Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Hunting for the experience, not trophies?

Gentleman,
I understand and can appreciate what Chipolopolo is trying to say. Sometimes, it is very difficult to relay your thoughts from a keyboard. I don't think we need to rag him about it. I respect him for his views on appreciating his kills.

I also fully agree with the FACT that Taxidermy is a substantial outlay of funds. There is no use for us to try and hide it and carry on as if it's not. I have had some hunters come in and only take photos of their safari and their trophies. The notion that a smaller animal will get hunted, just because there will only be a photo, could not be further from the truth. Well, I only speak on behalf of KMG Hunting Safaris. The photos will be on our website, Facebook page etc. and is a direct window into the service and quality you can expect to hunting with us.

You will only be shooting yourself in the foot by hunting substandard game.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more.

I thought this was a great debate and both sides made excellent points. I come at this as a neutral. I'm no trophy hunter and I'm a meat hunter so I don't really have a dog in this hunt. But it has been a great thread.

Yes some interesting discussion on both sides. I do not think taxdermy has to be done to honor an animal.

Gents:
I just read this and find the debate lively. I understand Chip's philosophy and he has a magnificent trophy room and his trophies are his memories and legacy. We all do it differently but we all like to hunt. I've been severely hammered for my posts on fair chase vs. high fenced hunting and for my personal love of vintage English double rifles and my choice to own and hunt with them exclusively. The bottom line is what is right is what is right for each of us individually. We get hell at times for expressing our opinion but our opinion is only right for the opinion's owner. At the end of the day we are all the target of the antis and Chip has a good point in the numbers of hunters in Africa, the (approximate) number of those taking elephant and lion, the the number of US citizens and why politicians won't champion our cause. I never put it in that perspective but it is a powerful lesson. In the long run we all all fighting a losing battle. Look at our losses in both hunting and gun rights over the past 1-2-3-4-5 decades. I think we best agree to disagree as gentlemen because we are in the same boat. It does not matter if we spend a fortune on taxidermy for whatever reason, leave our trophies in the field, hunt with a double rifle or a modern whiz bang magnum. The ship is sinking and we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves and not bailing water in unison to keep us afloat. And l before you get on my case, I have done it all: taxidermy, European mounts, leaving the trophy in the field, donating taxidermy, etc., I've even made the excuse I am feeding the Africans by killing the game there (which I have and did, but that is not the reason I've hunted anywhere--it is a sideline to my endeavor). I read Ortega's words years ago and have also read many who think he was in error.
I trust and hope you all have a pleasant day and a great next hunt--no matter what you hunt with, what you do with the trophy, or your rationale for doing so.
Cheers,
Cal
PS. I've often wondered if we would be as rude to one another if everyone knew our real names or if we were standing face to face.

We did a family trip (wife and three sons) a few years ago that could have been a serious Tanzania hunt for me. But I am not the selfish [bleep].

JFC, its the Savage99 of Africa.

Cal and KMG:

First, you hit the nail on the head in that we all have a right to our opinions, as long as we're within legal and ethical bounds.

Conversely, when we see someone who calls himself a hunter engaging in activities that are clearly unethical or have the potential to damage hunting in the eyes of neutral observers, we have a responsibility to call out that behavior.

The only reason I bring up that second point is, I believe chip went a good bit beyond the former and was engaging in what he believes to be the latter.





Saying that others who don't get heads mounted are "devaluing the wildlife" and are "killers only" and "walking away from their responsibility" or are "thrill killers" engaging in "repugnant behavior" is doing a lot more than stating a personal ethic or opinion, it's telling others how to do it and denigrating them in the process.

And there are lots who don't agree. If we're really talking about how the antis see us as chip says, the future of hunting and what needs to be done to preserve it, I think those that disagree have not only the right to speak up, but the duty.

As an aside, some have noted the desire to do a safari, but limited means to pay for it all, including taxidermy. Does anyone really think that making a safari more expensive by including taxidermy in the price will help get more hunters to go on safari?

Hmmmm, promised myself I'd stay out of this, but my last safari, i guess I went on the greatest "thrill killing" safari ever. It was tuskless cow elephant in Zim. The animal is non exportable. It fed a village. The most fantastic, yet humbling, hunt I ever went on. So Chippie I guess I'm a thrill killer, cause all I got was pics......


maddog

Good morning Smkepole.

If you were to take a quick look back, I qualify all my statements as my opinion. They might be looked at as extreme, but extreme measures are called for when we are fighting for our collective lives here (metaphorically).

If the eventual sunset on Africa occurs in my hunting lifetime, I will have had a life well lived. I am willing to put myself in harms way to advocate for our sport. As you say, isn't it our responsibility to call out behavior we see as unethical? I don't really call the pics or mounts topic as unethical but irresponsible to the way we are looked at by the rank and file American.

Years ago, there was a woman Lion advocate troll over on AR. I went head to head with her for months and months. We actually talked on the phone several times. At that time I was of the mentality, "dig your heels in, and fight, don't give an inch."

I wasn't on FB at the time. I subsequently did a mountain bike race across America called the Tour Divide, which is the longest race in the cycling world. I did it for a charity that is near and dear to my heart, Special Olympics. I started a FB page with the help of SO for fund raising.

After seeing how the dynamic of FB works and the global reach it has, I saw that social media has negatively affected our sport. Hell, quasi celebrity hunters like Tim Herald have had their pages taken down due to the content. If that isn't hostile waters, what is?

It made me re-think my position. My thoughts on it now is to take a page from the old Brad Pitt movie "Fight Club" The first rule of fight club…don't talk about fight club.

The point being, public opinion does and will matter now. The globe is smaller and we live in a digital world. That woman I speak of got her information off the pages of AR. She worked for Lionaid.

Remember how Donald Trumps kids got hammered on FB? or the owner of Go Daddy? or the 19 year old cheerleader? the list goes on and on.

Bottom line here is, I am willing to take the slings and arrows on behalf of hunting globally. If just one reader thinks about it and re-thinks his/her position I will feel it was worth it.

Always had a problem with this statement. I hunt with the intent to kill - sometimes just for the table and other times for the wall and table. If I don't kill, I still have hunted. If you follow his logic, if you don't kill you haven't hunted? Hunting is the act of pursuit - sometimes you win, sometimes they win.
His clever twist on the terminology is just that.

Good morning to you, Chip. You can say "this is my opinion" all you want, but when you apply it to others as you clearly did by calling it "repugnant behavior" and "walking away from your responsibility," it's going well beyond just stating your own personal beliefs.



Chip, we are in violent agreement that public opinion does matter; that is not the issue so don't think you can claim the high ground by saying that. We just disagree on what that public opinion is.

I believe the general public has a lower opinion of what they perceive as "trophy hunting," meaning putting heads on the wall, than someone who uses the meat and only keeps photos.

Because I've heard them say it. What is the basis of your belief that the general public thinks it's better or more ethical to hang trophy heads on a wall?

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is, the killing part of hunting is not the only reason we hunt, or even the most important for some. If the killing was the most important, we'd wouldn't need to hunt at all, we'd all be more successful at the feed lot.

Yes, you can hunt without killing every time out, but if you never killed anything, you may as well take up crocheting.

I don't agree with the statement either. I pass up a fair amount of animals just because I don't feel like killing them. I haven't filled a Doe tag since 2011, and I've had them every year. And its certainly not because I don't see deer. I find I often go home more satisfied having watched the animal and not killed it. Now if I need meat (or want it) then I'm pulling the trigger. But the boy has been getting deer these past few years and I just don't need to make a kill. And that suits me fine. And yes, I have indeed hunted.

I think it matters as to what degree we as a demographic devolve the process of hunting.

If I were to post on here that; "I really don't want the pictures, I just want to shoot a bunch" or "I only want shots of 800 yards or better" at which point does an individuals sensibilities get uneasy? There must be some line where rank and file sportsmen agree is too much.

There are costs involved in hunting that you can't get away from. Travel, TF's, tips and others I am obviously leaving out.

The fact that International hunting is expensive will unfortunately leave some who want to go out. BUT, to mentally erase some of the historic costs to make it less expensive is where the lines get blurred. There was a tipping thread over on AR. There were guys that said they were OK to NOT tip the PH so they could afford the trip. I didn't agree with that either.


I also think that by you pointing out my admittedly aggressive disposition on this, aren't you making this about me rather than the subject? I am merely human, I am trying to articulate feelings here that are not easy to explain. If I were just milk toast about it, it wouldn't be being discussed and it wouldn't have been cross posted over on AR.

I don't post to be accepted or popular, as a VERY good friend of mine once told me;

"When I read I wish to learn, when I write I wish to teach."

I am simply trying to share some different thoughts about the consequences of many of our actions in an ever shrinking digital world. And yes, I think trophy shipping is ridiculous. I had a shipment from CAR cost me 6,600.00 just to get to Houston.

Come on chip, I said nothing about you personally, that's a red herring. I took issue with what you said, not with you personally.




Sure there is, I never said otherwise. What I'm saying is, failing to get trophy heads mounted does not cross that line.

But back to my earlier question, what makes you think that the public at large looks more kindly on hunters who get trophy heads mounted than hunters who use the meat and just take photos?

Taxidermy is a personal thing.....I personaly have very little.....I am not a collector

The non hunting public does NOT like heads on the wall

50 or 70 years ago......maybe

Now day's not as much

bigwhoop,

You and other hunters mostly have trouble with that quote from Ortega y Gasset because it's taken out of context. It's part of a much longer essay that was originally an introduction to a bigger book on huntin. Today the big book is mostly forgotten, but MEDITTATIONS ON HUNTING is published by itself as a short book. My present copy has 132 pages.

Here is more of that part of the book, from the most-printed translation (the essay was originally written in Spanish):

"In utilitarian hunting the true purpose of the hunter, what he seeks and values, is the death of the animal. Everything he does before that is merely a means of achieving that end, which is its formal purpose.
To the sportsman, the death of the animal is not what interests him; that is not his purpose. What interests him is everything that he has had to do to achieve that death--that is, the hunt. Death is essential because without it there is no authentic hunting: the killing of the animal is the natural end of the hunt and that goal of the hunting itself, not of the hunter. The hunter seeks this death because it is no less than the sign of reality for the whole hunting process. To sum up, one does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

Here there is a clear delineation here between the "utilitarian" hunter, what we might call a meat or subsistence hunter, and the sport hunter, who primarily hunts for recreation. The sport hunter may welcome the meat, but it is only part of the entire process.

Many of us are both kinds of hunter: When I go out to fill a doe tag it's primarily for meat, and usually the hunt itself isn't nearly as long or involved as it would be for a buck, especially a trophy buck. But because I am not strictly a subsistence hunter (though 99% of the meat my wife I have eaten for decades has been wild), I often do try to make the hunt more interesting and involved, whether still-hunting whitetails rather than sitting in a stand, or using a shorter-range rifle, often with iron sights.

If hunters actually read MEDITATIONS ON HUNTING, rather than a simplification of its most famous quote, then they'll find far more of an explanation of why they hunt than in almost any other single piece of hunting writing--whether they classify themselves as a meat or trophy hunter, or anything in between.

Much better than my half-assed summary....

There are obviously people all over the board on this.

How's this for something we might actually find some common ground.

Lets agree that we as sportsmen are all part of a bell curve. The mean is the weighted center, containing most guys who will either mount some, most or all of their kills. To the far left are the guys whom which this debate is around, mount nothing and leave it all there. They are fewer and are some number of deviations left. My philosophy would be the furthest to the right of that same bell curve. I can and will accept that I am not the norm and am the same number of deviations right.

However, I would ask for you to agree that the guys on the far left are not the norm either again, we are all parts of the same curve.

Would that be an acceptable explanation of where I fall?