The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Meat hunters?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Meat hunters? | Login/Join |
One of Us |
Absolutely.  Too many people on here confuse a candid and open dialogue as a sign of a lack of unity. Such conversations are the only way we can ever hope to air different opinions and share ideas. Mike | |||
|
One of Us |
Good debate/discussion works best when none of the parties involved make assumptions concerning the intentions or beliefs of others involved in the discussion. If EVERY person that hunts agreed on the problem and had joined together 20-30 years ago, there might not be a problem. That did not happen. Hunters are going to be playing catch up, IF, and that is a BIG IF, they can actually put aside their personal differences/prejudices and egos to form a United group to get our message across to those that are open minded about hunting/hunters. If hunters are able to unite, the next hurdle will be finding a media outlet to air our messages. Hopefully the new guy in charge at USF&W will be able to enact some change that will be favorable toward the hunting community, only time will tell on that issue. One other aspect that people on this site are going to have to understand is that the members of this site do not necessarily represent an Accurate cross section of the Hunting Public in general. Everyone that hunts does or should want to see hunting preserved for future generations, whether they themselves have kids/grandkids or not, but do they? We do not know. We assume or hope that everyone that loves/lives hunting feels as we do, but do they? From my experience rarely have I encountered two hunters that shared the EXACT same feelings/beliefs as to why they hunt. Just an example, Accurate Reloading Forums is dedicated to guns and hunting, but which discussion area receives the most activity? The "Crater", and how often are the discussions in the "Crater" about the effects of politics on hunting? Not very often. Take this discussion, out of all the members of AR that are hunters, how many are taking time to give their input on the subject? The only way things will get off the ground is to get all or the vast majority of hunters involved and committed to supporting the program. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
One of Us |
We are all meathunters, aren`t we? I hunt because I love hunting, its my my way of life, And I also like providing my family with good healthy meat, not the industrial made trash. Do yoy leave the meat behind in the bush? No I don`t think you do, Even a elephant will be managed so the locals have meat and food for a long time. We non resident hunters take the trophy, and the locals get the meat. This is the most practical way to do it. Even a 5 ton elephant gives meat to the locals for a long time.  A fantastic trophy, and 200 lbs of delicius meat, 2 days with work getting the whole stuff to nearest road. SCI Official measurer. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Much ado is being made on whether the carcass of a legally hunted animal is being consumed or not by the ignorant masses and the lawful hunter is always to blame. Animals also die in much greater numbers when areas are hit by drought or disease but condoned as being an "act of God" yet their carcasses are left to rot as only a very small %age is taken care of by scavengers - such hypocrisy! The difference between a trophy and meat hunter is just that and there is no need to justify the reason for the choice. Trophy hunted animals will, by and large provide some sustenance to the locals but not necessarily so, nor is it mandatory either for the meat to be "distributed" to the villages and the geographical area of where the hunt takes place will be the determining factor as to how the carcasses will be disposed; e.g. farmed game in RSA will foresee the meat being meticulously processed and sold to the butcheries, in communal lands part of the meat will be given to the villages, in areas where people are not permitted to reside and the nearest village beyond the boundary being anywhere between 30-50 miles distant is for sure not getting any in a hurry. The bottom line is no meat gets wasted; if humans don't eat it, scavengers will so someone or something makes use of it. The real meat hunters are therefore those hunters with a single tag (American & European) who will retrieve max around 100lbs of meat off the bone or the South African game ranchers who will profit both ways. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Just a small dose of reality concerning this topic.
This is a topic all of us should be concerned about. Good comments have been made, and the folks making them want to see an effort made to try and save hunting for future generations. The problem, and it will always be a problem, is that hunters simply can not set aside their own personal prejudices long enough to find common ground on the issue. The discussion went to 3 pages, with 83 comments/responses, 1697 views, and unless I miscounted the 83 responses were made by 44 members. How can we hope to ever present a united front to try and educate non-hunters about hunting, when we can't get along well enough to discuss the problem? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
   Sure got quiet around here on this supposedly important issue! If the members of Accurate Reloading cannot discuss this issue and express their personal beliefs, WITHOUT, pissing off other members, how are hunters across the world ever going to become United. All of us that hunt have a stake in this issue, but, if we are going to get POed at other hunters simply because they view things differently and express their Own Personal beliefs/ideas/concerns and opinions, then the whole issue is as dead as this discussion. Just trying to represent those hunters who are in "Lock Step" agreement and basically ignoring those that aren't ain't going to accomplish anything. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
one of us |
Perception is everything. It's much more important than any fact. If we want to preserve hunting, then we need to take the time and effort to listen to the non-hunting (versus anti-hunting) segment of our society and then tailor our message to them. There's been some real survey work done on this very issue. The reasons we use to validate hunting typically don't resonate with the general public. What does would surprise you. According to the studies, the most effective argument for hunting is simply that it's "highly regulated." That makes it ok with the vast majority of the public. Our normal explainations about hunting being conservation, etc. don't resonate with the people we need to influence. | |||
|
| One of Us |
+1 Mike | |||
|
One of Us |
+2 Many people still think it's a free-for-all out there and are pleasantly surprised it's not. They are also sometimes pleasantly surprised it is a state agency that monitors/sets seasons and limits. To a non-hunter, oversight by a governmental agency often plays in our favor, as does explaining the North American model of wildlife management and Pittman/ Robertson. I guess I've had good luck with the latter point. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Really good comments, and from my experience they are accurate, because just like hunters not being all cast from the same mold, all non-hunters are not cast from the same mold. I have met and known/know non-hunters that had no problem with people that mainly hunted upland or migratory birds. Those folks would gladly take a mess of cleaned quail or dove or a couple of fresh ducks, in fact some didn't have any problem cleaning the birds, they just did not want to go out and shoot them. I have experienced the same thing with people concerning fish, they are plenty happy to get a mess of fresh caught fish, but they just are not interested in going out and catching them. During my 25 years at the Zoo, I found that even folks that bordered on being anti-hunters and supposed vegan, would slip around at functions where I brought cooked game meat and sample the stuff. In talking to them many of them had no problem with people that went out and hunted deer/elk, especially if the meat was being used. Start with the "Trophy" aspect or basically "Trophy Only" aspect and they would express their opposition to that. Also there are quite a few folks that don't hunt, won't eat game meat of any kind, but do not care one way or the other if someone else hunts or why they hunt, it is meaningless to them but they can be pushed into the anti-hunters camp, especially if someone attempts to force them into taking sides. That is my problem with the "Nugent" style of trying to get a message across because regardless of what some folks believe, lots of folks do not like nor put up with the "In Your Face"/"My Way Or The Highway", confrontational approach. It is somewhat like I have stated before in other discussions on AR, how many have noticed that the average person simply does not equate an animals skull hanging on a wall in the same manner that they do a taxidermied head, complete with eyes. Both animals died at the hands of a hunter, but just the skull leaves alternate interpretations of how the animal died. That is what our world has evolved into. For the average American in 21st. century America, their individual interaction with death is the loss of a family member/acquaintance or a pet. They are so far removed from the natural world that the concept of someone going out and intentionally killing something is totally out of their realm of thinking. Throw in the "Disney Effect" starting with "Bambi" and on up thru the "Lion King" and people that have never hunted or actually been around or know someone that does hunt and lots of folks have a subconscious negative attitude toward hunters. This is or probably is more prevalent among city dwellers than those living in more rural areas. Just an opinion, nothing more but it seems like one thing hunters are going to have to address is how to clean up our public image. We do not have to act apologetic about being a hunter, but do we HAVE to shove it in peoples faces or down their throats? All of us or many of us see "Hunters" doing things that really does not portray ALL hunters in a good manner, if not, why have so many of us stopped watching the hunting shows being aired on Public Media? This is an issue that is going to have to be discussed by all hunters, and each of us should be able to express our thoughts on the issue without being shut out simply because our individual ideas/thoughts are not in "Lock Step" with any particular group or clique. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
one of us |
CHC, that is about the most reasoned--and accurate--analysis of the current view by non-hunters in America that I've read. Probably applicable to European nations as well. I agree, the "conservation" argument usually falls on deaf ears, or is considered a weak attempt to justify hunting. If we approached non-hunters with your scenario and rhetoric, I think we'd be much more likely to convert the fence-sitters and reassure those already in neutral steer. LTC, USA, RET Benefactor Life Member, NRA Member, SCI & DSC Proud son of Texas A&M, Class of 1969 "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Robert Browning | |||
|
| One of Us |
My favorite hunting for a long time is the proper training and taking of young folks, many of whom the parents don't hunt or even own a gun. The ones that are truly interested soak up everything like a sponge. Some, it's easy to tell, are doing it because everyone else in their class is talking about hunting. I will pass on a nice buck and tell someone who cares where it is, and where to sit or still hunt for it. I prefer a spikehorn, or a jake to a longbeard. I have a pile of horns hanging over the collar ties in the garage. I had some mounts at one time, lost them in a house fire, never felt the need for them again. I have no idea where that places me in the meat vs trophy debate, I just do my own thing. | |||
|
One of Us |
Very good post Randall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agreed . . . the notion of rethinking our approach, being less confrontation but no less committed, getting our act together as hunters . . . all spot on. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
So, for the tie-back, is the rise of the meat hunter/ trophy hunter chasm an example of hunters trying to be less confrontational by trying to assign a different value/purpose to their hunting? Something that is less selfish (trophy) and more about providing/sustainability? | |||
|
| One of Us |
In my mind it is simply about (1) understanding the negative connotation of the phrase "trophy hunting" and avoiding the use of that phrase or the characterization of what hunters do, and (2) emphasizing other motivations for hunting and not focusing on or emphasing for "trophies". That is what makes SCI's continued emphasis on "trophies" and awards so ridiculous/unfortunate. Rather than trying to move away from characterizations with a clear negative public perception, they have decided to double down on such characterizations. Stupid is a word that comes to mind. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agree | |||
|
| one of us |
I have not read all the posts on this subject but what I have read was civil and a honest assessment of their true feelings, and as far as I know in intelligent conversation that is certainly allowable.. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
I do not really that there is a chasm among hunters concerning their reasons for hunting the way they do. I have never wanted to kill an Elephant or Lion, but I have no problem with anyone that does, it is THEIR business. But whether it is an Elephant or a Whitetail Deer, it has became a PUBLICITY issue, due to the actions of SOME hunters. Our society in general, and not just hunters, has became one of self/instantaneous gratification, and because Professional Sports plays such an important part of so many people's lives that too many of them, for whatever reason feel the need to celebrate and it is those celebration rituals that cause part of the problem. There is no easy answer/no easy solution, the reason things are in the shape they are in are multi-faceted. People moving away from rural areas where hunting was an accepted part of life is one. Walt Disney/Marty Stouffer and the shows they presented to the Public are two more. Shows such as The American Sportsman, that dealt with more than the kill and the celebration after, are no longer available, that is another problem. Organizations having "Record Books", which creates Competition is a problem. Hunting is not a Competitive Sport, but for many it has been turned into one. Just a question, but would making the "BOOK" be all that important, IF there was No credit given to the hunter? Just the animal, its measurements and the state or country it was killed in. How much has the concept of competition/public recognition had to do with changing hunting and peoples attitudes toward hunting? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
One of Us |
As a kid I was praised for every head shot rabbit and pheasant. "Meat hunter" they called it. After crunching down on some shot I knew why. | |||
|
One of Us |
 | |||
|
| Administrator |
I "hunt" my meat in the supermarket. Where no animals are ever harmed.  | |||
|
| one of us |
The term "trophy hunting" is being used to divide hunters the way that "assault weapons" has been used to divide gun owners going back to the 1990s. It is part of a well-funded and orchestrated PR effort. Whenever you see the same terminology being used repeatedly by media, etc., you can be sure that PR firms are spoon-feeding the talking points. Those who distinguish themselves as "meat hunters", as if the two are mutually exclusive, are playing right into the charade. Reminds me of the trap shooter types who weren't concerned about the 1994 semi-auto ban because "it didn't affect them." | |||
|
| One of Us |
It may be an attempt to divide hunters, but I really don't see all that many hunters buying into it. I do not have a problem with anyone that wants to hunt trophies, including those that hunt Elephant or Lion. I do think however that many hunters, maybe/hopefully the majority of hunters have a problem with those among us that for whatever their reason treat hunting like a competition, complete with "End Zone" celebrations. As far as dividing hunters is concerned, that is One Thing that as a group we are good at without anyone's help. That is one of the reasons things have gotten into the shape they are in. Just look at discussions that take place on here that divide the members of this site, and I am not talking about discussion in the "Crater"! Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| one of us |
In another case of flawed logic, those who put meat hunters above trophy hunters have it backwards. A trophy hunter kills males that are past their prime with no long term impact on populations at all, and forks over a large sum of money some of which goes to a good cause in the process. A meat hunter tends to shoot younger animals of either sex and thereby leaves a human disturbance in the species demographic. And meat hunters pay less. Russ Gould - Whitworth Arms LLC BigfiveHQ.com, Large Calibers and African Safaris Doublegunhq.com, Fine English, American and German Double Rifles and Shotguns VH2Q.com, Varmint Rifles and Gear | |||
|
One of Us |
Andrew In New Zealand the two categories are very obvious. Trophy hunting here in NZ is either behind wire farm hunts with big lodges, drive up etc. or true wild fair chase targeting of trophy Tahr, sika, red, fallow etc. Most trophy hunters would mount their trophies - either Euro or proper taxidermy. Meat hunting is the common day to hunting be most local hunters here. We can hunt most game throughout the year - goats, pigs, deer. In most cases we shoot does / hinds & spikers. Most people would not shoot fawns (my opinion). Some people eat goats - I do & we take the 4 legs & leave the rest in the bush. Many people just leave the goats in the bush - just pest control. I have tanned some skins. I have shot a 6 point red deer once & a scrubby fallow (big buck) living in dense thick stuff & the antlers never spread as they got scarred in velvet. Does that make me a trophy hunter? "When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
One of Us |
To me the answer to this is twofold: 1) the need to hunt 2) the need to 'collect' 1) The way I see it, hunters hunt because it is a primal human instinct that is stronger than in some than in others. No modern hunter hunts because he'll otherwise starve. And nobody's primary reason to hunt is because it conserves. I think these two justifications do more harm than good in the eyes of people struggling to understand why anybody would take pleasure in the circumstances leading up to killing something else. Which is what it boils down to. The whole 'hunt to conserve' argument is really irksome, because it just isn't true. Yes, conservation is a spin-off of hunting, but logic says if conserving the animal (species) were so important, why not save the cost of the flight ticket and just send the money to the outfitter to conserve the animals? 2) On collecting. Many people drink wine. Only a few will bid tens on thousands on a bottle of a select vintage. Same for paintings. The list goes on. Humans like to collect, and with enough means, it becomes a pretty all-consuming pursuit. Again stronger in some than others*. Finally, a trophy really is just a memento to a pleasant experience worth remembering. It just depends on how much value you place on that experience, and how far down the collecting tunnel you have gone! * Probably deserves a separate discussion, but I've never really figured out the 'why humans collect' instinct. Perhaps it lies in the evolutionary brain-chemical-reward field, we get some sort of a reward out of finding something new... even if it is only a 'certain curve of horn' or an extra few inches or a scratch on an antler or whatever. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia