Hi guy as an Outfitter I have been debating this question in my mind over and over again and thought it might be a good idea to get some different points of few on the matter.

What is better quality or quantity?

I would think that a hunt can only be memorable if you work hard for the animals you take and shoot very selectively if one were to do that you should shoot less but the trophies you do take will be exceptional and you will learn a lot more about the animals habits so you take home more than just a mount. All of this should contribute to making your hunt really memorable?

The other trend is to go out and shoot as much as you can you will get some good trophies but nothing really exceptional unless you are lucky. Because of the fact that you are busy shooting instead of hunting you don’t get the time to really learn about the animal you are hunting. But it sure makes for a good shoot and nothing more.

I am looking forward to your opinions on the matter.

I do not think either is better, but there are generalizations that aptly apply to quality and quantity.

Many hunters, particularly young and new hunters, equate quantity with having success afield. This also seems to be prevelant in European countries where the game drives are put on and hundreds of specimens of big game are shot in a few hours or days. (same can be seen in big Euro trophy rooms)

More seasoned hunters (collectors), almost universally equate quality with success on single or limited species of exceptional trophy quality. These are the hunters that will spend two weeks looking for a single elephant or the right Derby eland and will go home empty handed if the hunting gods will it to be. In many cases, they will also forego opportunities at lesser species, even if they are outstanding trophies, unless and until the primary objective of the hunt is in the salt.

Quality, & the memories of the hunt ...... much more important than quantity. Last year in So. Africa it took me four days of hard hunting & lots of walking to bag a very nice eland; I could have shot possibly a better one the first evening of the hunt, but I'm glad I didn't since I would have missed the experience & would not have learned what a great game animal the eland really is.

I think that my thought processes were that on my first hunt I wanted one of everything, just mature representative specimens of the species.

On my next trip I will be much more selective as to the animals taken as far as species and age/quality. With an idea of concentrating on just a couple of particular species unless an outstanding example of another species is just happened upon.

I don't plan on hunting for a Red Hartebeest but if I come across a monster with the bases grown together for six inches and another 20-24" of horn on top of that, then you can bet that I'll shoot it.

I prefer quality over quantity. Keeps the taxidermist's bill down and also provides a much more satisfying experience. To me, anyway. Each to his own.

Quality may be true for some species, but not all. I would rather hunt five tuskless than one trophy bull, or two 30 pound bulls than one 50 pound bull, or three nice redheads than one beautiful brunette, . . . oops we are talking about hunting.

I suppose I used to plan a hunt differently than all on this forum from what i've read. A hunt for me was determined by how much I had to spend and how many days I had to devote to it. After these two factors were determined I then decided which game animals were available in the area I had chosen to hunt. With these factors decided I chose the animals I was going to hunt. Never did i consider quality or quantity in any aspect of my planning. When on the hunt I was basically driven to take ALL the animals I had on my list. Certainly I tried for the best quality I saw but generally took the first animal that fit the plan and was what the PH considered to be a harvestable animal (this object of the hunt had been thoroughly communicated to my PH in advance). In all my hunting I can only think of one hunt where I passed on an animal which was an acceptable trophy and that was my desire for a 'blue bull' Eland. On that hunt I DID pass on acceptable eland bulls in the search for a 'blue' one. In my eight safaris I can remember only once when I did not fill my objective of getting all the animals on my list and I can assure you it was not because I 'passed' on any animals but because I failed in my pursuit of that animal. I probably should also state that I never trophy hunted and only have 2 zebra rugs some warthog tusks and on my last safari (knowing it PROBABLY was my last) I brought home my Elephant tusks.

Depends on the individual. As a new african hunter, I would enjoy hunting several species and would not be too concerned with a Roland Ward or Safari Club animal. A mature specimen would be ok. Thats not saying I don't want to hunt --- which does not come across clearly in your post. I can shoot an average male specimen and still feel good about the hunt, if you do your job appropiately. To me that means walking it it up and a proper stock as oppossed to shooting it off the back of a truck or in a high fenced enclosure. As I get a feel for the hunting, I am positive I will develop 'preferred species' and want a trophy specimen. Budget is also a consideration. As I see a sliding scale sometimes on trophy fees-- I would love to shoot an 80 pound elephant, but I'd have to live in my car for 5 years if I did.

Quality, Quality, and Quality!!!

I think "most" first time hunters are served well with representative trophys. The experience of all the game that can be taken is an intoxicant so to speak. But then on "return" Safaris selectivism can kick in and be quite fun actually.

I think Buckeye nailed it. A first-time hunter is in such awe of the experience, it would be tough to pass up a decent Kudu, as EVERY Kudu is a trophy to him. If you've been a few times, you might be more selective in your choices, as you've seen a number of animals of that species so the non-trophy animals don't excite you as much.

One of the big determining factors is whether you are willing to go home empty handed if you don't get a shot at a true trophy of the species you're hunting. Unless they've been a number of times, I would bet most hunters are not willing to face the prospect of getting "skunked" on an African hunt they've saved for and anticipated so fervently. Coming home empty-handed would be a disaster in their eyes.

I guess a good analogy would be Whitetails. A new hunter is excited by ANY Whitetail, but after years of hunting, would be happy to come home empty-handed, to pursue his elusive "Monster" again at a later time.

I would prefer the quality route. That, however, is somewhat in conflict with the agenda of many professional hunters and outfitters since the more you shoot the more money they make. They are all for shooting a "good representative of the species" rather than trying a bit harder to get a better trophy.

I would also say, look at the PH. If he's skinny, he probably won't mind walking. A lot of them (the better nourished ones) would prefer not to get too far from the bakke.

A hunt can be a quality hunt without a quality animal at the end of it.

Every hunter is different -- but for me, hunting is, in fact, about the hunting not the killing.

Taking nothing but the highest quality animals requires a lot more hunting than does settling for representative specimens and that's its primary attraction. The harder the hunt, the more satisfying the adventure as far as I'm concerned. Win or lose, I like the challenge more than the result.

So, it's quality for me, over quantity. But, each to his own and I might feel differently if I could take just one African safari in a lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by Palmer:
A hunt can be a quality hunt without a quality animal at the end of it.

Very well said, I like to hunt for only quality trophies and I am always prepared to go home empty handed, satisfied with the experience if I can't find what I am looking for.

My approach is to pick one species for which I want a good trophy and communicate that information to the outfitter/PH. If there are other good specimens of other species in the same area than I make the decision to hunt them on the spot, but I won't shoot a less than good mature representative of any species, unless by mistake. But I think outfitters/PH will better meet my expectations if they know I want an area where I will have the best chances for high quality trophy on one animal.

quote:

My approach is to pick one species for which I want a good trophy and communicate that information to the outfitter/PH. If there are other good specimens of other species in the same area than I make the decision to hunt them on the spot, but I won't shoot a less than good mature representative of any species, unless by mistake. But I think outfitters/PH will better meet my expectations if they know I want an area where I will have the best chances for high quality trophy on one animal.

that sums up my feelings totally ... if you love to hunt buffalo , 6 different buffalo hunts in 6 different areas will yield some interesting and pleasurable "side hunts" for other game ...

It totally depends upon the experience level of the hunter. All (or most at least) hunters go through phases in their hunting life.

Phase One:
At first, they just want to have the success of hunting the animal and actually bagging one. They don't really care about the trophy quality of the animal except that it be a mature speciman. Hunters at this stage equate a successful hunt with an animal on the ground.

Phase Two:
After having some success and feeling more confident in their abilities, they become more selective, passing on multiple smaller animals to get a larger one. Hunters at this stage are beginning to realize that there is more to the hunt than a dead animal and an unfilled tag is not the end of the world nor the sign of a "bad hunt."

Phase Three:
After having killed enough small to medium size animals, hunters at this stage of their career want to match wits with only the most mature and wary animals. They savor the challenge and the experience of the hunt. An unfilled tag isn't seen as a sign of failure, only a reminder that they have to hunt harder and smarter the next time.

Most hunters that have any time in the woods or afield reach Phase Two, many will never make it to Phase Three for a variety of reasons.

I feel I am somewhere between Phase Two and Phase Three.

In answer to the original question, there is no one correct answer. It is up to you as an outfitter to talk with your client to determine which Phase he/she is in. Only then can you plan a successful safari for that particular individual.

I think that its a mixture of quality and quantity.

I agree with what Shof has said about the three phases however I also think that there is a fourth phase.

Phase four:
On starts to realise that trophy hunting is over rated and that there are other animal that could mean more of a hunt. For example in the Timbavati they have a whole three cattogories of buffalo hunting. Cows, trophy bulls, and Dagga boys.

The Dagga boys are the animals i'm talking about. these are the buffalo that have been through shit. they have broken horns or worn down horns. They the big bulls that don't have the best sort of horns. But they have a much bigger story behind them. they are the battle scared survivors. these are the buffalo that i think would be much more of a challenge. a better hunt.

Phase four is the stage where hunters realise that the trophy hunts are not the best hunts and they start hunting for the individual.

Some excellent comments.
I like the 3 Phases but will add that Trigger Steve's Phase 4 has a fork. Some folks may go for the scarred up, broken, unique trophy but I believe most will go on to teach.
That is to take others, mainly their kids, hunting.
Remember, quality is easy to say but rarely affordable. How many avg folks can afford multiple big game hunts?

You will notice that I said "Mature" animals.

To some, that means big racks, huge horns or great trophy score. To others, that means old, scarred and wary.

In either case, an animal has to have survived multiple hunting seasons and evaded hunters. These are the difficult animals that present the challenge that Phase Three hunters with the thrill of the hunt.

It seems everyone here is tuned into the concept of progression from shooter to hunter. I think most first time African hunters are well served by the "whack and stack" safari. At this stage, quantity has a quality all its own.
We move on, perhaps to a dangerous game hunt. Gradually we transform from shooters to hunters. Everyone wants a quality trophy, but what that means morphs into a trophy of a quality hunt, rather than inches. An old, scarred animal represents something mere inches can't.
Another fork, which can happen at any of Trigger Steve's phases, is a shift to what I call "method hunting." Guys become bow hunters, handgun hunters, primitive arms hunters, or some such.
Retrospectively, I should have shot, or at least mounted less initially. It seemed like the thing to do at the time.

For me it depends. Here in the US, most of my hunts have a large component of meat hunting to them. For example, this afternoon I'll pick my son up from school and we will head out to Wyoming to meet up with family for an antelope hunt. Between the ten of us we have over thirty tags and we plan to fill most of them the first two days. "Grocery shopping" is what my uncle calls it. Of course we will try to fill our buck tags with mature animals, but we want to make meat.

On the guided hunts I've done, in Africa and Canada, quality is much more the rule. In fact, I have come to enjoy hunting in Africa so much that I will happily forgo numbers of trophies so that I can afford to go back more frequently. My next hunt, which will be in Namibia, I plan to concentrate on a hartebeest first (because I haven't shot one yet) but would like to spend the rest of my time chasing eland. If I see a bigger one than the one I have now, I'll shoot, but if not, I won't. Likewise with other game: if it's bigger than what I have on the wall now, I'll shoot, but will pass it up otherwise.

I think it is a personal choice of every hunter and every hunter will have different priorities and infinitely varying combinations. If I were an Outfitter , and as the liaison between the client and the hunt location, I would be asking very detailed questions to each prospective client as to exactly what their “individual” expectations are and do everything to meet those expectations if possible. Likewise, if the expectations are unreasonable or not realistic i.e., “I want to shoot ten 60” Gemsbok in 3-days”, the client should be told up front the expectation is not realistic.

Matching each client’s desires, managing expectations, and then DELIVERING, you can’t help but give every hunter a memorable experience you are seeking to provide.

On both trips I've tried to have some extra days built in. I go with a small list of desired species, and figure that I'd use the extra days to just take a good one of whatever Mother Africa and Goddess Diana offer up. I've ended up with 5 unplanned trophies that way, and those were some of the most fun hunts as well.

Very interesting question...I read an article many years ago about the phases a hunter goes (grows) through. I'll paraphrase as best as I can remember. The collecting phase, where collecting the full bag is the goal..getting the limit allowed or filling all the tags. The trophy phase where collecting the best quality trophy. The next phase has to do more with method and may or may not require a "quality" trophy, where any animal is a trophy because the method was the real measurement of the trophy, such as using traditional archery equipment, using double rifle at close range for collecting the trophy etc. etc. and as I remember finally just experiencing the hunt as the trophy. Obviously many of us have somewhat overlapping experiences and these generalized categories can't account for all of us all of the time. Interestingly enough, for me I am in a more progressed phase when it comes to my local fauna and flora and at an earlier phase for more distant game locations. The guys I know who measure the success of the experience by the length of the horn are usually unhappy more often than those of us who appreciate the overall experience regardless of the size of the trophy.

Having just returned from my first trip to Africa (Namibia), I find I have an answer to this question, Quality, and not based on the size of the trophy.

As a young boy in Michigan I lived with an excitement so large as to cause me to dismiss my meals, forget the agony of my chores and even the burden of my older sister. These reactions were caused by my being told I would be able to "go hunting" for the first time.

The anticipation of this taking place brought such a high that the fact that I did not fire a shot from my Hiawatha brand .410 single-shot never phased me. Walking around with 2 1/2" #4 shot Peters brand shotshells in my pocket brought such a high that I am at a loss as what to compare it too.

Reading old, second-hand copies of Outdoor Life, Sports Afield and Field & Stream put a rather large dent in my income due to the number of batteries I had to purchase in order to read under the blankets. Such was the level of excitement and anticipation the prospect of "going hunting" added to my young life.

How many of you committed your "first crime" of stealing the copy of one of the above magazines from the local doctor's waiting room? That has weighed heavily on my conscious lo' these many years


When first I committed to going to Africa (thanks to the postings of many of you on this board) I found myself with a big helping of excitement and anticipation to enjoy. Building an 'Africa rifle" developing loads, working with a PH, practicing off sticks, learning about the animals I wanted, acquiring some knowledge of the area to be hunted, flights, gear, clothing and on and on. I must have packed and repacked ten dozen times. My wife thought I was nuts!

On my hunt in Namibia I returned with quality animals, total satisfaction with those I took. Not one of the animals would ever make anyone's record book, horn size was not a major criteria for me, good representative animals were just fine as I derived tremendous pleasure from the hunting and all else that led up to the point of shooting. The taking of the animal was almost anti-climatic as compared to all that preceded it.

To me the total experience from the time of decision to go until...heck, I still am enjoying the experience and think of different aspects daily.

I guess what I am trying to say in my poorly written response is that my "quality" hunt may be different than yours, the "quality" of my trophies may be different than yours, however; please do not assume my experience was not a "quality" one based on size of my animals, they are all trophies to me.

Well, I'm certain I did a poor job of trying to convey my feelings on this topic. Did any of you have trouble trying to relate what you felt after your first trip to Africa? I want to go back in the worst way...the anticipation of which (altho' unlikely) brings me pleasure on a daily basis.

My apologies if I bored you,
SFC E7 (retired)

p.s. My son, who also went feels very much the same way. He too is still experiencing a high from the trip.

Hi guys wow I did not expect so many replays. I was kind of throwing a rock in a bush.

I am very pleased to hear that there are still a lot of ethical hunters out there. I loved the example of the dagga bulls in my book they are the best trophies you will ever hunt.

All the comments made complete sense. I do not think that the quality of your hunt should be dependent on the size of the trophy alone it must be the whole package. It is about learning something so that we can evolve as hunters.

Keep um coming guys love all the info.

I could do both.

With only two designated hunting trips to Africa behind me, I could go again to just hunt specific animals. Not necessarily measured trophy animals but old LARGE animals of a specific species.

I could also be tempted to join some locals on a Springbok cull or a Dassie varmint hunt. (With a bit of drinking thrown in maybe )
That experience would be just as interesting and rewarding as a classic romanticised Safari. The bucks wouldn't be in such a hunt for the operator but it would be a good way for hunters to share their passion across international boundaries.