I'm not sure what the point of the original post is, but I'm going to respond according to my interest and my thoughts -- warning, may not be responsive to the original post.

I object and find distasteful things which tend towards the commercialization of hunting. This does not mean I object to guides or outfitters in themselves. I think the redirection of interest in hunting to obsess about the size of a rack tends to this objectionable commercialization of hunting. What the heck do I mean? If you want big racks, you have to go where the big racks are. Frequently the place where the big racks are is, one way or another, colonized by the outfitters who charge a high fee to hunt for the big racks. If you want a big rack, you better get your checkbook out. If you aren't willing to lay out the money, say goodbye to the big rack. Of course, in particular cases I can be shown to be wrong. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to find a high percentage of record book animals -- maybe 80% -- taken over the last five years fit the scenario I have laid out. I don't object to folks with ample bank accounts spending their money as they see fit. I don't object to guides and outfitters catering to these people. So where is my complaint or objection? My objection is that I feel the purpose of hunting is being redirected to the pursuit of big racks, and hence intrinsically to a commercial activity. If marketeers can get Joe Hunter to believe he isn't really hunting unless he is bagging animals with big racks, Joe Hunter is going to be more liable to lay out the money to hire outfitter, guide, buy products that give an edge to hunting, and so on. The size of the rack is about the only thing you hear about on the TV shows. Also, the challenge of the hunt rarely gets the same "Ooh la la!" value as the bare fact of the rack size. That some guy climbed 4,000 feet, bivouaced wrapped only in rain gear overnight above tree line, and bagged a 3/4 curl ram well out of the Boone and Crockett book isn't going to stand a chance next to shooting a big rack buck on a ranch in front of a feeder from a comfortable elevated stand. This is my feeling, though I quit watching these hunting shows after I started picking up on these issues and so may not be attuned to the different shows that are shown today. Generally, I felt like the TV hunting shows were, one way or another, a friggin' infomercial and I was spending my time soaking up one big advertizement.

If the object of hunting is to bag animals with big racks, then success in the sport is going to be a function of the money one spends hunting. Personally, I think hunting is about substantially other things than the size of the racks of the animals hunted. I won't get into this, as my view will invariably be personal and limited and may not include other's view of the meaning of hunting. What do you all think? Is this obsession with rack sizes a perversion of the spirit of hunting and am I right in my sense that this rack obsession tends towards excessive commercialization of hunting?