I am going to pull an Edmond here and respond to myself, and shuck this down to the corn. Yes the meat does not go to waste and you can eat on it in camp till you can't walk, but there is not one damn one of you that go hunt a lion or elephant or anything else in Africa, to in the words of Larry The Cable Guy, "Feed All The Starving Pygmies"!!!!

It is time to to stop trying to justify your options, especially when you know full well the animal you kill will be the best/biggest specimen you can find.

You folks can call me a dirty Son Of A Bitch it don't matter, because I am a hunter and even though I have never made the effort to hunt Africa, I do not want to see those that en joy it, losing that ability.

I just believe that being honest concerning your REAL motives for doing such hunts would go over better with folks than doing a song and dance to sooth your own consciences.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Yes, I am aware the meat does not go to waste. Anyone that hunts knows that the meat does not go to waste.

What does the HUNTER bring home?????

A TROPHY! That is all the anti element see and focus on.

Does ANYONE going to Africa do so to supply the natives with meat???? No, let us do not kid an old kidder.

They are after a trophy. That the locals make use of the meat is sort of like collateral damage. If the locals did not use the meat would that stop hunters from going and shooting the animals?

Anyone want to answer that truthfully?

When planning a safari does what happens to the meat actually enter into the equation?

You're painting with a broad brush. I hunted Namibia in 2004 and one of the first questions I asked here and of the PH was "What happens to the meat? Can I eat some? Is the rest used?" I learned and then had it confirmed on the ground that everything is used. In fact, those thrifty Africans use far more of the animals killed than I use of those I kill here. I was impressed and content knowing I had contributed in some small fashion to someone else's well-being and that a renewable resource was being responsibly used. Yes, I did bring home some trophies, but those were gravy on top of the biscuit - a great hunt with my dad as an expression of appreciation for all the time and effort he invested in me as a youth and young man.

In 2005 I hunted RSA with a PH who posts here. We had a great time and again I made sure that all meat was to be used. We ate plenty of it, some went to the staff at the various properties we hunted, and some went commercial. All was utilized. When that hunt was over, I left content once again. I did not bring trophies home from that hunt. I have some great photos and very fond memories of hunts conducted in an ethical and exciting manner.

To answer your question - If I had been told that the meat from animals I shot was to be left in the field and I could only recover the trophy. I absolutely would not have gone hunting there. Hell, I'm irritated that my home state of New Mexico no longer requires that javelina meat be recovered from the field. I quit hunting them because I don't like to eat them and I find the new non-requirement ridiculous.

CHC:

I have to say that I disagree with you as well. I do not go and never have gone for the trophy. The trophy, if any, is a by product of the hunt. To me the taxidermy I do is a way to honor the animal.

I go for different reasons. A trophy is not one of them. If I went for the trophies, I would need a massive house.

There are indeed some animals that I shoot for the meat. Notably eland in Africa. I always try to shoot one as I dearly love to eat them.

The reasons I go vary depending on what I am hunting. The experience, the challenge, contributing to conservation, and the meat are always on the top of the list always. Granted we can't bring the meat home from Africa but we can from other hunts. Due to certain medical issues in my household, we are trying to eat as much natural meat as possible in my household. We ate a hell of a lot of Dall sheep and deer in 2017 for example.

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Yes, I am aware the meat does not go to waste. Anyone that hunts knows that the meat does not go to waste.

What does the HUNTER bring home?????

A TROPHY! That is all the anti element see and focus on.

Does ANYONE going to Africa do so to supply the natives with meat???? No, let us do not kid an old kidder.

They are after a trophy. That the locals make use of the meat is sort of like collateral damage. If the locals did not use the meat would that stop hunters from going and shooting the animals?

Anyone want to answer that truthfully?

When planning a safari does what happens to the meat actually enter into the equation?

You're painting with a broad brush. I hunted Namibia in 2004 and one of the first questions I asked here and of the PH was "What happens to the meat? Can I eat some? Is the rest used?" I learned and then had it confirmed on the ground that everything is used. In fact, those thrifty Africans use far more of the animals killed than I use of those I kill here. I was impressed and content knowing I had contributed in some small fashion to someone else's well-being and that a renewable resource was being responsibly used. Yes, I did bring home some trophies, but those were gravy on top of the biscuit - a great hunt with my dad as an expression of appreciation for all the time and effort he invested in me as a youth and young man.

In 2005 I hunted RSA with a PH who posts here. We had a great time and again I made sure that all meat was to be used. We ate plenty of it, some went to the staff at the various properties we hunted, and some went commercial. All was utilized. When that hunt was over, I left content once again. I did not bring trophies home from that hunt. I have some great photos and very fond memories of hunts conducted in an ethical and exciting manner.

To answer your question - If I had been told that the meat from animals I shot was to be left in the field and I could only recover the trophy. I absolutely would not have gone hunting there. Hell, I'm irritated that my home state of New Mexico no longer requires that javelina meat be recovered from the field. I quit hunting them because I don't like to eat them and I find the new non-requirement ridiculous.

I agree with DesertRam. I would not hunt in Africa if the meat was left rotting in the field. I've been twice and will go back again only if I know the entire animal will be used. In fact, on my my first trip to Africa, I was annoyed with the PH for feeding us steak instead of the Wildebeest and Impala that I shot.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I am going to pull an Edmond here and respond to myself, and shuck this down to the corn. Yes the meat does not go to waste and you can eat on it in camp till you can't walk, but there is not one damn one of you that go hunt a lion or elephant or anything else in Africa, to in the words of Larry The Cable Guy, "Feed All The Starving Pygmies"!!!!

It is time to to stop trying to justify your options, especially when you know full well the animal you kill will be the best/biggest specimen you can find.

You folks can call me a dirty Son Of A Bitch it don't matter, because I am a hunter and even though I have never made the effort to hunt Africa, I do not want to see those that en joy it, losing that ability.

I just believe that being honest concerning your REAL motives for doing such hunts would go over better with folks than doing a song and dance to sooth your own consciences.

Crazy Horse,

I agree with Desert Ram, you are painting with too broad of a brush. There are many of us who hunt Africa in order to EXPERIENCE Africa. I personally tell people that "I always hunt when I go to Africa, but I never go to Africa just to hunt".

I have never taken a trophy home from Africa and I probably never will. It's simply not my thing. I would rather spend my money on a return trip.

What we are trying to explain to you is that we can enjoy a sport that we have a passion for AND benefit wildlife and the community. That is what conservation is and what we need to promote.

Honestly I can't understand your argument about not hunting Africa because you personally can't utilize ALL of the meat. That's selfish and ludicrous. The meat isn't going to waste, it is going to someone. That someone frankly is a person who needs it a lot more than you do. I bet you would change your mind if you could see the joy a bucketful of meat brings an African.

By not going to Africa you are cheating yourself out of a wonderful experience as well as not bringing in needed dollars into a community. You miss participating in a sport that when practiced responsibly benefits everyone. The hunter, the local, and the animals in general.

Just some thoughts for you.

This is touching on a point I often reiterate - We hunters immediately defend hunting by reciting - We create jobs, We feed the hungry.

And while it all sounds plausible, the facts are, if you're hunting on a private farm all you're really feeding is the farmer and the staff. Sure, whatever is left over has commercial value and is sold to grocery stores or bush meat companies. In regards to supporting jobs, again, if you're on a private farm, you're helping to support 8 to 10 jobs that probably would have been created to raise cattle if not for the hunting operation. So a net gain? Maybe not.

Concession hunting in Conservancies or national wildlife areas does create new, sustainable jobs and the meat, by contract, is the property of the Conservancy. Unfortunately, only a handful of operations actually post how many jobs they create/support, how much meat they distribute annually and how much money goes back to the Conservancy.

Operators need to engage in a little PR by collecting and distributing this informaiton to their clients so that when someone asks how your hunting impacts communities, you have the facts to educate.

Opus,

I do agree with you that the net gain on a private farm may not be as noticeable as that of a conservancy but certainly it does contribute something to the local community. The S. African model has worked well in many regards and is part of the conservation model.

Operators do need to engage in a little PR. We need to have objective data to show people.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Yes, I am aware the meat does not go to waste. Anyone that hunts knows that the meat does not go to waste.

What does the HUNTER bring home?????

A TROPHY! That is all the anti element see and focus on.

Does ANYONE going to Africa do so to supply the natives with meat???? No, let us do not kid an old kidder.

They are after a trophy. That the locals make use of the meat is sort of like collateral damage. If the locals did not use the meat would that stop hunters from going and shooting the animals?

Anyone want to answer that truthfully?

When planning a safari does what happens to the meat actually enter into the equation?

I am a hunter...I go for the hunt. I bring back the trophies as a tribute to the animal and to remember.

I would and have gone knowing I might bring nothing home and just experience the hunt.

100% the truth for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I am going to pull an Edmond here and respond to myself, and shuck this down to the corn. Yes the meat does not go to waste and you can eat on it in camp till you can't walk, but there is not one damn one of you that go hunt a lion or elephant or anything else in Africa, to in the words of Larry The Cable Guy, "Feed All The Starving Pygmies"!!!!

It is time to to stop trying to justify your options, especially when you know full well the animal you kill will be the best/biggest specimen you can find.

You folks can call me a dirty Son Of A Bitch it don't matter, because I am a hunter and even though I have never made the effort to hunt Africa, I do not want to see those that en joy it, losing that ability.

I just believe that being honest concerning your REAL motives for doing such hunts would go over better with folks than doing a song and dance to sooth your own consciences.

The above is not really true for me. Yes I hunt for the "right" animal but that is it.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
CHC:

I have to say that I disagree with you as well. I do not go and never have gone for the trophy. The trophy, if any, is a by product of the hunt. To me the taxidermy I do is a way to honor the animal.

I go for different reasons. A trophy is not one of them. If I went for the trophies, I would need a massive house.

There are indeed some animals that I shoot for the meat. Notably eland in Africa. I always try to shoot one as I dearly love to eat them.

The reasons I go vary depending on what I am hunting. The experience, the challenge, contributing to conservation, and the meat are always on the top of the list always. Granted we can't bring the meat home from Africa but we can from other hunts. Due to certain medical issues in my household, we are trying to eat as much natural meat as possible in my household. We ate a hell of a lot of Dall sheep and deer in 2017 for example.

Amen brother Larry.

I basically agree with everyone's post above in response to Randall.

I believe the point CHC was making is few hunters go to Africa to be altruistic to feed, clothe and employ Africans.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
I believe the point CHC was making is few hunters go to Africa to be altruistic to feed, clothe and employ Africans.

And I personally will agree to that.

Personally I just go to Africa for the beer.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
I believe the point CHC was making is few hunters go to Africa to be altruistic to feed, clothe and employ Africans.

Probably not sir, but there is no reason why we can't make it part of the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
I believe the point CHC was making is few hunters go to Africa to be altruistic to feed, clothe and employ Africans.

The year the started the issues with the elephants, I went with this very thing on my mind. I knew what was going to happen if the hunters did not go because of the "suspension." I spent a lot of money that year. I did not want to see the safari company fail and put all of those really good local people out of work, not to mention the operators. I also gave more money for anti-poaching. Perhaps I was the exception.

Randall,

You've hit on a point that is quite important. In my business as an agent I try to stress that the total experience of being on safari is at least if not more important than the trophies but that's a tough one for the newbie. In the beginning most African hunters go with their goal being to take an X,Y and Z animal. After they've done that a time or two I think most of us begin to see that safari is much more than killing a big buffalo or whatever. Safari includes all the elements others have spoken of and there's just something magic about hearing a lion calling as you're fall asleep in your reed hut. I personally could be happy going as an observer and not shooting at all. The shooting is fun but not necessary. Just to have been there is very satisfying.

I think a hunter that goes to Africa and is solely interested in taking the animals is cheating himself. That same hunter will consider the safari a failure if he doesn't get the animals he wants. He will have missed out on all the wonderful elements that make safari one of the most incredible experiences you can have.

Personally the trophy to me is really secondary. I can be pretty happy with a mediocre trophy if the hunt was fun and the stalk executed successfully. I like big stuff but it's far from why I go on safari.

Mark

Gentlemen and ladies if any are participating, it is not my intention to further the lines of division that we are having to try and heal.

To me, because of the way I grew up and the time I grew up in, going above the Arctic Circle and shooting a Musk Ox and A Barren Ground Caribou, was the TROPHY. The experience, meeting new people, sharing a camp with folks that had hunted Africa, was intimidating on many levels.

I have always been a collector as a hunter and taking representative specimens is all that has mattered. I would have been just as happy if the Moose I killed on Newfoundland had been a cow Moose, but luckily it was a 7 point Bullwinkle and I am as proud of that little bull as if it had been a New World Record.

It has always been that way with me, it is the HUNT that matters, not the size or possible score, but the fact that God made me a hunter and allowed me to experience the things I have.

What would be the state of things if there were NO record keeping organizations or if such organizations only recognised the animal and NOT the hunter?

Why have so many of us forgotten that we all hunt for different reasons, we all view our role in the activity differently and we all have different goals, in my case number of species regardless of size versus the potential score in some Record Book.

Good post Randall.

did anyone else spot Bert Klineburger, near the beginning at the SCI show ?

as for the rest ,like most it want as bad as it could have been so overall I'm pleased.
as for the croc shooter ,no class ,low rent ,rich scumbag asswhole ,if you have no respect or interest in the efort for what your hunting its just killing and I for one do not gain any pleasure from that.

the Elephant , don't care about the size only a quick and humane kill ,especially on game of that caliber and on that point that guy and his guide fell short.

quote:

I think a hunter that goes to Africa and is solely interested in taking the animals is cheating himself. That same hunter will consider the safari a failure if he doesn't get the animals he wants. He will have missed out on all the wonderful elements that make safari one of the most incredible experiences you can have.

The reason a hunter (as in client) spends money to go to Africa is to hunt and to kill certain species of animals, some more, some less.
An African safari is no weekend walk in the park and involves serious money and careful planning, sometimes several years in advance.

And yes, if that hunter were to have an unsuccessful hunt, given the costs involved, there would be a fair amount of bitching; the outfitter very likely being crucified for failing to deliver and reason being why we have the option of South African fenced hunting areas where you chances of success are almost guaranteed.

If he/she were to primarily go in search of sounds and sunsets (which form part and parcel of any African hunting package), that would be a photographic safari (less expensive) and not a hunt.

Feeding the "starving indigenous multitudes":

Most of us know that this is far from the truth.
You are pretty well versed with Tanzania to know the mechanics of the hunting industry and the way the hunting concessions work.
You know for example, that any and all Game Reserves do not allow encroachment of settlements or farming in any form within their charted boundaries - there is therefore no living soul within miles (or so there shouldn't be, except for the odd wily poacher).

You are not even permitted to transit through a Reserve without prior permission and have no business being there unless you are a registered outfitter with a hunting concession registered in your name.

The nearest village/settlement might be as close as 20kms or further - there are reasons for setting camps as far away as possible and the meat which is retrieved from the carcass of a downed animal is very unlikely to be going back to any of these satellite villages at the additional expense of the outfitter, unless the camp vehicle is programmed to go beyond the boundary on official business and there just happens to be something fresh laying in the skinning shed.

The only areas which do not fall within this category are a handful of WMAs (similar to the Conservancies) where the outfitter may from time to time at his discretion, send an occasional consignment of meat to the nearest village.

There are no commercial outlets for game meat in Tanzania (by law) - you may gift it, have a party and share with friends but forbidden to sell.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

I think a hunter that goes to Africa and is solely interested in taking the animals is cheating himself. That same hunter will consider the safari a failure if he doesn't get the animals he wants. He will have missed out on all the wonderful elements that make safari one of the most incredible experiences you can have.

The reason a hunter (as in client) spends money to go to Africa is to hunt and to kill certain species of animals, some more, some less.
An African safari is no weekend walk in the park and involves serious money and careful planning, sometimes several years in advance.

And yes, if that hunter were to have an unsuccessful hunt, given the costs involved, there would be a fair amount of bitching; the outfitter very likely being crucified for failing to deliver and reason being why we have the option of South African fenced hunting areas where you chances of success are almost guaranteed.

If he/she were to primarily go in search of sounds and sunsets (which form part and parcel of any African hunting package), that would be a photographic safari (less expensive) and not a hunt.

Feeding the "starving indigenous multitudes":

Most of us know that this is far from the truth.
You are pretty well versed with Tanzania to know the mechanics of the hunting industry and the way the hunting concessions work.
You know for example, that any and all Game Reserves do not allow encroachment of settlements or farming in any form within their charted boundaries - there is therefore no living soul within miles (or so there shouldn't be, except for the odd wily poacher).

You are not even permitted to transit through a Reserve without prior permission and have no business being there unless you are a registered outfitter with a hunting concession registered in your name.

The nearest village/settlement might be as close as 20kms or further - there are reasons for setting camps as far away as possible and the meat which is retrieved from the carcass of a downed animal is very unlikely to be going back to any of these satellite villages at the additional expense of the outfitter, unless the camp vehicle is programmed to go beyond the boundary on official business and there just happens to be something fresh laying in the skinning shed.

The only areas which do not fall within this category are a handful of WMAs (similar to the Conservancies) where the outfitter may from time to time at his discretion, send an occasional consignment of meat to the nearest village.

There are no commercial outlets for game meat in Tanzania (by law) - you may gift it, have a party and share with friends but forbidden to sell.

No bitching on my end. I accept and require that the animal my win. I do not judge a hunt international or local by the bag.

Kelmens was visibly sweating when we first hunted together. I took him aside and told him not to worry about it. He had a great terrain, a great place, I was happy. That if I did not shoot anything I would come back.

I can tell when folks are working hard and are not pissing in my face.
I would spend more to do less. I hated my honeymoon in Honolulu.

I am glad and always highlight the humanitarian aspect of African hunting. My only issue is I wish Africa could stand on her feet. Where the citizen did not require the meat provided more stable. But if Africa was more urban “prosperous”then the wild places and mega fauna would not exist. We could not have herds of bison in the US and have a modern US.

The model of conservancy, wild private and public game area, set aside for game that pays for the land it walks on while providing protein for locals who would otherwise kill off game recognizes hard reality of man and modernization versus contracting habbitat. It uses negative forces for a greater good. We should be mindful of our role in providing the greater good.

Or you can be an ignorant shooter who cannot see beyond his bag, type measure, or space on the wall. Ignorance is not bliss.

It was the locals utilization of everything but the trumpet on the own use elephant that most positively influenced the makers of a Trophy. Even though we versed in hunting immediately recognized the issues with that particular hunt. Slow follow up and non selective targeting of a sub adult. The loc
As did not like The targeting of the sub adult. When interviewed they asked for a bigger one with more meat.

If the meat gets eaten incamp npby staff of the operator only to in TZ, I am ok with that. The point is the animal is not wasted or killed just for its head or hide.

The first humans built alters with the skulls and racks of the game they took and made paintings of the hunt. Mounts and pictures are that. Memory rendered into the physical to honor the animal, its sacrifice, and the day.

I think it would be great and smart that when someone (maybe an anti hunting plant) comes up to an outfitter’s booth at whatever show the first piece of literature they see is the humanities statices showing land conserved/restored, snares and traps removed, meat distributed, employment, any special local projects funded such as schools.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
He may be a great PH and a great guy. Why in the world would he stand around and let the dying elephant moan and groan while he lights up a cigarette before the finishing shot is administered especially knowing that the camera was rolling?

Damn poor judgment at minimum, emphasis on minimum.

I couldn't believe it. I found myself shouting at the TV, just shoot it!!

FAO: UK Members of AR

'Trophy' is available on BBC iPlayer for the next month:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09q4ggq

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:
I watched it last night. Like many, I was absolutely disgusted at the elephant and croc scenes. There is no excuse for not immediately finishing that elephant. Anyone who participates in the shooting of ANY animal such as the crocodile scene should be condemned by all ethical hunters. I was totally disgusted with that, even more than poorly dispatching a young elephant. I thought the Zim anti-poaching scenes were well done. Would have liked to see more focus on that.

Overall, I thought the movie was OK, though I think they could have done a much better job of distinguishing between hunting and poaching. It wasn't as good as I'd hoped but better than I expected.

Final thoughts, I doubt I'd ever hunt with ARU and definitely not with Mabula Pro. And I plan to politely and respectfully tell both operations that, and why, next week in Las Vegas.

And what did you tell them at SCI?

Sorry for digging this thread up again but I just got a chance to see this film.
Oh dear, what chance do we hunters have when we are portrait like this?
Those “hunters” are a terrible example, is this really the best the hunting fraternity can put forward? If this is the best we can manage to represent us then I am afraid it’s no wonder the antis have valid arguments.
Who selected these clowns (“hunters”)?
Sad………