trophy hunters or not
#31
[QUOTE=NY Bowhunter;3755370]You can still eat the meat of a trophy buck..... best of both worlds. Just sayin...[/QUOTE\]
this is what ive been looking for!!! everyone thinks there are trophy hunters that dont eat the meat and other hunters that only hunt for the meat. Being a trophy hunter you get the best of both worlds. by no means i HAVE to put meat on the table, but i enjoy hunting and hunting big bucks, when i kill buck or doe you bet im gonna have a freezer full of meat!
this is what ive been looking for!!! everyone thinks there are trophy hunters that dont eat the meat and other hunters that only hunt for the meat. Being a trophy hunter you get the best of both worlds. by no means i HAVE to put meat on the table, but i enjoy hunting and hunting big bucks, when i kill buck or doe you bet im gonna have a freezer full of meat!
#32
I am both,and being a land owner,i understand the 6points limit put in place by the dnr. young bucks should not be shot.I shoot any doe or big buck that i see becaue kentucky alolows you to shoot unlimited does and one buck,with no seperate seasons for bucks and does,but i NEVER shoot small bucks
#33
what do you men and women think of this?
#34
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,357
Interesting post. I don't mean to step on toes, but more than likely I will. Sorry.
I too think the emphasis on hunting to bag a trophy is misplaced. A trophy, by definition, is an exceptional animal. What does exceptional mean? Well, it is a matter of mathematics -- it is going to have to be something that is above average, probably quite a bit above average. Just for the heck of it, let's say in the upper 90th percentile of racks. And so? So -- unless you hunt in the township of Lake Woebegon, where all of the women are strong, all of the men are good looking, and the big game animals are all above average -- it means that most hunters are going to fail and their hunts are a failure. I find that a little unbalanced and philosophically repugnant.
What is the value of hunting, the excitement of hunting? I don't think this is measured by inches of antler spread, antler point numbers, symmetry, etc. I feel that 95% of the good experience I have while hunting is present in both the case of bucks and does. Being out in the woods, finding my way in the dark and through the obstacles of the forest, being aware of the wind, thinking like my prey so I can anticipate where I ought to lie in wait for my prey, handling my meat with care, doing a good job of skinning, cutting up, butchering, packaging, and then cooking my meat. This matters to me more than rack dimensions.
I think the focus on trophies is a scheme to make money. I don't need to buy fancy clothes to hunt deer or elk. I can wear (and do wear) solid green military surplus wool pants and Pendleton wool red checked shirt instead of camoflage or scent-lok stuff. I don't need a laser range finder. If I wanted to get a 98% bull elk, however, wouldn't I be driven inexorably to buying whatever could possibly, imaginably give me an edge in taking the statiscally anomalous trophy? Likewise, would specialists market themselves to me as providing a better hunt -- for more $$$ naturally -- to bag Mr Big? Likewise, would I put in for limited entry units where Mr Big hangs out and pass up year after year lesser units that are associated with mere meat hunts?
Well, I think I've made my view clear. Sure, I acknowledge everyone can fairly hunt according to their own lights, pursuing their own goals. But I wanted to frankly reply to the question of "what do you think about trophy hunting." It is an aberration and a perversion of hunting.
I too think the emphasis on hunting to bag a trophy is misplaced. A trophy, by definition, is an exceptional animal. What does exceptional mean? Well, it is a matter of mathematics -- it is going to have to be something that is above average, probably quite a bit above average. Just for the heck of it, let's say in the upper 90th percentile of racks. And so? So -- unless you hunt in the township of Lake Woebegon, where all of the women are strong, all of the men are good looking, and the big game animals are all above average -- it means that most hunters are going to fail and their hunts are a failure. I find that a little unbalanced and philosophically repugnant.
What is the value of hunting, the excitement of hunting? I don't think this is measured by inches of antler spread, antler point numbers, symmetry, etc. I feel that 95% of the good experience I have while hunting is present in both the case of bucks and does. Being out in the woods, finding my way in the dark and through the obstacles of the forest, being aware of the wind, thinking like my prey so I can anticipate where I ought to lie in wait for my prey, handling my meat with care, doing a good job of skinning, cutting up, butchering, packaging, and then cooking my meat. This matters to me more than rack dimensions.
I think the focus on trophies is a scheme to make money. I don't need to buy fancy clothes to hunt deer or elk. I can wear (and do wear) solid green military surplus wool pants and Pendleton wool red checked shirt instead of camoflage or scent-lok stuff. I don't need a laser range finder. If I wanted to get a 98% bull elk, however, wouldn't I be driven inexorably to buying whatever could possibly, imaginably give me an edge in taking the statiscally anomalous trophy? Likewise, would specialists market themselves to me as providing a better hunt -- for more $$$ naturally -- to bag Mr Big? Likewise, would I put in for limited entry units where Mr Big hangs out and pass up year after year lesser units that are associated with mere meat hunts?
Well, I think I've made my view clear. Sure, I acknowledge everyone can fairly hunt according to their own lights, pursuing their own goals. But I wanted to frankly reply to the question of "what do you think about trophy hunting." It is an aberration and a perversion of hunting.
Last edited by Alsatian; 01-13-2011 at 01:52 PM.