There has been a lot of discussion here and elsewhere in hunting publications and websites concerning the following subjects:

1. Lion conservation requiring the taking of minimum six year old lion.
2. Buffalo conservation requiring that one pass on killing a soft-bossed but wide-horned buffalo.
3. The all-too-common killing of obviously canned lion - obvious to anyone in the know because of their blow-dried, bouffant hairdos and smooth, unblemished complexions.
4. The proper criteria for judging mature trophy animals of any species.
5. The need for hunter education and ethics and good conservation practices among hunters.

Yet, quite often one sees, in publications and posts or in person, photos or mounts of "trophies" that are clearly immature or that at least arguably should not have been taken for ethical reasons.

In other words, one sees photos or mounts of animals that are not truly trophies - animals that, on the basis of sound conservation/ethical principles, should not have been killed.

So, I have been pondering a question: What is the proper response to the posting or printing or exhibition of photos or mounts of immature or seemingly unethically taken "trophies" - not just here but generally?

I generally say nothing when I see one of these - although I have violated that rule from time to time.

When I do point out or suggest that there is a problem, I almost always get jumped on for being cruel or judgmental or for just having bad manners.

So, put another way, my question is: Should "good manners" or "sensitivity" or "relativism" - ascribe whatever motive you wish - triumph over education and conservation?

Sometimes it isn't required that one comment on another's "trophies". And for animals shot on fenced private property, do "conservation" ethics apply?

Wink, seems to me like you are voting say nothing!

As to your question: How big is the property? What is being shot? It can get ethically and conservationally very sticky very quickly depending on the answers to those questions.

But still, no matter what, do you say nothing?

MR,
Probably most of us have shot critters that were younger than we should have shot. Experience teaches us what is a mature trophy, and what should be an embarrassment if we shoot it. I think your approach of just silence is best, unless there is opportunity to gracefully teach. Most of the older hunters who still shoot immature or pen-raised critters would seldom post here, cause they would be quickly castigated, and wouldn't change anyway.

"Canned" lions should be mocked relentlessly. If you want to shoot one and it is legal, you may do so. Upon displaying said beast, do not expect affirmation or congratulations from me.

In all other cases, "trophy quality" is too subjective for clear demarcations. One may prefer a wide-horned buffalo or a heavy-bossed bull or one with deep hooks or broken horns.

There are hunters who only care to collect a representative specimen and doesn't really care about size or length of horn.

George

When someone shows you a trophy I think your silence speaks volumes. A guy here in Phoenix was showing me some of his trophies and they were very nice, but we got to his eland and, while it had long horns, it was obviously too young. I didn't fawn over this animal like I had the others and he offered up that it was a nice one, but he probably shouldn't have shot because it was too young. I believe, for the most part, an experienced hunter knows when he has screwed up, so I don't want to pile on. By the same token, if he had been obnoxious about the eland; I would have told him it was too young for me to shoot.

I think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or shooter). I would not be interested in a canned hunt and have doubts about a high fence no matter what the size of the property. That said, if I really wanted an animal and had the opportunity to take a representative specimen or younger animal that was quite large, I might do it. If I did, I think I would have the intellect to know that it would not be one to post up. I would also expect some negative comments if I did post it. Personally, I always attempt to be polite.

Everyone has their own idea of hunting ethics just like everyone has their ideas about which laws to obey: most exceed the speed limit, shade their expenses a bit on the tax returns. Generally it's all a matter of degree. I try not to judge what someone else does so long as does not gore my ox! So, I figure that it is none of my business to comment upon what anyone does if I dont pay for it.

"Uhm, you realize that is an immature (insert animal name) don't you?" Sometimes the reply is to the effect of they do now, implying they were ill advised to shoot it and have since learned better.

For most inexperienced African hunters - think back to your first few safaris - they are completely dependent upon their PH for advice as to the quality of the animal and whether to shoot or not. African hunting is not to be confused with NA hunting, where the species are limited and information on trophy quality is readily available. Africa can be overwhelming to a new safari hunter. If the PH advice was faulty, the hunter should have no problem saying so. If the client made the decision on his own, then the responsibility is his. In either case I believe stating the truth cannot be wrong.

Representative species should still be mature animals, as in those with broken horns or those falling just below record book minimums or those being legitimately culled.

I think George has it.

There may be valid details and motivation behind the taking of smallish or otherwise immature "trophies." Mistakes in judgement, personal preference, or myriad other issues may accompany the taking of said trophies. Unless we know the facts, and those facts are contradictory to fundamental ethics, we should probably remain silent.

However, a "canned" hunt of any kind should be called out for what it is. A man whom I once otherwise respected wanted to show me pictures of his RSA lion. The absolutely beautiful animal was murdered inside an enclosure of no more than 1500 acres as it dined on horse meat! I won't go into the other pathetic details of this crime. I told him exactly what I thought, handed him back the rest of the photos and walked away.

Canned Hunts are so repugnant that they do not deserve much debate. Anyone buying an RSA lion in an enclosure won't get my respect.

Now move on to plains game and other "common" species and I have a somewhat different take. For me the hunt is far more important than the inches. I would be far more satisfied with a small (even young) impala taken after dedicated tracking, stalking, etc., than shooting an older animal from the truck.

I lean more to the side of keeping quiet and being respectful to other hunters. It is hard to know enough about the details of the hunt to begin to make value / ethical judgements about most trophies. My son has an "average" warthog he took when he was 12 that means a lot to both of us. By many standards he isn't much of a "trophy." As a way to remind us of that day in the field together he is an excellent keepsake.

Let's remember that each hunts for his own reasons. I've even participated in a number of cull hunts over the years. While I don't personally mount those animals, I'm not ashamed to take part in those hunts.

Bill

What about all the photos of cow elephants. Are they mature trophies or just shot because they are tuskless or less expensive than a big bull.
I am sure the hunters are proud of taking one and justly so, they can be a tough and cheeky hunt.

What about meat hunters in the USA. People take photos of animals shot for meat.

What about people that take a young but unusual trophy.

I am always glad to see photos or mounts of whatever animal without judging if it "should" have been shot. I just enjoy hunting and hope others do to.

BigB

What do you say, when in a social situation, and a man introduces you to his wife who is obviously butt ugly? Do you come right out and tell him what you think? I hope not.

No. The polite and civil thing to do is smile and say something charming. Same goes for when a man is showing you his trophies. He is no less proud of them than his wife.

So, look at his immature buffalo, smile, and say "Very nice. Tell me about the rifle you used."

That's how we behave here. I would hope it would be the same in Massachusetts.

Keep quiet. If it is a picture on an internet forum, wait 2-3 weeks and start a "How to tell if an Impala is Mature" thread.

If it is in a magazine or PH/outfitter website, feel free to email and tell them not to encourage shooting immature animals. Be polite of course.

Muletrain, you're a gentleman.

Since when is taking a non-trophy animal unethical? Since when is mounting a non-trophy animal unethical? Since when is posting a photo of said mount on the internet unethical? Some viewers may think the trophy is crap, but so what?

I don't understand the problem here, and I don't understand why any of it is linked to canned hunting.

What am I missing?

I see that I may have taken too much for granted, so let's subtract a couple of things from the equation.

1. I am not talking about "inches" or size. Mature animals can vary in size or "trophy quality" and that is not the point. What I mean to contrast is immature vs. mature, which is generally fairly certain. Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the unethical vs. ethical question is perhaps not equally certain, but certain enough.

2. Neither do I mean to suggest that in pointing out a problem with any particular "trophy" one would need to be an ass about it. One can suggest a problem in a gentlemanly and constructive way - or at least make the attempt.

I am talking about clear cut cases and constructive criticism, not judgment calls and insults.

Does that affect any opinions on the proper response?

Just follow my example. I remember posting something like, "mrlexma, it looks like you really enjoyed your hunt".

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
Just follow my example. I remember posting something like, "mrlexma, it looks like you really enjoyed your hunt".

I always do follow your example, ForrestB, but I'm pretty sure it was someone else who posted that one.

Whats a trophy to me, or imature (to young of an animal) trophy to me, may not be the same as it is to other hunters or people in general. I hear/read a lot about "that wasn't much of a trophy" or its "only a xxx size /class buck or bull (relating to NA deer and elk hunting) or the animal didn't "score" well in regards to SCI, RW, Boone and Crocket, Pope and Young, etc.
Sure I like to get "nice" trophies, but what exactly is that. I also shoot lots of deer does most years, for meat and its tough to draw a buck tag most years for me in Montana as a non-resident so I don't get to shoot many "trophy Bucks" there, but I still like to go there and hunt and spend time with my friends and every deer that I've shot there over the past year has "trophy" value to me, even if I have shot the occasional young one. I don't think Africa hunting is much different, hunting is to each different and no one person is wrong about what they shoot as long as the game LAWS in the state or country they are in are followed. Ethics is another set of norms or standards that while not law, may be steeped in tradition for the area where the hunting is going on, but that too is for each person to decide.

If I see/read thread post titles here on AR or some of the other hunting forums I spend time on that I DON"T like or appeal to me, I simply don't read them or look at the pictures.

I see this as another way to cause division within the hunting community and we have enough problems with that already, often created by anti-hunters, foolish lawmakers, PETA and others than to be bickering amongst ourselves about whats the "trohy" from a hunt and if another person's trophy meets "our" standards for such. Hey if a guy or gal shot the animal, and they are happy with it, it sure isn't my place or anyone else's for that matter to be critical about it.

So if I stepped on a toe or two, well all this is MY opinion and if you don't like it, then don't read what I posted.

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
"Canned" lions should be mocked relentlessly. If you want to shoot one and it is legal, you may do so. Upon displaying said beast, do not expect affirmation or congratulations from me.

In all other cases, "trophy quality" is too subjective for clear demarcations. One may prefer a wide-horned buffalo or a heavy-bossed bull or one with deep hooks or broken horns.

There are hunters who only care to collect a representative specimen and doesn't really care about size or length of horn.

George

George, I agree, BUT how are we to tell if a lion was killed on a canned hunt??? Unless we were there how do we know? Are all South African lions canned???

quote:

Originally posted by Muletrain:
What do you say, when in a social situation, and a man introduces you to his wife who is obviously butt ugly? Do you come right out and tell him what you think? I hope not.

No. The polite and civil thing to do is smile and say something charming. Same goes for when a man is showing you his trophies. He is no less proud of them than his wife.

So, look at his immature buffalo, smile, and say "Very nice. Tell me about the rifle you used."

That's how we behave here. I would hope it would be the same in Massachusetts.

+1

quote:

I see this as another way to cause division within the hunting community and we have enough problems with that already, often created by anti-hunters

bisonhunter1,

You can blow yourself up from the inside as easily as some one else can blow you up from the outside. A little self policing is a good thing.

All,

I think some folks here are speaking across points. MR is talking about hunters going on a trophy hunt (i.e. not a cull hunt) and taking immature animals as trophies. It's bad form! It's one thing to want meat for the freezer or going on a cull/management hunt to have the experience. It's quite another thing to have PHs and clients knowingly shooting immature animals just because they score well or better than a mature animal on a "trophy" hunt. The point is an immature animal is not a trophy. It's an animal that should be left alone to mature and bread until it is ready to be taken (and sometimes to the detriment of its trophy quality).

I deal with the same BS when deer hunting here in Ohio. I live in a place where the next world record whitetail let alone a B&C whitetail could be around the next hill and I've got people shooting 1.5 and 2.5 year old bucks like it's going out of style! We have lots of deer here and the doe tags are liberal and over the counter. If you want meet shoot a mature doe. If you want a trophy wait for a mature buck. I meet tons of "buck shooters" who shoot the first 1.5 year old buck they see. You can't eat antlers and you can't tell me that's a trophy when they cut off the rack and throw it in the antler pile in their garage. It makes me crazy!

Brett

Be polite and don't rain on the guys trophies. Give the good ones what they are do, but just nod politely when that young one is the topic. The hunter may know its a poor trophy or may not, why care, its his trophy and so long as shot legally that is fine. A canned lion, or too young kudu or whatever may not draw admiration from you and may even elicit derission, but keep that to yourself.

Unless of course the fellow is an unsufferable pain about how his and only his trophies are the BEST and how all made "the book" and achieved some silver circle jerk award... Then you are clear to point out that maybe he is a bit opptimistic in his appraisal of his trophies (and probably himself too.)

JPK

This thread makes me think of the story of the guy with a really small willy. When sneered at by some other dudes saying “Who do want to satisfy with THAT!?”, he coolly answered “Me!”

If the animal is killed within legal parameters,mind your manners. Making negative comments about someone else's game animal being immature or unethically taken based on your opinion is disrespectful. There are many good reasons to kill legal game animals of varied maturity ie: kids first buck, meat hunting, trophy hunting,cull hunting and on and on. Hunters need to be united in our love to hunt not devisive by the manner or reason for which we hunt.

I think this is a difficult question to answer since many different variables can and will enter into why a particular animal was shot. In my view it needs to be broken down into different sections.

Management hunts (do to population)- Call these "cull hunts" "meat hunts" or whatever you like. The point is that the numbers of the animals being hunted are too high. On these hunts it is fine to shoot females, young, and old. This includes everything from Whitetails in America to Elephant in Zimbabwe. People go on these hunts, for the hunt, and should not be criticized for the animal taken.

Management hunts (for conservation funding)- Rhino, Markhor and the like. These animals will do just fine if not shot and left alone. Of course keeping them left alone can be a problem and that takes money. When the funding generated helps the species as a whole, more than the loss of a few animals hurts the species this is good, and the individual taking the animal should not be criticized for doing it (whatever the size).

Canned hunts- Don't like them and fear it may give the antis ammunition against us. That said I just keep my mouth shut. Like someone said earlier silence can speak volumes.

Trophy hunts- While these can fit into both the first and second category they don't always do that. Lions are a good example. They are not overpopulated in any area I know of (outside a park). Rarely does the money raised from the hunt go directly into the conservation of the species. In this case I believe that it is wrong to shoot young males or females. Only mature males past breeding age should be taken. Again when people post photos of young animals I generally bite my tongue but don't approve of it.

In summary I believe it depends on the circumstances of the hunt. When the hunt details are not known the matter can get complicated. I think people need to be careful about what they show publicly.
There's a Bass Pro Shop not too far from me. On display they have about a half-dozen Black Bears that can't be over 50 pounds. I'm sure that the taking of them brought great pleasure to the hunters and had no affect on the overall health and numbers of the population, but do all the other 10's of thousands of people that visit the store see it that way?
I just think we can be our own worst enemy sometimes and we need to be careful.

quote:

Originally posted by Bahati:
This thread makes me think of the story of the guy with a really small willy. When sneered at by some other dudes saying “Who do want to satisfy with THAT!?”, he coolly answered “Me!”

I have never shot a "Trophy" in my life and I have shot a lot of game. None of my animals are in the “book” My own personal rule is to mount the first animal of a particular species that I take. The first Impala, Kudu , Warthog etc I ever shot is on my wall. Every animal I have ever taken is my own personal trophy. I only shoot on farms where management of Fauna and Flora are closely monitored, so my taking of a 8" Warthog is not going to cause extinction. The fact that I am hunting will actually do the opposite and ensure the species survives.

Reading this post makes my own "rule" laughable to the majority but I have the memories - isn’t that what counts and not the inches?.

A very difficult question to answer. In many ways, George has it right with the dodgy Lion hunts, but one has to bear in mind that if you do comment in that way, you're gonna kick off a flaming war and/or trial by internet and all that does is damage the forum.

Another especially difficult one is Elephants. IMO, sport hunting of cow Elephants shouldn't be allowed at all, but that's a personal opinion and what right do I have to force my opinions down any other bugger's throat? None really. So most of the time, I prefer simply not to comment on the subject for the same reason as above.

It is a matter of opinions and to me the only opinion that matters is mine - end of story!

When in college I once told William Faulkner I did not like one of his books and he quite promply informed me he did not write the book to please me.

My own personal view is that the "Trophy" is in the eye of the beholder. Or to put it another way if it satifies the beholder that is all that counts.

What is a trophy to me may not be a trophy to you, but then, I don't hunt to satisfy anyone other than myself.

My ethics are mine, in some ways my ethics may hold me to a higher standard than others, while at the same time my ethics may be less than others.

I have to live with what I have done and look in the mirror every morning that I shave, I have to live with what is looking back at me.

In this country anyway, I feel that the damn record books have done more to hurt hunting than anything thrown at us yet.

But then again this is just my opinion, there are many others.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
When in college I once told William Faulkner I did not like one of his books and he quite promply informed me he did not write the book to please me.

That's a great response by Mr. Faulkner, and, judging by his books, not at all out of character!

I have a buffalo mount about to arrive that I shouldn't have shot. He was very wide (almost 44"), but the bosses needed more time to develope. The PH said to take him so I did, but if I knew then what I know now, I would have taken more time and then passed on him. There was a perfect bull in that herd that I couldn't get and he was our second hurried choice. Most people that will be looking at him will not know the difference, but I will be ready to answer those that do. I will be able to tell by the look on their faces. He is still a magnificent trophy, but I will always remember the one that got away and how I should have waited.

Your momma was right.

If you can't say something nice.......

You will NOT change anyone belief's on elephant hunting or likely even canned lion hunting by negative comments over their photos.

If you true motivation is conservation, there are much better ways to further your goals.

1. You have no way to judge, simply by looking at a photograph or a mount, whether the animal was taken through "fair chase" (however that is defined) or through some unethical method. Therefore, it is inappropriate to comment on that aspect; except and unless the person displaying the trophy makes a point of his methods that you regard as unethical. At that point, it is up to you whether you wish to engage in criticizing someone else's ethics. If their set of ethics is that much at odds with my own, I am more likely to simply disassociate myself with them.

2. The presumption that only a very mature male animal can be a "trophy" or "should" be harvested is one based on numbers, tape measures, and egos; not one based on sound game management techniques. A whitetail doe is a "trophy" to a nine year-old first-time hunter. A kudu of ANY description is a trophy to a first-time African hunter. It is the hunt and the pursuit of the trophy, not the quality of the horns on some numerical scale, that makes for a trophy.

My own personal view is that the "Trophy" is in the eye of the beholder. Or to put it another way if it satifies the beholder that is all that counts.

>>>>>>What is a trophy to me may not be a trophy to you, but then, I don't hunt to satisfy anyone other than myself. My ethics are mine, in some ways my ethics may hold me to a higher standard than others, while at the same time my ethics may be less than others. I have to live with what I have done and look in the mirror every morning that I shave, I have to live with what is looking back at me. In this country anyway, I feel that the damn record books have done more to hurt hunting than anything thrown at us yet. But then again this is just my opinion, there are many others.>>>>>

My thoughts exactly!

Bill Quimby

I think you should double over laughter and say "Why the hell did you shoot THAT???"
Sorry couldn't help it. Seriously, in most cases, you are at the mercy of your PH and when he says shoot, you shoot. As the client, you don't have the opportunity in many cases to evaluate trophies before the shot so you have to trust your PH. That's what you pay him for. If after the shot, you find that the animal was not up to your expectations, tips can be adjusted accordingly. Then you do a skull mount (if it's really small, you could do a skull mount of the Ph).

The real question here is whether one individual has the right or obligation to seek to impose his personal ethics/standards/judgements (obviously superior)on another. If it's legal then you should keep your mouth shut. If it's not legal then you should turn them in.