https://africageographic.com/b...aken-trophy-hunters/


Taken in Zimbabwe, article and photos.

Fantastic old mature bull.

If we [hunters] would stop posting photos like this, would there be less fuel for the fire of the anti-hunting crowd?

Without photos like this, would they be able to rally as much global support? Raise as much money? Hire as many lawyers? File as many lawsuits? Change as many laws, etc...?

Do I like the idea of censoring ourselves? No... and I've posted more than my fair share of hunting photos over the years. So I point the finger of guilt directly at myself too.

We all know that the closed minds of the extreme will never be changed, but we do have a chance to sway those "undecideds" (the vast majority) in the middle. With emotion aside, hunting as a management tool, is quite easy to explain and is logical to understand. But not with photos... A photo of anything dead - regardless of its benefits - will close the minds of those we need to influence.

I hate to say it, but I think that if we want to keep hunting, then we have to quit posting.

Yeah and if we just take pictures of the animal and not hunt them the anti's would love us more.

Maybe instead of worrying that a picture hurts there feeling we tell the public over and over how the elephant hunted are past breeding age have spread there genes and what is needed. That the amount of money raised from that elephant being hunted put more money back in then a million dollars raised by some group who pretends to help wildlife.

They win by telling lies over and over. We keep changing how we do things and keep giving in. We need to keep repeating the truth and speak louder not keep hiding.

I didn't say that we should hide, just that maybe we should stop giving our enemies the very ammunition that they use against us.

We're fighting the same battle, I'm just suggesting another tactic that may help us.

In hindsight, I have to wonder how far the story of Cecil would have gotten without a photo.

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:
I didn't say that we should hide, just that maybe we should stop giving our enemies the very ammunition that they use against us.

We're fighting the same battle, I'm just suggesting another tactic that may help us.

In hindsight, I have to wonder how far the story of Cecil would have gotten without a photo.

Do you mean a trophy shot with cecil ? I can promise you have never seen Cecil dead.

I have come to agree with Chris.

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:
I didn't say that we should hide, just that maybe we should stop giving our enemies the very ammunition that they use against us.

We're fighting the same battle, I'm just suggesting another tactic that may help us.

In hindsight, I have to wonder how far the story of Cecil would have gotten without a photo.

Do you mean a trophy shot with cecil ? I can promise you have never seen Cecil dead.

You're right. Bad example.

But it doesn't lessen the questions: Do trophy photos help or hurt our cause? More specifically, do they help anti-hunting groups raise more or less money?

Chris makes a good point,we cannot give fuel to the anti hunting community,
bcap also makes a good point,the information released to the media should be in a constructive manner,I can see the sense in both these opinions,but however as long as there are greedy & vain trophy hunters hunting ?we will receive nothing but bad press,this elephant was taken next to Gonarezhou,I am sure we can all read between the lines,I hunt to hunt & not for the size of the trophy,sitting on the outskirts of a park waiting for the game to stroll out is legal but stinks somehow!!!

I was surprised to see Nixon in another photo of a big tusker after having been in similar photo before that was shown all over social media.I agree that photos should no longer be posted.What the media is doing is illegal-using hunting photos with a false narrative or reporting fake news for profit.

quote:

Do I like the idea of censoring ourselves? No... and I've posted more than my fair share of hunting photos over the years. So I point the finger of guilt directly at myself too.

That was the past - we are now living in times where the world is being taken over by bleeding hearts who will cry and hold vigil over a beached whale and the environmentalists who want to see society going back to the stone age.
The conservationists (and scientists) don't have a clue on what the fuck is going on, much less about African wildlife - their knowledge is largely based on theory.

If we want to continue to exercise our rights to hunt we need to conform to the current situation (like it or not) banging your fist on the table is like knocking your head against a brick wall.

Screw the publication of photographs - is it really necessary for them to be splashed on public websites? By all means take as many as your heart desires but for personal use only; invite your friends for a viewing session but don't give out copies.

After all you still get to go about your business without coming under fire; this has been hashed out for almost a decade but it still hasn't sunk in that we are outnumbered and the antis are getting stronger by the day.

Of late the Giraffe has suddenly come into the limelight. What next - Buffalo, the cute Zebra?

My concern is where does the hide and survive stop.

Do we cancel Tracks Across Africa that aired a lion hunt last week?

When has hiding allowed any activity to survive?

We must be more open, not hostile, but more open with hunting to survive. The simple fact that folks do not know elephant hunting existed os why we are having so much backlash.

It is easy for CNN to connect elephant hunting to poaching when the majority thinks elephant hunting is illegal to start with.

If they can have a Gay Pride rally in Lexington, then I am not hiding hunting.

I will concede torphy pics, but you are one legislation away, one CEO market decision away from loosing all hunting media.

Once, hunting is gone from the public eye entirely.”, hunting will end. Nobody recurots in the shadows. We need publicity, recruiting, and education.

They do not have to ban hunting. When no one does it, prices have to go up to support the economic model of conservation. The monied class pulls out is converted away from hunting. The syst collapses.

Take the time to read the comments to the article. There is so much there that needs to be rebutted, but I doubt the people who posted would listen/understand. How about a documentary about the current elephant situation in Bots? At least that would be a factual depiction of what non-management does to an ecosystem.
Just my rant.
kh

I see Andrew is in the Comments, trying to offer reason.

Don't hide and always supply the truth...but don't supply ammunition to be shot against us.

I think Chris is exactly right and I used to be camp of say F' them.

Well I agree with Chris with one caveat: don't post but if you feel you must, man up and show your face! To blur the image suggests that the poster is ashamed to be recognized. (I know, it to avoid the antis' attacks). It makes the picture even more powerful for the antis.

I agree about the face blur. If I were going or asked to blurt May face I would simply refrain.

I will concede trophy pics. Next it will be to censure, end hunting media like Tracks airing lion hunts.

This is a conclusiary statement, but I am going to assert it, once hunting is removed from the public’s eye it will stop because no one is participating. Like cigarettes, they do not have to ban them just make them unpopular.

OK!Two points. For me it's pretty hard to advertise without pix. It's just reality that I get a better response if pix are provided with the ad. As for scrubbing out the face in trophy pix I've mentioned this in the past. Only post pix with the animals or PH and or crew in the shot. Don't be in the shot your going to publish. That scrubbed out face looks very much like you ARE doing something bad and don't want anyone to know who you are. Additionally it just looks bad and ruins the shot.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
sitting on the outskirts of a park waiting for the game to stroll out is legal but stinks somehow!!!

NO. It does not stink somehow. It only stinks to the uninformed.

The VERY reason safari areas are set up next to parks is to manage park populations in excess of the parks' carrying capacity as excess animals move into surrounding areas looking for food. That food often takes the form of local farmers' fields.

The safari areas serve as a buffer between the park where the animals are protected and human populations where they are likely to be poached or killed in retaliation for destroying families' food sources, thereby reducing wildlife/human conflict.

Let's keep the discussion on point and not give into these antis.

Bill73,

Todd is exactly right. Those hunting areas surrounding major parks are mainly conservation tools to protect the animals from animals human conflicts where the animals always loose. The good hunting in these areas is almost secondary. If you do a little research you'll find hunting areas abutting parks in all the countries that allow sport hunting I know of in Africa.

Mark

Even with posting photos explaining the conservation benefits will only be swept under the rug. There is such a thing as fake news.

Speaking of Nixon, I haven’t heard much more about him on AR since the stolen travelers cheques incident died down. I don’t remember him being associated with this outfitter, but had his own. It seems he has always put some monsters down.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
sitting on the outskirts of a park waiting for the game to stroll out is legal but stinks somehow!!!

NO. It does not stink somehow. It only stinks to the uninformed.

The VERY reason safari areas are set up next to parks is to manage park populations in excess of the parks' carrying capacity as excess animals move into surrounding areas looking for food. That food often takes the form of local farmers' fields.

The safari areas serve as a buffer between the park where the animals are protected and human populations where they are likely to be poached or killed in retaliation for destroying families' food sources, thereby reducing wildlife/human conflict.

Let's keep the discussion on point and not give into these antis.

It is how bison are hunted around Yellowstone every year.

The hunting area creates a buffer between cultivation and cattle around the national park. Without hint the park would be over run by squatters and without funding. How long will all the elephant in the park ecosystem last then?

Ok guys you made your point,now lets shoot every ancient bull with giant ivory to prove our case,it will definitely make us more informed about what makes us hunters really shine in the public eye myself I will not engage in this practice,maybe a tuskless if they are overpopulated

I would not shoot a cow, tuskless or not bc cows never go through metaphase. They are either pregnant or with calf. You kill that tuskless you kill a breeder.

That old big ivory male is not breeding. He has now value, but to starve to death and feed the vultures.

If you want to shoot a cow in Zimbabwe, then I will not tell you not to. The last count says there are too many in Zimbabwe at 75,000 head.

But you are killing a breeding animal, and I think contributing to human and an,ill conflict necessitating more PAC shooting because hunted cow herds become dangerously aggressive t sight of man.

I remember reading Vraig Boddington’s books in the mall bookstore in Knoxville,TN when I was in elementary school when my family took me for school clothes shopping. Now you have to know about Safari Press and order to see a hunting book.

This is silly. The lack of monsters ain’t due to trophy hunters..

Nothing to see here, move along folks.

Just another nail in the coffin.

Please carry on.

Here we go again with I would hunt this but not this one. They don't care what you hunt because they don't like any of it and will try and cause trouble male or female big or small.

They repeat the same lies but they just keep repeating them no matter what. We need to show and prove them as the spreaders of BS. Show the money figures hunters spend and how much goes back to help. Then show what the anti's raise and how little goes back to do the real work needed.

If you hunt support all legal hunting and back up why we do it. This big bull being taken hurts nothing in the end and was a better choice then a cow unless you want to bring total numbers down then some females need to be hunted. But they would be hunted once again for a reason not just hunted because someone wants to kill one.

quote:

Like cigarettes, they do not have to ban them just make them unpopular.

Their public advertising has been banned for quite a while especially in sponsorship but recently have somehow found a way of camouflaging themselves.

It seems some here are buying the line from the article where it states trophy hunters are continuing to "surgically remove the big tuskers". What a shame.

The fact is that the conservation through hunting model is working, proven by the fact that large tusked elephant are still produced on a somewhat regular basis. And being selective in shooting the older and often larger bulls, means the young ones have time to grow older, and larger, and spread their genes, ensuring strong populations of large tuskers for the future.

I said it over on the leopard with hounds thread and I'll say it again here. I think some of you are drinking the PETA , Lion Aid, etc. cool aid and completely forgetting the value and message of conservation through hunting.

Anti hunting groups are not directing the narrative because the public cares.

They are directing the narrative because they spend their money on publicists who do their job to perfection to make people think they care.

It's all about the spin.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:
Here we go again with I would hunt this but not this one. They don't care what you hunt because they don't like any of it and will try and cause trouble male or female big or small.

They repeat the same lies but they just keep repeating them no matter what. We need to show and prove them as the spreaders of BS. Show the money figures hunters spend and how much goes back to help. Then show what the anti's raise and how little goes back to do the real work needed.

If you hunt support all legal hunting and back up why we do it. This big bull being taken hurts nothing in the end and was a better choice then a cow unless you want to bring total numbers down then some females need to be hunted. But they would be hunted once again for a reason not just hunted because someone wants to kill one.

People have to and need to make their own choices. Like I said the math supports hunting cows in Zimbabwe and Botswana. That alone if anyone wants to hunt cows I will shake their hand and buy them a drink. But to threat cow hunting as less impactful than hunting Bulls is erroneous. That was my point.

Hunt bull, hunt cows (where numbers permit). If they are not hunted funding for habitat goes down and poaching goes up, show that big Tucker’s teeth and ask folks how long can he feed himself with the absence of teeth.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
It seems some here are buying the line from the article where it states trophy hunters are continuing to "surgically remove the big tuskers". What a shame.

The fact is that the conservation through hunting model is working, proven by the fact that large tusked elephant are still produced on a somewhat regular basis. And being selective in shooting the older and often larger bulls, means the young ones have time to grow older, and larger, and spread their genes, ensuring strong populations of large tuskers for the future.

I said it over on the leopard with hounds thread and I'll say it again here. I think some of you are drinking the PETA , Lion Aid, etc. cool aid and completely forgetting the value and message of conservation through hunting.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle,conservation through hunting is the goal,I am in full support,I bet the rules get bent a little here & there,Money talks & bullshit walks.

Due to hunters responses AG had to withdraw their initial statements.

Well done lads

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Due to hunters responses AG had to withdraw their initial statements.

Well done lads

I read through the comment thread. Way to mix it up Fairgame.What a bunch of poofters...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
I see Andrew is in the Comments, trying to offer reason.

Andrew has more patience than I. How many times can you bang your head against a wall. Those folks don't understand reason, they just want to hug the bunny.
As for posting the photos, if it is a legal hunt, tell them to pound salt. I don't do many things to be politically correct.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
I see Andrew is in the Comments, trying to offer reason.

Andrew has more patience than I. How many times can you bang your head against a wall. Those folks don't understand reason, they just want to hug the bunny.
As for posting the photos, if it is a legal hunt, tell them to pound salt. I don't do many things to be politically correct.

Antis don't like it when you answer back and this we must do. It is not a one way street.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
I see Andrew is in the Comments, trying to offer reason.

Andrew has more patience than I. How many times can you bang your head against a wall. Those folks don't understand reason, they just want to hug the bunny.
As for posting the photos, if it is a legal hunt, tell them to pound salt. I don't do many things to be politically correct.

Antis don't like it when you answer back and this we must do. It is not a one way street.

I agree.The commentary went from hunter bashing to conservation education.They might not be interested in that.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
I see Andrew is in the Comments, trying to offer reason.

Andrew has more patience than I. How many times can you bang your head against a wall. Those folks don't understand reason, they just want to hug the bunny.
As for posting the photos, if it is a legal hunt, tell them to pound salt. I don't do many things to be politically correct.

Antis don't like it when you answer back and this we must do. It is not a one way street.

Bang on Andrew. Sure the hard core PETA types are not going to listen.......but the fence sitters out there, they are the target audience and some of them will read Andrew's reasonable comments, think about what he said and a few will come on side.
The FU attitude on our side just serves to assist them in how we are perceived. Yes they do it, but we need to be a cut above with carefully reasoned and crafted responses.

Animal rights is finally coalescing into religion. But it really is just the loud vocal few who are directing the narrative. The vast majority are fence sitters whose grandparents used to live on a farm. This move away from the land is affecting their thoughts towards animals. This unrealistic Disney view doesn’t hold water in real life. Put the fence sitters in reality, show the fence sitters reality and most will get it. They may not like it or pick up a gun and go hunting but at least will have the whole picture. We all remember Charlottes Web? One go at trying to move real hogs around cures even the biggest fan of that of sentimental emotional nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Animal rights is finally coalescing into religion. But it really is just the loud vocal few who are directing the narrative.

You are absolutely correct but I would expand this further to say Leftism is indeed a religion That you MUST OBEY or else, in totality for these people...
Animal Rights...socialism...political correctness...gender fluidity..
I truly believe many of these people are mentally ill