What do you support?

Do you support trophy only hunts?

  • Of Course!

    Votes: 39 25.7%

  • Hell No!

    Votes: 109 71.7%

  • I don't hunt just shoot targets!

    Votes: 4 2.6%
  • Total voters
    152
drache

drache

BANNED
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
BANNED
Rating - 98.2%
54   1   0
Location
Williams Lake, BC
This does NOT apply to gohper, crow/raven, squirrel, etc shooting! That is classified as pest control! :D

Do you support TROPHY only hunting (leave all the meat there and only hunt for killing something and the size of it's antlers, pelt, etc)? Yes or No? Why?

Personally I've always been taught to eat what you shoot and never hunt just for trophy. Granted if it's the first deer I see that I am allowed to shoot then I'll take it, big antlers are only a bonus. I would never leave the meat to rot.
 
I voted of course, but I feel the poll is incomplete. I am not a trophy hunter, and I don't really care about things like that. But I do not think it's wise to segregate hunters by their actions. It's like stickbow vs compound bow shooters. Or fly fishermen vs bait plunkers. While it may be unethical or somthing you wouldn't do, I won't begrudge any hunter from doing what they enjoy. Of course there are exceptions, like unfair practices, but that's for another day. :)
 
I think that you'll find that it is illegal in the provinces and territories to leave game meat to spoil, so you can't just shoot an animal remove the head and leave. You have to pack it out, and ensure that it is not wasted. So you're question is pretty much moot. I'm sure there are some guys out there who do this, but it's illegal, and they're called poachers.

I like to look for a nice trophy, but I take the whole animal, and enjoy eatring what I have harvested, whether it has big horn or not. Part of the experience is just getting out into the wild, as well as satisfaction that I have stalked, harvested, processed and cooked something by myself, no farmer, butcher, grocery store and chef has been involved.

Just my 2cents
 
dragoon7214 said:
I think that you'll find that it is illegal in the provinces and territories to leave game meat to spoil, so you can't just shoot an animal remove the head and leave. You have to pack it out, and ensure that it is not wasted. So you're question is pretty much moot. I'm sure there are some guys out there who do this, but it's illegal, and they're called poachers.

I like to look for a nice trophy, but I take the whole animal, and enjoy eatring what I have harvested, whether it has big horn or not. Part of the experience is just getting out into the wild, as well as satisfaction that I have stalked, harvested, processed and cooked something by myself, no farmer, butcher, grocery store and chef has been involved.

Just my 2cents
Click to expand...

There is the trophy bear hunt and not to mention you can easily take a guided trip either in Canada or the US. I know there are a couple guiding companies here in Canada that only guide "For Trophies". The hunter gets the trophy and the guides take all the meat (just to comply with the law).
 
I voted no, but theirs occasions where it does happen,and can be called little more then a trophy hunt which I am in support of (African safari's). The hunter is taking only the mount, but the animals are being used (or would have been killed anyway by villagers like int he case of lions/leoapards)

In terms of NA hunting, theirs no excuse for not using the meat.
 
In BC it is illegal to not take all the meat or give it to someone else.


aside from predator control such as Coyote, wolf, varmint, etc I don't mind it but for game animals I am dead set against it. But if you are with a guide who takes the meat and donates it or uses it themselves then I support it.

Leaving the meat IMO is one of the most unethical things a hunter can do.

If you don't take the meat in a game animal IMO you are no longer a hunter, rather a killer.
 
If the guide or someone else takes the meat, then it's not being left "there" to spoil, as in the original question.

If you are hunting and manage to get a trophy, all the more power to you. Congrats! As long as the meat's being used by someone then it doesn't matter if you manage to get a trophy. If the meat is being left, or the animal abandoned because the trophy isn't satisfactory, then imho there isn't a hole deep enough to throw you into. (If that makes me a fudd, then so be it.)

Like others here, I was also raised to not waste the animal.
 
I voted, "of course," but the pole is so incomplete. It has only been about the last twenty years that it has been compulsory to take out the edible meat, here in BC. There are so many variations.
A large bull moose shot before about the first week in September is absolutely choice meat. Especially the large northern variety from northern BC and the Yukon, or actually from any cold area with short summers and long winters. It would be a shame to leave such meat in the bush, if anyone, whatsoever, could use it.
But what about those huge mule deer bucks, shot in November? Hunters will have their pictures taken with the great antlers, then make sure they tell the world they are taking out all the meat. Then what happens? Very little, or any of it, will be eaten. In BC, it is compulsory to take the meat to----or a place of consumption. End of the story. Do what you want. Thus, it will likely be deposited off of some little used bush road. This is actually good, because there are many of natures creatures out there that will feed on it, putting on some much needed fat for winter. But why wouldn't it be completely ethical to leave such strong smelling meat, the type your dog will shy away from, right where it fell, for the creatures of nature at that spot?
Here is the way I see it. Wild game, in any juridiction, is manged so as to keep the supply as stable as possible, and to keep the game population at a level that the habitat can sustain. Thus, hunting is very strictly regulated. Tags are issued on a basis, estimating the percentage of hunters that will actually shoot an animal, that will sustain the game population.
So, I go to the hunting fields with the right to shoot said animal. That is my tag, no one elses and any animal I legally shoot is my animal. It's not yours and you are not going to get it, unless I give it to you. I will cancel my tag upon shooting it, so I can not legally shoot another. Therefore, what does it matter to you, or to the game officials, what I do with my animal?
In real life, if I didn't want the meat, I would contact any hunter in the area I saw and offer it to to him/them. Beyond that, why should I be considered unethical, or committing an illegal act, by leaving the meat for a bunch of hungry creatures to eat?
 
Of course....

If I kill a wolf or coyote, I might keep the pelt, but I'm not going to eat it. I like deer, moose and bear meat, which is why I keep that. If I didn't liek it, I wouldn't keep it!
 
Meat first, trophy bonus. I usually shoot the first legal deer that walks out in front of me, be it buck or doe. After that, back to grouse hunting.


.
 
ceriksson said:
In BC it is illegal to not take all the meat or give it to someone else.
Click to expand...

Does BC makes you eat the grizzlies? I've heard they're not very tasty...

I usually do not shoot the first deer I see. If it's a small one, I'll hold off...I don't waste any meat...
 
I voted Hell no.
Nothing wrong with trophy hunting, but I just shoot my trophies by chance rather than searching for them.
If there were only trophy hunting allowed, there would be a lot of discouraged hunters out there.
Never mind the crop damage and highway carnage that most of us have seen, would quadruple if the majority of non trophy animals were not killed.

Not to mention way better eats on them younger\ smaller big game animals.:)
 
H4831 said:
I voted, "of course," but the pole is so incomplete. It has only been about the last twenty years that it has been compulsory to take out the edible meat, here in BC. There are so many variations.
A large bull moose shot before about the first week in September is absolutely choice meat. Especially the large northern variety from northern BC and the Yukon, or actually from any cold area with short summers and long winters. It would be a shame to leave such meat in the bush, if anyone, whatsoever, could use it.
But what about those huge mule deer bucks, shot in November? Hunters will have their pictures taken with the great antlers, then make sure they tell the world they are taking out all the meat. Then what happens? Very little, or any of it, will be eaten. In BC, it is compulsory to take the meat to----or a place of consumption. End of the story. Do what you want. Thus, it will likely be deposited off of some little used bush road. This is actually good, because there are many of natures creatures out there that will feed on it, putting on some much needed fat for winter. But why wouldn't it be completely ethical to leave such strong smelling meat, the type your dog will shy away from, right where it fell, for the creatures of nature at that spot?
Here is the way I see it. Wild game, in any juridiction, is manged so as to keep the supply as stable as possible, and to keep the game population at a level that the habitat can sustain. Thus, hunting is very strictly regulated. Tags are issued on a basis, estimating the percentage of hunters that will actually shoot an animal, that will sustain the game population.
So, I go to the hunting fields with the right to shoot said animal. That is my tag, no one elses and any animal I legally shoot is my animal. It's not yours and you are not going to get it, unless I give it to you. I will cancel my tag upon shooting it, so I can not legally shoot another. Therefore, what does it matter to you, or to the game officials, what I do with my animal?
In real life, if I didn't want the meat, I would contact any hunter in the area I saw and offer it to to him/them. Beyond that, why should I be considered unethical, or committing an illegal act, by leaving the meat for a bunch of hungry creatures to eat?
Click to expand...

I think I can understand this side of the argument, but I can't say as I agree with it. Notwithstanding dealing with varmints or troublesome predatory animals, this is my view:

For me, it goes back to a number of things. For example, historic practice. One of the main arguments that I have heard from hunting supporters is that it is our historic right to do so. Okay, I don't disagree with that. However, for the most part our ancestors didn't go out and shoot a deer or a moose just because they could - by and large they did it to feed and provide clothing for their families.

Another argument I have heard from time to time is that it is natural predation, just like you'd see a wolf or cougar do - that humans are just another predator in the food web. You certainly don't see wild animals walk away from a fresh kill, satisfied because they managed to fell the largest buck.

For me, people who hunt solely for trophies are in it for nothing more than their egos. They are no part of natural predation or "grandfathered" (not the right term I know, but I'm drawing a black atm) historical hunting traditions.

I would also respectfully disagree that it's "your" animal either. Yes, you have been given the right/chance/priviledge to shoot one, but they all belong to all of us, hunters and non-hunters alike. Why should any one of us have to go without a freezer full of meat because someone else wanted to get a rack of antlers and let the meat be eaten by the critters? I would respectfully suggest that if the meat is not to the hunter's liking, then they should select a different animal to hunt.

In some places, you have to be in a draw for years before you get selected for a licence. Trophy killing without making use of the rest of the animal, for me, just harkens back to the 1800s where over-killing nearly wiped out many species just because rich gentlemen wanted to show how grand they were by having a room full of exotic, stuffed animals. It was not responsible hunting and in a lot of ways it is one of the reasons why responsible hunters today have to justify their sport.

As someone else said, if you are out hunting and get a nice trophy, then bonus. I do not think it should be the goal unto itself.

BTW, I'm not pointing this argument at you specifically or attacking/flaming you. I am only trying to clarify my view in relation to yours. :)
 
Last edited:
Beritel said:
I think I can understand this side of the argument, but I can't say as I agree with it. Notwithstanding dealing with varmints or troublesome predatory animals, this is my view:

For me, it goes back to a number of things. For example, historic practice. One of the main arguments that I have heard from hunting supporters is that it is our historic right to do so. Okay, I don't disagree with that. However, for the most part our ancestors didn't go out and shoot a deer or a moose just because they could - by and large they did it to feed and provide clothing for their families.

Another argument I have heard from time to time is that it is natural predation, just like you'd see a wolf or cougar do - that humans are just another predator in the food web. You certainly don't see wild animals walk away from a fresh kill, satisfied because they managed to fell the largest buck.

For me, people who hunt solely for trophies are in it for nothing more than their egos. They are no part of natural predation or "grandfathered" (not the right term I know, but I'm drawing a black atm) historical hunting traditions.

I would also respectfully disagree that it's "your" animal either. Yes, you have been given the right/chance/priviledge to shoot one, but they all belong to all of us, hunters and non-hunters alike. Why should any one of us have to go without a freezer full of meat because someone else wanted to get a rack of antlers and let the meat be eaten by the critters? I would respectfully suggest that if the meat is not to the hunter's liking, then they should select a different animal to hunt.

In some places, you have to be in a draw for years before you get selected for a licence. Trophy killing without making use of the rest of the animal, for me, just harkens back to the 1800s where over-killing nearly wiped out many species just because rich gentlemen wanted to show how grand they were by having a room full of exotic, stuffed animals. It was not responsible hunting and in a lot of ways it is one of the reasons why responsible hunters today have to justify their sport.

As someone else said, if you are out hunting and get a nice trophy, then bonus. I do not think it should be the goal unto itself.

BTW, I'm not pointing this argument at you specifically or attacking/flaming you. I am only trying to clarify my view in realtion to yours. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, and no, I certainly didn't take anything personal. I will stick to my view however, that after I have legally killed and tagged a game animal, it is now my animal. Before I shot it, the animal did indeed, belong to everybody.
You don't have to tell me how the meat hunters of 75 or 80 years ago operated. You could get a copy of the Back Woodsman Magaxine, now on the shelves, and see my version in the article I wrote in the May-June issue on that subject.
 
H4831 said:
You could get a copy of the Back Woodsman Magaxine, now on the shelves, and see my version in the article I wrote in the May-June issue on that subject.
Click to expand...

I'll definitely keep my eyes open for it. Is it available in any book store, or is it distributed elsewhere? Congrats on being published! :)
 
Last edited:
Let's start off by stating that I am not a trophy hunter by any stretch of the imagination. I usually take the first buck I see and then shoot a couple of fawns with the milk on their lips to finish out the tags. I shoot cow moose (never shot a bull). I've shot way more fawns and does than bucks.

I voted "of course". As long as the meat is being legally utilized by someone with big game I don't care about the motivation of the guy doing the shooting. With ducks, I
understand that a bird suitable for mounting will not have the meat salvaged. If it is legal to leave it to rot then there is a reason for that. Let your own ethics guide you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom