as is described in his recent thread. So telling us that we're wrong to condem people who, here in the States, kill just to get the head and leave the rest to rot is pretty much IMHO violating your "NOTE" at the bottom of your post.
That said in Arizona we have quite a large coyote population. They're basically a pest species here. Many people hunt coyotes and when they kill them, they typically leave the carcass to the scavangers. There's really not much edible on them in the first place, and their pelts aren't worth anything. In that case I have no problem with them simply leaving the coyote where it fell.
In your case, where you are trying to do the right thing to protect the habitat and prevent mass starvation of the herds, taking the head of the best example of those killed and leaving the meat to rot may well be the appropriate thing to do. However, if it were me, and the option were there, I would probably try to restrict my hunting to the times of year that facilitate meat retreival without spoilage.
That said in Arizona we have quite a large coyote population. They're basically a pest species here. Many people hunt coyotes and when they kill them, they typically leave the carcass to the scavangers. There's really not much edible on them in the first place, and their pelts aren't worth anything. In that case I have no problem with them simply leaving the coyote where it fell.
In your case, where you are trying to do the right thing to protect the habitat and prevent mass starvation of the herds, taking the head of the best example of those killed and leaving the meat to rot may well be the appropriate thing to do. However, if it were me, and the option were there, I would probably try to restrict my hunting to the times of year that facilitate meat retreival without spoilage.
cooch
Member
I'll add to my last post.
Let's not draw artificial distinctions between culling , pot-hunting and trophy hunting .
In many cases when african elephant hunting the "Sport Hunter" takes as a "Trophy" the animal which the local inhabitants and owners of the animal want "culled".
In western countries like ours, meat is not THE justification for hunting. I dare to suggest that very few of those talking about "ethics" are so poor that the could not attain food from other sources. The primary justification for hunting - apart from our genetic make-up - is that all animal populations require management if they are to remain healthy in today's environment.
That includes deer ...... and if hunting were not a popular recreation it wouldn't be many years before deer were being culled (and probably left to rot) over wide areas of the US.
As Aldo Leopold said.... "A mountain fears its deer."
I DO recover meat when I can reasonably do so.
But I'm not going to attack those who don't.
Hunting cannot afford to have hunters attacking each other on spurious grounds.
Thoughtfully............... Peter
Let's not draw artificial distinctions between culling , pot-hunting and trophy hunting .
In many cases when african elephant hunting the "Sport Hunter" takes as a "Trophy" the animal which the local inhabitants and owners of the animal want "culled".
In western countries like ours, meat is not THE justification for hunting. I dare to suggest that very few of those talking about "ethics" are so poor that the could not attain food from other sources. The primary justification for hunting - apart from our genetic make-up - is that all animal populations require management if they are to remain healthy in today's environment.
That includes deer ...... and if hunting were not a popular recreation it wouldn't be many years before deer were being culled (and probably left to rot) over wide areas of the US.
As Aldo Leopold said.... "A mountain fears its deer."
I DO recover meat when I can reasonably do so.
But I'm not going to attack those who don't.
Hunting cannot afford to have hunters attacking each other on spurious grounds.
Thoughtfully............... Peter
jimbo
Member
Well, that is all there is to say about that! I think I speak for Mr. Riley and the rest of us in saying we have graduated from H&H U, College of Ecosystems Management.
keano44
Member
This has been a very interesting and informative thread. (Thanks H&H) But, cooch makes a good point. I'd hate know, or for my wife to ever figure out, just how much we are paying, per pound, for the meat from wild game we eat each year. I could easily fill my freezer with the best of store-bought meat if I gave up hunting. That just will not happen.
I hunt because I love to hunt. I don't waste the animals that I kill, make every possible effort to recover an animal I've shot. I do keep trophy's from the best animals I have taken. But, some of the deer which I have taken, which would not be considered trophy's to anyone else, mean more to me than some I have mounted, because of the circumstances under which they were taken.
When I was younger, and starting out, hunting on public lands mostly, I really could call myself a meat hunter. This was because I would shoot the first legal deer that came along, for the following reasons: 1) I wanted sooo bad to be a successful hunter and kill something. 2) If I didn't shoot it, and let it pass, the next hunter over would shoot it, often before it was hardly out of my sight. The competition is tough on public land.
Now, I pay to be in a "quality trophy management" lease. We are trying to let the younger bucks get some age and size on them before taking them. And, we are limited to two does per year so as not to deplete the herd to a level where the overall number of deer on the property steadily declines. I have taken enough deer in my life now, that I don't feel the need to shoot the first one I see. It dosen't bother me to let one pass. In fact, this has helped me enjoy my hunts more. I felt a lot of pressure to be successful when I was younger, that I don't feel anymore. This is not to say that I don't feel the exitement of hunting anymore.
Because we limit ourselves to eight-point-or-better, does this make me a trophy hunter? I am still going to use the meat just as I always have. I'm not going to let the carcass rot and take the horns and cape only. Maybe now I could be labeled a "selective meat hunter".
I hunt because hunting is "in" me. This seems very difficult for non-hunters to understand. If you have "it" in you, you will understand this; if you don't, you won't. I'll have to leave it to people, who are better at putting thoughts into words than I am, to explain it.
I hunt because I love to hunt. I don't waste the animals that I kill, make every possible effort to recover an animal I've shot. I do keep trophy's from the best animals I have taken. But, some of the deer which I have taken, which would not be considered trophy's to anyone else, mean more to me than some I have mounted, because of the circumstances under which they were taken.
When I was younger, and starting out, hunting on public lands mostly, I really could call myself a meat hunter. This was because I would shoot the first legal deer that came along, for the following reasons: 1) I wanted sooo bad to be a successful hunter and kill something. 2) If I didn't shoot it, and let it pass, the next hunter over would shoot it, often before it was hardly out of my sight. The competition is tough on public land.
Now, I pay to be in a "quality trophy management" lease. We are trying to let the younger bucks get some age and size on them before taking them. And, we are limited to two does per year so as not to deplete the herd to a level where the overall number of deer on the property steadily declines. I have taken enough deer in my life now, that I don't feel the need to shoot the first one I see. It dosen't bother me to let one pass. In fact, this has helped me enjoy my hunts more. I felt a lot of pressure to be successful when I was younger, that I don't feel anymore. This is not to say that I don't feel the exitement of hunting anymore.
Because we limit ourselves to eight-point-or-better, does this make me a trophy hunter? I am still going to use the meat just as I always have. I'm not going to let the carcass rot and take the horns and cape only. Maybe now I could be labeled a "selective meat hunter".
I hunt because hunting is "in" me. This seems very difficult for non-hunters to understand. If you have "it" in you, you will understand this; if you don't, you won't. I'll have to leave it to people, who are better at putting thoughts into words than I am, to explain it.
twoblink
Member
I hunt because I'm hungry 3 times a day..
Can I get an Amen in here??
Can I get an Amen in here??
auschip
Member
Is it because you pay lease fees, or because you have someone butcher & pack the meat?
We have land in the family, so I don't need to pay lease fees (thankfully), and we butcher our own meat. I bought a lifetime hunting license so don't need to pay for that every year, and the rifle I use was a birthday gift from my wife.
I won't shoot a buck unless he is a cull or a trophy, and I kill at least 2 does a year.
Best as I can figure, my gas is the most expensive cost for my venison and I can fill a freezer for about $60 in gas. Not bad overall.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Oh, please...do some research and don't get your information from the TV commercial with the tearful Indian.
Fact: The prime method of native Americans hunting buffalo before the horse was acquired was to a)find a herd in the right position upwind from a dropoff big enough to at least break legs on many if not all of the buffalo, b) start a prairie fire upwind of the herd which then stampeded off the dropoff resulting in many injured animals who endured hours of pain before the sensitive natives got around to shooting flint tipped arrows into them until they died. The band would then gorge while smoking as many of the dead as possible. The buffalo they were not able to cure before they spoiled were left for the coyotes and wolves. Oh, by the way, all the animal species unable to run fast enough in the path of the prairie fire burned to death and were totally wasted by the environmentally sensitive Indians.
Check how many hundreds of thousands of pine trees were cut down in the Southwest by the Anasazi according to the archaeological studies...and what it did to their environment. Most of that land was arid then but it was not the desert it is now.
The mass extinction of North American species 10,000 years ago. Research what is one of the prime hypotheses for the cause. Give you one guess. That's right...the natives. Partial extinct species list: the horse(which evolved in North America), the camel(also a native), the mammoth, the mastodon, not to mention their predator species including the saber-toothed tiger, the lion, the cave bear, the cheetah(many modern scientists believe it also evolved in North America.)
And that's just a few of the species that many scientists believe were driven into extinction by those ecological and oh, so sensitive icons.
The Lakota(Dakota, Sioux) were living in Michigan when they first came into contact with Europeans. Before possession of the horse was achieved, their method of deer hunting involved weaving saplings between forest trees to make a tall fence. There would be two fences making a very large V. Sometimes it extended for miles according to reports. The band would have a hunt by forming a line across the mouth of the V and drive all the game toward the narrow bottom where the game that was too large to escape through the fence gaps would be killed. Environmentally sensitive as well as showing a reverence for all life, wouldn't you say?
There are two mounts on my wall. A large feral boar, and a 10 point whitetail buck. The meat from both that has not already been consumed is in my freezer.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
De nada, amigo.
It really pushes my button when someone focuses on just one small aspect of a complex subject and tries to form conclusions about the complex subject from the small aspect.
A trophy hunter that just takes the head and leaves the meat. I seriously doubt that there is any legal trophy hunter that wastes the meat. As has been stated, many states have laws against wasting the meat of game animals. And the game wardens of those states are downright dead serious when it comes to enforcing those laws.
Not to say there aren't people who just take the antlers of large bucks, and maybe the backstraps and leave the rest to rot. They usually do this at night and illegally. However, no knowledgeable person calls them trophy hunters. The correct legal term for such people is poachers. Once they're willing to do this, they usually hunt out of season, at night, and with illegal methods. Hardly my definition of trophy hunter.
Do you know any trophy hunters? I know a few. The one I know well, has seen over two hundred deer in the last three years. He has not shot one because he knows what size he is after...one that will rate the Boone & Crockett record book. He spends a sizeable amount each year to lease a couple of thousand acres of land. He feeds the deer and manages the herd. He allows some friends who are hunting for meat to kill a certain number of does and certain bucks.
Oh, and that deal about killing off the best specimens, thus harming the species. It's a logical question to ask. However, it does not fit the facts in many species. Take whitetail deer for example. You would think that the trophy buck in an area would be the dominant buck. But that's often not the case. Wildlife biologists have videos of 10 and 12 point 200 + lbs. bucks getting the snot stomped out of them by the dominant buck of the area who happens to be a 180 lb. 8 point. That means that the 180 lb 8 point breeds the does in his area. At most, the bigger bucks in his area, get to breed what he can't handle...if he doesn't kill them first.
What seem to be the best or trophy animals of a particular species to a human being are often NOT the animals who win in the breeding game of that species. It seems that biggest and heaviest is not necessarily the prime indicators of fitness to survive and breed.
It really pushes my button when someone focuses on just one small aspect of a complex subject and tries to form conclusions about the complex subject from the small aspect.
A trophy hunter that just takes the head and leaves the meat. I seriously doubt that there is any legal trophy hunter that wastes the meat. As has been stated, many states have laws against wasting the meat of game animals. And the game wardens of those states are downright dead serious when it comes to enforcing those laws.
Not to say there aren't people who just take the antlers of large bucks, and maybe the backstraps and leave the rest to rot. They usually do this at night and illegally. However, no knowledgeable person calls them trophy hunters. The correct legal term for such people is poachers. Once they're willing to do this, they usually hunt out of season, at night, and with illegal methods. Hardly my definition of trophy hunter.
Do you know any trophy hunters? I know a few. The one I know well, has seen over two hundred deer in the last three years. He has not shot one because he knows what size he is after...one that will rate the Boone & Crockett record book. He spends a sizeable amount each year to lease a couple of thousand acres of land. He feeds the deer and manages the herd. He allows some friends who are hunting for meat to kill a certain number of does and certain bucks.
Oh, and that deal about killing off the best specimens, thus harming the species. It's a logical question to ask. However, it does not fit the facts in many species. Take whitetail deer for example. You would think that the trophy buck in an area would be the dominant buck. But that's often not the case. Wildlife biologists have videos of 10 and 12 point 200 + lbs. bucks getting the snot stomped out of them by the dominant buck of the area who happens to be a 180 lb. 8 point. That means that the 180 lb 8 point breeds the does in his area. At most, the bigger bucks in his area, get to breed what he can't handle...if he doesn't kill them first.
What seem to be the best or trophy animals of a particular species to a human being are often NOT the animals who win in the breeding game of that species. It seems that biggest and heaviest is not necessarily the prime indicators of fitness to survive and breed.
keano44
Member
auschip,
My comment about cost per pound for wild game meat was implied somewhat tongue-in-cheek. In fact, I used to have a video clip of Jeff Foxworthy "proving" to his wife, by adding up on a chalkboard, just how much he loved her and the kids, because "nothing but the best for my family". Maybe someone knows of it and can reference it here.
But, if I add up the cost of my lease, lifetime license, four-wheeler, climbing stands, lock-on stands, ladders, box blinds, feeders, food plots (seed, fertilizer, fuel), camper, utilities for camping spot year-round; batteries for flashlights, camera's, feeders, two-way radio's (to keep in touch with my 15 yr. old son on his stand); reloading supplies, chronograph, scale, brass-tumbler, spotting scope (because I owe it to the game I hunt to be proficient with my weapon of choice); rifles, pistols, shotguns, archery gear, scopes, ammunition, gasoline, boots, etc. which are "necessary" to persue my passion; I could easily feed my family more meat than I bring home by hunting.
Point is, for me anyway, although I make use of all the game I take, and my family enjoys eating it (we're Cajun after all), that is not the reason I hunt. I would hunt even if my wife refused to let any wild game meat in the house. I'd just have to find someone, who appreciated it, to give it to.
My comment about cost per pound for wild game meat was implied somewhat tongue-in-cheek. In fact, I used to have a video clip of Jeff Foxworthy "proving" to his wife, by adding up on a chalkboard, just how much he loved her and the kids, because "nothing but the best for my family". Maybe someone knows of it and can reference it here.
But, if I add up the cost of my lease, lifetime license, four-wheeler, climbing stands, lock-on stands, ladders, box blinds, feeders, food plots (seed, fertilizer, fuel), camper, utilities for camping spot year-round; batteries for flashlights, camera's, feeders, two-way radio's (to keep in touch with my 15 yr. old son on his stand); reloading supplies, chronograph, scale, brass-tumbler, spotting scope (because I owe it to the game I hunt to be proficient with my weapon of choice); rifles, pistols, shotguns, archery gear, scopes, ammunition, gasoline, boots, etc. which are "necessary" to persue my passion; I could easily feed my family more meat than I bring home by hunting.
Point is, for me anyway, although I make use of all the game I take, and my family enjoys eating it (we're Cajun after all), that is not the reason I hunt. I would hunt even if my wife refused to let any wild game meat in the house. I'd just have to find someone, who appreciated it, to give it to.
auschip
Member
Gotcha, I do understand now. Just don't ask me to justify the cost per pound of the ducks I shoot. Teal make it even harder!
Mornard
Member
One final thing to offer...
Trophy hunting is what makes my wife say "Do you actually GO hunting? You never bring anything home"
(of course my excuse for not even seeing anything is that "I'm waiting for a big one to come by")
Trophy hunting is what makes my wife say "Do you actually GO hunting? You never bring anything home"
(of course my excuse for not even seeing anything is that "I'm waiting for a big one to come by")
- Status
