The following quote is from another thread:
"Your idea about just taking pictures (sic. rather than mount the animal)is a very good one...I know somebody who went a step further and left a few of his pictures with a local artist and had a series of small oil paintings done....A very nice touch indeed..."

It raises the question in my mind of why kill the animal? Most of us are "tourist hunters" and don't shoot game in Africa to acquire meat for our freezers.

If we're not going to keep the skulls or hides or meat, why not settle for high quality photos? If we want to be in the pic with the animal, why not dart them?

If the experience of the hunt is what we're after and not the kill, pics and darts should do the trick. Is the experience of the kill something we naturally crave?

Now, before you all start ganging up on me, I've killed a lot of critters and intend to kill a bunch more. I've hunted/killed for meat and I've hunted/killed for trophies. I have never however, hunted/killed an animal without the purpose of personally keeping/using some substantial part of it.

What's your take?

The trophy is the hunt, not a skull or a piece of backstrap. Moreover, today there are many outlets to ensure that meat will be put to productive use. In Africa, nothing goes to waste in my experience -- it is either used for baits, biltong, camp meat, meat for the locals, etc. So if someone wants to hunt a hog and donate the meat to Hunters for the Hungry, a local family that needs the meat, etc. I have no problem with that. I do think there is an ethical issue, in my opinion, of simply shooting something and leaving it to rot in the field (unless it is something like a groundhog, coyote or the like). But by the same token I do not believe that the hunter has to personally take the head, horns or utilize the meat so long as some provision is made to have the meat utilized.

"I do not hunt in order to kill, but rather kill in order to have hunted." A poor paraphrase of the original quote from Ortega, I admit, but it does sum it up perfectly.
Much of the hunting I do in the US results in my donation of the entire animal to either a charity or some needy family we know. I don't personally "use" all of the meat I shoot each year in the US, either. It doesn't diminish my desire to participate in the hunt. The game animals I kill in Africa are even more fully utilized than those in the US. Whether or not I bring back the trophies is immaterial. I do love to hunt. And I am fortunate, by most peoples standards, to hunt quite a bit. Fully half the animals I harvest each year are antlerless in the US, and I still enjoy the hunt.
Bill

I like to hunt. And I like to challenge elephant up close. Unlike almost any other animal, elephant will return the challenge for an exciting 6 yard frontal brain shot. For me, that is what it is about, after a long, hard stalk of course.

Why kill the animal?

Because it is part of the total hunting experience. It satisfies the predatory urge. Killing the animal is what makes hunting a sport.

I agree with the above statements. I also look at it this way. I feed a hell of a lot of people with my rifle every time I go to Africa. Call it FoodAid if you like, but that alone takes care of any "guilt" that might be associated with those who hunt and kill but don't bring anything home. Most Africans are protein and otherwise starved, as witnessed by the rampant poaching, and to feed them is a very big plus in my book. And yes, they use everthing, unlike us here in the United States.

In over 60 yrs of hunting on three continents, I have about 15 mounts total, and on many hunts I didn't even have a camera. This seems funny, even to me, today, with cameras so small, and loaded with features not available many yrs ago, but none the less, that's the way it is.

Like some others here, the main thing to me is the hunt it's self, and though I enjoy the monts I do have, the memories are what counts for me! Read my tag line below!

The shipping is a consideration, for sure. The cost from Africa, is considerable, and will go a long way to financeing the next hunt, if bypassed! Like some others here, I'm one of those people who must pinch every penny, to be able to go to Africa at all, so I want as much from it as I can get, and still be able to go again!

The meat, is never wasted on any of my hunts, in Africa or anyplace else. Also like others here I donate most of the meat anyplace I hunt, especially in Alaska, and Canada. There's always someone who can use the meat, for their winter supply. Many times I take only the horns, and some times capes, and sometimes nothing at all. I can remember almost every animal I've taken in the last 60 yrs, and that is amaseing, because I can't remember my own name half the time! When I die, the few trophies I have will most likely go by the wayside, because they simply don't mean anything to anyone but me! My gun collection, however will be turned into money for my survivors, because they are just wood& steel as far as most are concerned, and the green looks better to them! ............Sad, but true!

I think you are truly on to something. You could even carry it further and just watch videos of hunts by someone else and of course you could carry it to the ultimate and just dream about it and save all that money spent on travel,guns, hunts and save all thse animals lives. I think that's what I will do.-------------------------------- It's already boring and I haven't been doing it but 2 minutes.

Your absolutely right. I am selling all my guns and from now on will just take pictures.

If the meat from a large ungulate was going to waste because I killed it and could not utilize it, or if there was no other compelling reason to kill said animal (eg. culling, bait), I'd have a personal ethical delimma. Since in Africa, little or none of this meat gets wasted, its not an issue to me.

Whether someone keeps the "momentos" of the hunt (ie. animal parts, otherwise frequently known as "trophies") is an entirely personal decision. They mean more to some than others. Its somewhat of a mute point to me though...in and of themselves, I don't believe acquisition of a "trophy" justify killing an animal....at least nowhere near to the same degree as sustenance/self-provision does. But then, on the whole I don't really believe we need to justify killing animals (unless one feels a need to justify it to oneself).

Hunting is not hunting without an ultimate objective of killing. Ortega Y Gasset's comments on the matter (paraphrased above) are absolutely true. Wildlife observation is NOT hunting. Its like saying that photographing the opposite sex is the same having sex. Or taking pictures of food is the same as eating it. Or photographing mountains is the same as climbing them. Or photographing skydivers is the same as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane yourself.

Hunting to me is involving yourself in the circle of life, and is a multifaceted activity, especially in today's age where it is usually not required to sustain you and/or your family. It ranges from practicing a cultural and/or spiritual rite, to personally assuming the responsibility for taking the lives that sustain you. There are many, many forms of expression and "reasons" for doing it.

Explaining why we hunt is not rocket science, hell, its far more complicated than that!

Just my rambling thoughts,
Canuck

There have been lots of times when I'd arrange a hunting trip without the thought of bringing back meat, hides, or horns. That was when I was stationed overseas, could not legally hunt locally and could not legally bring back any animal parts.

If I had the opportunity to go to D.C. for a conference at the right time of year, I'd arrange a few days of duck hunting on the chesapeake. I did have one bufflehead mounted, but I don't know if it is what you'd consider a trophy. Like my Alaska caribou. It was taken on a week long non-guided but outfitted hunt with two friends stationed with me in Japan. It's not a trophy. When we got back to the base camp it looked like a 3/4 scale replica compared to the others. The kindest compliment I got from the outfitter was that "it's a pretty one." And it was with all the palmations. One friend took nothing, while the other took a cape. They weren't really trophies, just momentoes. When I look at them I still have very vivid memories of both hunts as well as others when I didn't bring back anything for my own use. They are still some of my favorit hunting memories.

Local food banks or Indian villages got the meat. Nothing was wasted. It never occurred to me that I personally had to eat the meat, or take trophies, to have a worthwhile experience. Just being out on the water hunting ducks like I did when I was a kid was good. Spending time with friends hunting in Alaska alone was the trophy. We still cleaned the birds, and butchered and packed meat back to camp as if we were going to eat it ourselves. That was all a necessary part of it, friends experiencing the entire hunt together.

Just taking pictures would have cheated me out of a lot of good memories. And some grateful people out of some good meat.

Canuck...
Amen to that.
That sums it up in an exellent way !

Canuck ----- I like your assessment of hunting and agree with it, and will add another approach that was the opinion of the Aleuts (natives) of the Alaskan Peninsula where I harvested my Brown Bear. ----- The Aleuts state that when the hunter enters the hunting grounds unless they are native of the area and take an animal out of that environment, they upset the food cycle of the area. We as hunters from the lower 48 as some here have explained so well, think that if we kill something and don't take it home and eat it, it is wasted. Their view is the opposite of that. They consider themselves a part of their environment and therefore a part of the life cycle, thus they can hunt, consume, and still be a part of it all. Many familys in the small village had lost a member over the years to Bears. When the outsiders come in and kill something and take it from that cycle, then the balance is upset. They were very serious about taking only the hide and head of the Big Bears, leaving the carcass for consumption by the remaining animals, worms, birds, ants, insects, etc that would assure that the food cycle was not upset, and the soul of the animal is carried on in the living generations. They also beleaved the Bears were Reincarnated, that is if you ate the carcass you would kill the soul of dead family members. ------ When I hear hunters here talk of wasting a kill by not eating it, I always consider how the Aleuts saw things. Who is right, each must decide for himself or herself, guess it depends on where we live doesn't it. Good shooting.

phurley5,

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

technically if you shot the animal and left it where it fell it would not go to waste.....other things in nature would be very happy to eat nearly every molecule of it. and like the young apprentice ph in zim said a few years ago "it's going to die anyway".

I hunt because I LOVE animals.

quote:

My gun collection, however will be turned into money for my survivors, because they are just wood& steel as far as most are concerned, and the green looks better to them! ............Sad, but true!

Use Enough Gun and I are just waiting for one or the other to die so we can buy the other's 5 and 10 thousand dollar rifles and shotguns from the "grieving" widow for $50.00. We're both sure it will happen - be a hell of a garage sale!

My wife really has no clue what guns I own, or how much they are worth but I have told her, if I get hit by bus, call Formerly Texas Hunter and get him to help you dispose of the guns do not, do not take them to the pawn shop!

All animals, same as huamns, are going to die, one way or another! Death is part of life, and some, (animals) just die sooner! They can not live forever. What is the fricking diffeence if an animal dies when it is two or three, or better yet, wait until they are trophy size, usually older, like 7 to 10 years old, then shoot it and save it the pain of starving, or being killed and partially eaten before death by a preditor. Then mount the head, horns, antlers, hang them on the wall, and they live for 20 or 30 years., Man was a hunter long before he was a farmer!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
My wife really has no clue what guns I own, or how much they are worth but I have told her, if I get hit by bus, call Formerly Texas Hunter and get him to help you dispose of the guns do not, do not take them to the pawn shop!

Upon my demise, hopefully in the far distant future, my wishes for my firearms have been set down as follows, except for one or two that will go to specific family members: They are to be auctioned or raffled off at the annual meeting of the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society - one each year. The proceeds will go to a scholarship fund for deserving students of wildlife management attending one of the fine universities in Texas.

Canuck, very nicely put. Hunting without the (however remote) objective of killing is not really hunting, but after hunting all day and coming home empty-handed (but maybe full-headed?) I still feel great. I've come home without meat many more times than with, but I can't EVER remember thinking it was time wasted!

Redlander: What a great idea! I've turned 60 and have started to wrestle with the issue and you've just solved it for me!
Thank you
Gary

quote:

Originally posted by phurley5:
Canuck ----- I like your assessment of hunting and agree with it, and will add another approach that was the opinion of the Aleuts (natives) of the Alaskan Peninsula where I harvested my Brown Bear. ----- The Aleuts state that when the hunter enters the hunting grounds unless they are native of the area and take an animal out of that environment, they upset the food cycle of the area. We as hunters from the lower 48 as some here have explained so well, think that if we kill something and don't take it home and eat it, it is wasted. Their view is the opposite of that. They consider themselves a part of their environment and therefore a part of the life cycle, thus they can hunt, consume, and still be a part of it all. Many families in the small village had lost a member over the years to Bears. When the outsiders come in and kill something and take it from that cycle, then the balance is upset. They were very serious about taking only the hide and head of the Big Bears, leaving the carcass for consumption by the remaining animals, worms, birds, ants, insects, etc that would assure that the food cycle was not upset, and the soul of the animal is carried on in the living generations. They also believed the Bears were Reincarnated, that is if you ate the carcass you would kill the soul of dead family members. ------ When I hear hunters here talk of wasting a kill by not eating it, I always consider how the Aleuts saw things. Who is right, each must decide for himself or herself, guess it depends on where we live doesn't it. Good shooting.

Phurley

Shows how ideas change from area to area. I shot a Brown Bear off of Perryville on the East side of the Peninsula and the native were adamant that we call them to retrieve the meat and fat for consumption.

Gator1 ----- I hunted out of King Cove, a small fishing village near Cold Bay and nearly at the tip of the Peninsula. Good shooting.