ORIGINAL: Germ
I think what you are perceiving as a double standard is more of a reaction from those who are less selective being tired of being made out to be second class citizens, also even a genuine concern for the hunting heritage
What exactly is the heritage of hunting? Teddy Rooslevelt who is one of our Icons was a Trophy hunter was he not? It was the sport hunter who saved hunting. Most of those guys were not hunting for food. They were hunting for recreation as I do today. Our "heritage" hunters before that sure did a fine job on the buffalo. Is this the hertiage you speak of?
Icon or what represented the sum total of hunting? An icon may or may not be positive. Snoop Dog is an icon.
If you recall the very reason he became known as 'Teddy', it wasn't very complimentary, and it shows that this negative aspect of trophy only has been around fora while, but it wasn't viewed very positively--even then. He is more of an adventurer and travelled all over the world, with deep pockets, and did not represent the average hunter in the least.That he or anyone else does have deep pockets and time to spare is not a problem, but how those that do view those who are content with what they have and can do, when they have a superiority complex is hwere the term elitist comes from. And yes, it is elitist for the have nots to resent and look down on those with more time and money--neither is a good thing.I think you understand very well what hunting has meant prior to the latest version that includes the ones who say things like, 'I become physically ill!', etc. over someone else's choice that doesn't conform to theirs. I have hunted for 27 years, and I have seen a very definite shift in the menaing of hunting, and it is very different from what hunting has been for the most part in modern history, which is whatI mean by 'heritage'. The emphasis, in more than one regard has very definitely shifted--some good, and some not so good.
If heritage means hunting for food than we have some issues there also. Whitetails were about wiped out in our "hertiage" days than
I thought the Heritage hunting statred in the 30's, anything before that had nothing to do with "Heritage ". It had to do with eating
and not starving to death.
Going out and shoot anydeer for some extra venison is great. Hunting so your family can eat is a whole other story. My Grampa lived through the great depression, deer hunting for them had nothing to do with "hertiage". It had to do with not starving to death[
] Just think about the pressure we feel today when we shoot a buck(any). Now think about if you had to kill a deer that night so your family can eat. No "Hertiage" there[&:]
Not to be argumentative, but this is a very isolated and irrelevant blip to thehistory of hunting as a whole. There are always extreme exceptions to most instances, and this is one of them.
The deer are now farmed and land is now over managed into unhealthy ratios
I have no idea what land you are talking about. QDM is about having the right number of deer. Now if you are talking TDM(Traditional Deer Management) you have Michigan pegged
Not the farm part
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I attempted to distinguish from QDM and TDM. For example,most hunting magazines used to have articles on scouting, rubs, phases of the rut, etc., and now these are replaced with how to grow your own deer, and even articles on how to achieve bigger racks, etc. I was at ally World yesterday and saw a hunting video tha was entitled, 'How to Farm For Bigger Deer',(not the exact title verbatim)and it was about food plot how tos with no mention of hunting startegies. Food plots were teh strategy. I guess I prefer the going after to them to the 'build it, and they will come ' approach. Key word being preference, and I recognize and acknowledge that aspect. I think that many don't allow for preference, but, just as this whole thread implies, want to have everyone think and hunt like them. My response is tha as long as it is legal, allow each to work with what they are content with.
I step into the woods,I want it to look like woods, with as little trace of man and his influence as possible, with the deer herd being as wild and dependent on natural forage as possible.
I think we all want that, but good luck. Most of the land in lower 48 has been touched by man. Just think there was 1 deer per sq mile in Northen MI before we logged it. At one point it was high as 40 deer per Sq mile. I love to hunt Northen MI because it looks untouched by man, but deer are there because of man.
The logging was done for papaer and the secondary result is that it benefitted the wildlife, with positive results. So if it has a positive effect in this context, why not implement it expressly for the purpose of having the same positive results in an exclusively hunting context? No problemo! It still is woods, and is still is a natural scenario within good, sound mangement of the land. Untouched by man in the sense of taking it too far, without it resembling a natural environment is what I mean by 'untouched'. Man can enhance or he can allow something to become out of control. I like to workout,but taking illegal substances such as steroids to go beyond the natural limits of the body is a good illustration. I can achieve so much within my limitations, and these substances can take me beyond to achieve even greater 'results', but atwhat cost? it is possible and more is better, so why not? You take something good and benefificial--working out--and add these 'supplements' to the equation and you have gone too far with negative , even potentially deadly consequences.We are supposed to be stewards of the land and QDM is well within that end result. So, if that has good results, why not take it 1,2 ,3 steps further. After all, I am seeing and killing biggerr racks, so what doe sit matter how I get these results. I honestly think that
some are beginning to go over board and out of bounds with what is actually good and beneficial in the long run--to the deer herd and to teh public 's prception of hunting, and huntings future.Just look at the rising standard o fhwt is 'acceptable', and all of the over teh top silly gadgets that are flooding the market to get an edge on teh competition--competition being the next guy who might kill something even bigger.At some point it has to get back to being reasonable, and IMO, in some regards it already has.
I or most here do not look down on anyone. Go read some post there are some who do, but most of the "look down on feeling"is from people assuming they were being ragged on. Because someone said "I won't have shot him" So what some guys would have not bought a dodgeI bought. Should I act like a 2 year old when some ask why I did not buy a Chevy
Come to think of it Preacher beat me up pretty bad
I know PT is a really mean guy!
But preferences over truck choices and hunting methods aren't quite on teh same level
Sorry I do not buy the protecting the "Hertiage" of hunting argument. I myself have no idea what the "Hertiage" of hunting is[&:]
You should now--I told you!
If it is hunting for food, well there was no honor or fair play there. Do you think a hunter waited until the deer was broadside before they shot?The Indians or early settlers put an arrow or bulletanyway they could. Ran the beast down until it tired out than finshed it off. Ran them over cliffs, back them into corners and stoned them to death.
If we are talking "Hertiage" hunting after Teddy Roosvelt days than Trophy Hunting is a part of hunting "Hertiage"
I ask this question on another thread.
If a hunter has a fork buck in his sights and ready to drop hammer on him, then hehears a twig break and sees a 150'' 10 will he shoot the "better" tasting deer or wait for the old tough meat 150'' 10
?
I missed that one. To choose ornot to choosea 10 over a small buck in this one isolated instance doesn't apply. Something has to be done repeatedly, and motive and intent have to be factored in, long term to determine ones true philosophy. What was the original and the consistent intent, regardless of what he may do 1 time, given a very unusual set of circumstances?
I do agree with a lot of what you say, I just do not buy the hertiage of hunting argument. I would prefere the Teddy Rosvelt era myself. When sportsman fought to protect hunting. So we can hunt for recreation and enjoyment. I amthankful for the choice I have to shoot a big one or little one.
I agree with a lot of what I say too!
I think that there is still quite a bit of that fighting spirit today in fact, my whole premise is based on my long term perpsective concerning the future of hunting and some of the potentially detrimental practices being advocated. One example is the 1-1 buck to doe ratio, which is not healthy or even natural under any wild circumstances. The intense and overly attentive methods required to maintain it are reflective of this . The increased buck mortality, and broken racks, results of the unnatural competition is not a good thing. I am convinced that some of these other 'management' principle sthat are being employed are going to prove to be just a sharmful in the long run--teh 'big picture'. I think that
some have lost sight o fteh big picture , being overly intoxicated with teh dirve to achieve 'bigger and better' bucks--regardless of how this is achieved.
I have read were the "Trophy" guys gets lamb basted, but I guess that is OK. It is all about the hertiage of hunting[8D]
No, its not okay, and I have stated that several times that the finger pointing goes both ways. I am an advocate for both being able to achieve their goals without either criticizing the other. I simply am trying to call attention to some of the red flags of going too far with it, and some of the potential ,and already existing problems arising from doing so. We all need tobe willing to do what is beneficial for hunting and the deer herd as a whole. That entails some of the 'if its brown its down' bunch realizing that there is much to be gained from sound management( proper balance and age structure,etc.), and the ones who take trophy hunting too far to step back and to examine what the long term effect is of some of the steps that are being used to produce trophies without regard to the method and its effect, long term. It can and does go both ways.