“Trophy Hunting”

[Riles1050]

First off..I do not look down on either “meat” or “trophy” hunters. I would say I am somewhere in between. I didn’t grow up in a hunting family and don’t have many friends that hunt. The more active I get on forums and involved in the hunting community I am realizing how hot the debate is around “Trophy Hunting”. A “trophy” generally is a more mature animal that often times prevents younger animals from breading, *sometimes* is past it’s own breading prime, a larger animal with more meat, and/or if not harvested will likely die sooner of natural causes. It seems to me a “trophy” hunter is actually better for whatever species being hunted. My question is: why does it have such a negative connotation? Is there something I am missing?

 

[amassi]

In my life, "trophy" came to have a negative connotation I think in part to high fences, exorbirant fees, African safaris( or texas safari for that matter) and the rise of the Hollywood hunting Industry.

What you described isn't trophy hunting, you should strive to harvest a mature representation of the species as bd be the best ambassador for the outdoors

Likewise, the hunt itself can build trophy status. My first real back country buck is a wide crabby 3x3 but I turned him up solo in a tough unit so he scores more trophy points for me than a 180 eastern Colorado ranch pet.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[gbflyer]

It’s easy. Way too many Disney movies that humanize all aspects of nature.

 

[trslabaugh]

I would say, mostly, because the general public views it as just hunting for headgear. Don't get me wrong, but a lot of it is... It all depends everyone's interpretation of "trophy". People who aren't around the industry have a hard time understanding it, while there are quite a few TV shows and such out there that make it seem that way.

Any animal I take is a trophy to me, some may mean more than others but they are all trophies. I could sit down and talk about my coyotes taken as much as I could about deer taken. The harder I work to take an animal, the more accomplished it makes me feel. I am not out to compete with anyone else, I only want to challenge myself to kill a mature animal that can easily evade me.

 

[NebraskaStickHunter]

In my opinion, trophy hunting is viewed as negative because these celebrity hunters on tv degrade the animals to a score and people view that as not truly honoring the animals. A trophy is in the eye of the beholder. If someone shots a 4 point buck and is proud as heck then good for them because they accomplished something that they set out to do. Am I going to have the same enthusiasm if i shot a 4 point buck? No but I am at a different point in my hunting than they are. I shoot a doe with my bow and still get excited so to me that is the thrill and the experience not driving that 187” buck around town and show everyone down at the bar. Now not every trophy hunter or celebrity hunter is like that I am generalizing on where the negativity comes from. And all the anti’s out there thinking we shoot Bambi and yogi and Cecil.

 

[Gatorgrizz27]

First off..I do not look down on either “meat” or “trophy” hunters. I would say I am somewhere in between. I didn’t grow up in a hunting family and don’t have many friends that hunt. The more active I get on forums and involved in the hunting community I am realizing how hot the debate is around “Trophy Hunting”. A “trophy” generally is a more mature animal that often times prevents younger animals from breading, *sometimes* is past it’s own breading prime, a larger animal with more meat, and/or if not harvested will likely die sooner of natural causes. It seems to me a “trophy” hunter is actually better for whatever species being hunted. My question is: why does it have such a negative connotation? Is there something I am missing?

I’m right there with you. I’d prefer to shoot a mature 8 or 10 point, but I’d rather shoot a doe for meat than a 4 point. I think the negative connotation comes from those that only hunt inches of horn, and leave meat in the field to waste. If you don’t believe that eating any meat at all is a mortal sin (as some nutjobs do), I don’t see how you can be against hunting. I’m providing the highest quality, organic, free range, non-gmo protein, that had a 100% ethical life and death.

 

[HookUp]

Placing value on the size and stature of the animals over just obtaining meat. Trophy hunting is healthy for herds and it largely misunderstood.
Shooting grizzly bears and not eating the meat pushes into a grey area of hunting for me. I am not convinced it is justified.

 

[DougP]

I had a great conversation with a non hunter about this very topic about a month ago. I’ll set the stage. This guy grew up uber-wealthy in Manhattan, and has lived in L.A. the past 10 years. He is in the fashion industry. The old grouchy guys on the site would call him an idiot liberal, but in reality he’s a great dude.

Our wives are close friends and we see each other a few times a year. He knows I’m a hunter and gun owner and shows genuine interest and open mindedness about the topic. Our last conversation started like this: “I really respect that you go out and harvest, butcher and cook your own meat, but what I don’t support is “trophy hunting.” His main examples were Don Jr. and the guys that shoot the real expensive stuff in Africa. I went on to explain about the thrill of the chase and the wily nature of mature animals. He really seemed to understand that taking a “trophy” can be a way to add challenge and respect the animal. I also set him straight on Don Jr. being a legit mountain hunter regardless of his father’s politics.

He never did come around on the guys that hunt high fence giants or (some) of the guys that hunt Africa for endangered species and cats.

What it came down to with my friend is that he thought trophy hunting was all about ego. He left with the knowledge that it isn’t that simple.

Like just about every topic in this polarized country, this issue is tainted by groups of people that hang out in their individual echo chambers and don’t know what they’re talking about. You want to help the future of hunting? Go find an “idiot liberal” and have an honest conversation about hunting.

 

[Gerard Marcaurele]

When the anti hunters started using trophy hunting as a derogatory term and convinced folks that all hunting revolves around hanging animals on the wall, the term itself took a downfall. Such is the life of a semantics war. Regardless of what it’s called, selectively hunting the mature representatives of a species isn’t something that should be viewed negatively. The problem has become people coming into the conversation with a preconceived notion.

 

[Tick]

Everyone hunts for the trophy whether that is the meat, antlers, and/or adventure. Only the person pulling the trigger knows what they are after.

The peta crowd will never be satisfied as long as people kill animals. The hunters that think their way of killing is more righteous than someone else's way of killing contribute just as much to the negativity.

 

[5MilesBack]

In my opinion, trophy hunting is viewed as negative because these celebrity hunters on tv degrade the animals to a score and people view that as not truly honoring the animals.

This is a prevalent problem in all aspects of society........"honoring the created instead of the creator".

 

[Murdy]

If you use the meat, imho, it's not trophy hunting. Most states have, I think, some version of a wanton waste law, so trophy hunting, strictly speaking, isn't even legal. There's nothing wrong, legally or otherwise, with choosing an animal based on so-called trophy considerations and getting it mounted so long as you use the meat. You hear the occasional story around here, now and then, about people finding an undressed carcass with the head cut off (or maybe just the backstraps removed). That, imho, is what true trophy hunting is, and it's wrong.

 

[Murdy]

This is a prevalent problem in all aspects of society........"honoring the created instead of the creator".

By honoring the creation, don't you, by definition, honor the Creator?

 

[5MilesBack]

By honoring the creation, don't you, by definition, honor the Creator?

That depends......Romans 1:25 - "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

I don't think any of these anti-hunters have any intentions of giving the Creator any honor at all.

One could honor the created, without ever even accepting that there was a Creator. But by honoring the Creator, THEN you could also be honoring what he created.

 

[Riles1050]

Thanks for the feed back. Make's total sense that the term has the negative connotation put in place by anti-hunting media and a few bad eggs, but the application by ethical hunters in theory isn't the issue. I totally agree educating people we come in contact with is probably the best way to change this. However, I feel the large population of people who aren't for or against hunting tend to hear and demonize the term trophy hunting. When people talk about looking for the biggest buck on the mountain these group of the population often relate the two and lump them together. What can we do as a community to change this narrative?

 

[Scoony]

A lot of the public gets the idea that a "Trophy Hunter" only takes the head/horns/antlers, and leaves everything else to waste. They often don't understand how much we cherish wild game meat. They also seem to have a limited understanding of what animals can and are eaten, i.e giraffe, mountain lion, etc...

 

[SWOHTR]

I don't like the term "trophy hunting" for the reasons stated above and I think it can be lumped into the same jargon category as "assault weapon." Neither accomplish much of anything other than providing a divisive point from which to begin a "discussion." I hunt as much for the meat and experience as I do the antlers.

I took a college senior level class last year and the final topic of debate was: "does trophy hunting support wildlife conservation?" The instructor never bothered to, and the class didn't pick up on, the fact that "trophy hunting" was never formally defined. It was the first thing I said we had to do: commonly define the term "trophy hunting," and from there we could begin the debate. That never happened. The course was a disappointment.

I bring that up because how is trophy hunting defined? Is it hunting solely for something to hang on a wall? If meat is taken and consumed, does it then not count as trophy hunting? How is trophy hunting different from just "plain-ol'" hunting?

 

[DougP]

Thanks for the feed back. Make's total sense that the term has the negative connotation put in place by anti-hunting media and a few bad eggs, but the application by ethical hunters in theory isn't the issue. I totally agree educating people we come in contact with is probably the best way to change this. However, I feel the large population of people who aren't for or against hunting tend to hear and demonize the term trophy hunting. When people talk about looking for the biggest buck on the mountain these group of the population often relate the two and lump them together. What can we do as a community to change this narrative?

I think you’re spot on. In addition to the “few bad eggs,” I think there are a bunch of people that are ethical, but present very poorly to people that are ignorant about hunting. Very few non hunters are going to spend the time to understand the nuances involved and form their own opinion (that goes for pretty much any subject, as evidenced by the blowhard ass hats that we elect to represent us).

What can we do to change the narrative? I don’t really know. I look up to guys like Rinella and Newberg. They talk about hunting the way I feel about hunting. Like I said in a previous post, I think the perception about “trophy hunting” is that it’s all about ego. On CNN they see stories about shooting collared lions or gut-spearing bears and then acting like you won the Super Bowl. Frankly, I don’t think I could honestly argue with someone that those types of actions aren’t ego-driven. For me anyway, I’m not inspired by people that are ego-driven. People that are passionate, skilled, thoughtful, adventurous, compassionate, intelligent, resourceful, etc. ARE inspiring to me. We need more of the latter in The news and less of the former.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk