It's probable that most of the immature animals taken are due to the PH telling the client to shoot them. Very few beginning hunters, or even experienced hunters going after a species they have never seen in the wild before, are competent to evaluate the trophy. We all know the drill, you shoot the thing and the PH and his tracker start slapping you on the back, joy rings throughout the land and while nursing your hangover during next morning's first light call you tell the PH to send it over to the taxidermist toute de suite.

If it's the hunters first and last trip to Africa, then it's all over right there, and there's not much point in bursting his bubble. But if he gets hooked on hunting in Africa, in not too long a time he will realize himself that he shot a ho-hum specimen, he will change to another PH and like a reformed smoker will start telling everyone who wants to listen that real hunting is shooting the old males already passed their prime breeding age. So, to answer the question, I would probably say nothing about the trophy, and steer that person towards some well written descriptions and explanations of ethical trophy hunting. Then he can blame it all on the PH, as he should.

Shooting a young impala when there are millions around doesn't have much of an impact on the sustainability of the species for hunting.

Shooting an adolescent male lion does. A big difference here all things considered. So without being an a$$ one can and should educate their fellow hunters on the subject. Certainly anyone worthy of the title Professional Hunter should.

A "proper response" depends on you. When I see photos that disturb my individual tastes, I try valiantly to keep my mouth shut or my hands in my pockets as the case may be. I try to do this whether it is a photo of a canned lion or a whitetail shot out from under a feeder.

There is no point. The shooter has made their decision, so let them live with it as I do with my decisions.

Having never hunted in Africa, I wouldn't know a mature Waterbuck/Kudu/Impala if it poked me in the butt. That is why I'm trying to find a good PH to hunt with. I have corresponded with several and am rapidly narrowing the list but the one thing I tried to emphasize on my initial contact was that I wanted to kill mature animals under fair chase conditions. My decision to shoot a particular animal will depend on what the PH tells me about it, that is why I'm paying him. I have shot plenty of Whitetails and I have my own personal standards I try to take an animal that is past his prime and on the down hill slide (like me) if I'm after meat then I look for an old dry doe. I do this to satisfy myself not for herd management or anything else. I do try not to criticize someone else's "trophy" other than to say "imagine how big he would have been next year or the year after" when my son-in-law shoots an immature deer. BTW I have not killed a buck in the last 4 seasons and I don't really mind because I know that I when I tag the next one I'll be proud of him.

As previously posted I have to look in the mirror !

quote:

Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do.

You must be a pilot. Good sig line.

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
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.

Don't forget that by showing you his trophies or photos of them, the other fellow is looking to impose his ethics/standards/judgments on you, or at least implying that you ought to approve his.

JPK

I'd pretty much follow the "Thumper rule" and just not say anything, even on a suspected "canned lion".

I've seen multiple post here about how hunters are duped into thinking they were hunting a wild lion, not knowing that it had just been trucked in the day before. I'd rather let them be proud of their "Botswana border crossing cattle killer", and be blissfully ignorant of their trophy's true heritage.

I'd rather not be a dream killer.

quote:

Originally posted by cable68:
I'd pretty much follow the "Thumper rule" and just not say anything, even on a suspected "canned lion".

I've seen multiple post here about how hunters are duped into thinking they were hunting a wild lion, not knowing that it had just been trucked in the day before. I'd rather let them be proud of their "Botswana border crossing cattle killer", and be blissfully ignorant of their trophy's true heritage.

I'd rather not be a dream killer.

Under those circumstances, it's not the hunter who should be criticised, it's the SOB that pulled the wool over his eyes. They're the ones that should be exposed and put out of business.

Unfortunately, it happens all too often.

Immature Animals, should you shoot them?If you do shoot them should they be called TROPIES?

There is no right answer to a question like this one, but there is a responsibility to show some restraint when making a judgment without knowing all the circumstances!
The jumping in on a subject with both feet while not knowing the facts is a problem that is rampant on the inter-net. As some have stated, a trophy is a trophy for many different reasons, not just it age, or its measurements. Sometimes the animal becomes a “once in a lifetime” because of how he was taken, or how difficult he was to outsmart, or even why he was taken.
Does anyone in his right mind think that a buffalo who charges you out of tight thorn, from less than 10 yds when you had no idea he was within twenty miles of you, and you had to take him or get slammed is not a trophy because he is young? I have such a buffalo on my wall, he is barely 35”, and has hair between his bosses. The first two shots fired at less than five yards when he charged us out and the thick thorn from the side. The next two at three yards, two from me, and two from the PH. If those had not stopped him I likely would not be writing this today! He is the most prized trophy in my trophy room, and I apologize to no one for my taking of him.
If I simply posted that picture on this forum, I would draw a rash of crap from every know-it-all on this forum and not one would have asked for the details, just convened a Kangaroo court.
I, like everyone else, hate the canned animal so-called hunts, but one must remember before jumping down a hunter’s throat, he may not have been aware of the fact that it was a canned hunt. Since the animal is already dead, if you rain on his parade by making him aware of the fact that was probably duped, will it bring the lion back, just destroy his dream, and waste his hard earned money. This happens more than many think, especially to first time hunters of Africa.
If you want to do something about the canned component of his hunt, simply ask him who he booked with, and start another thread later on canned lion hunts, and mention the name of the outfitter who did this hunt, without involving that hunter specifically. If he discovers he has been duped, from reading, he will likely not recommend that outfitter to others, but will spare him public ridicule.
Outside truly canned hunts, how people hunt, as long as it is within the game laws, is nobody’s business, but the guy paying the bill. The game laws are not made to please the people who hunt on the Internet, but to conserve the long-term viability of the game. If a hunter purposefully takes a younger animal because that is the one he wants, an there is a cull of animals of that same species in that area in the same year, he as done nothing to hurt the herd, but has simply cheated himself.

My opinion is just that it is MY opinion, and makes no sores on anyone’s butt who disagrees with it. That opinion is that many here seem to think they make the rules for everyone else. I understand the spirit in which this thread was started, and it is true that many things are done that are lawful, but not the best thing for conservation, but that is for the game departments to take care of. They are the ones who make the rules. If, however, a hunter wants to set the rule higher that is his prerogative, but not binding on you or me!

Would you rather spend some time looking at someone's immature trophies and talking about hunting or spend some time with an anti-hunter talking about why we should be allowed to continue to pursue our beloved sport?

We really can't afford to be fighting amongst ourselves.

Since when are any of us the trophy police? Unless a guy asks me specifically about trophy quality of a particular mount I'll make a positive comment somehow. It is not hard to say something positive. I see no reason to steal the thunder from someone's safari. Given enough time they'll discover their tropies maturity/quality on their own.

This thread brings to mind the reason that I think tape measures and record books are important. If a guy goes on a hunt for animals he is unfamiliar with and does not realize what makes a representative trophy he is setting himself up to get screwed. Unscrupulous operators love a guy that says "I just want to hunt". They can do a whack and stack with this guy and he'll be none the wiser. If a client pulls out the tape a couple of times the PH will be more careful.

Mark

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.

This and your most recent post are spot on!! Bravo!

quote:

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

Very wise indeed!!! The "isn't required to comment" should go without saying. As to those who choose to take essentially put&take animals... Well, to me this is nothing more than farming. We think nothing of eating meat, eggs and even some seafood that are products of the same thing. Animals were specificly bred and raised to be killed for human use. Arguing that taking a stocked antelope for a mount is totally wrong is the same as arguing that slaughtering a steer for meat and not mounting it's head is wrong.

There IS the perpetual debate on what size enclosure constitutes an ethical "hunt." I wont be drawn into that argument! But as far as I'm concerned the origins of the animals hunted is irrevalent so long as they are acclimated enough to not act like domesticated pasture animals.

The world over, the greatest enemy of hunters and hunting is OTHER HUNTERS who thump their chest and proclaim THEIR chosen hunting style is the ONLY way it should be done. Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't make it wrong!!!

Yes, there are "ethics" that should be universal and those should be easily understood by anyone of character. Trying to set standards that put hunting out of the reach of most people however is a slippery slope.

When I was in my 20s I was stationed in Alaska. I went out by myself on a grizzly hunt. Shot a beautiful blond grizzly, but it was small; most often people who are not hunters make that observation. It doesn't bother me in the least. I did it by myself (spotted, stalked, shot him). I have been on many hunts guided and unguided, and without a doubt, the "trophies" I hold most dear are those I shot myself.

I have a pretty good kudu (you can see it on my writing website) that I shot running at 20 yards in very thick brush. It was an incredibly lucky shot. On that trip I also hunted gemsbok very hard. My gemsbok doesn't compare with my kudu, yet when I look at those mounts I remember how hard I tried for a big gemsbok.

I think it is a form on "hunting snobbery" to point out to those who might only get to Africa once or twice in their life that they shouldn't shoot immature trophies.

As for lions, who has the biggest impact? A guy who shoots 8 fully mature lions or some policeman on a once in a lifetime hunt who shoots a lion less than mature?

In Africa, anyone with enough money can shoot whatever they want. So what?

It is great to be concerned about lions, but the vast majority of hunters will only go on one lion hunt in their life. If there aren't enough breeding males, I say cut the quota. Anything other than that will result in lion hunting becoming even more elite than it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
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.

That is it in a nutshell...

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

agree on all counts..

It is NOT my money, and I will not demand how you spend it..


if you are after only trophies, hunt with a dart/tranq gun

quote:

Originally posted by Gatehouse:

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
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.

That is it in a nutshell...

+1,000,000

Very interesting posts. Thanks for the spirited discussion.

Some of the things that hit home with me are:

1. PH's responsibilities. I agree that tourist hunters with no familiarity with the local game are totally dependent on their PHs.

2. Canned lion. I absolutely agree that anyone who does this should be publicly castigated. Anyone in the know can spot a canned lion a mile off, given the right info. Sometimes only one of the following questions needs to be answered. If all three are answered, we may not be in "beyond a reasonable doubt" territory, but we are close enough to satisfy my standards.
Q1 - What does it look like?
Q2 - Where was it shot?
Q3 - What's the story?

3. Experience is the best teacher. Most of us, including me, have shot an immature animal in our time. Most of us have learned from that. Hunting is not something that can be learned from a book or an internet forum. It has to be lived and its lessons have to be learned first hand.

4. Circumstances are important. Absolutely. To take the easiest example: If charged by a buffalo or a lion, shoot! Don't judge age, sex or size. Shoot!

5. It's okay as long as it's legal. I categorically disagree that if it's legal it's beyond criticism. See above re: canned lion. In at least some areas in Russia one can legally shoot game from a helicopter. Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

6. "What do you say, when in a social situation, and a man introduces you to his wife who is obviously butt ugly?" I generally say, "I see you are from Houston."

7. The hunter's opinion is all that matters. I disagree with this statement. This is abject relativism and ignores the fact that standards regarding the taking of immature animals and ethical hunting practices have been developed over decades and reflect commonly held principles and values among hunters the world over. None of us is a law unto himself.

As I say, I appreciate that folks have commented here. It has given me a lot to think about. BTW: My policy is still - as a general matter - to say nothing.

MR:

I totally agree with the comment about shooting from a helicopter. Many people do almost the same thing in NZ. When I hunted NZ, I insisted on climbing the mountain myself. After all, ANYONE can fly up the mountain and shoot an animal.

Which leads to this point: I would respect someone's so-so tahr much more than a giant one (not that the difference is obvious) shot by using helicopters in any form. But that is a "how to take" ethics issue as opposed to a "what to take."

I have always respected your opinions and posts; you and Forrest seem to be cut of the same cloth. But your whole post surprises me a bit.

The guy who can obviously afford to hunt anything is Saeed. He doesn't seem to be particularly choosy about the buff he shoots. He certainly does not kill the biggest buff in the herd every time. He obviously enjoys doing his hunts the way he does.

You could potentially pose the same question about trophy rooms. I see plenty of small tract houses crammed full of animals. Some even have lions - the hunts look like they cost more than the house. Looks kind of ridiculous to me, but so what? Not everyone can afford to build a custom house with a dedicated trophy room.

Before I started my software company I had to save for a while to pay for dangerous game hunts. I could not afford to go every year. I always remember what that felt like, and I will always remember that not everyone can be as choosy as those who can go to Africa every year. So even when I see a trophy pic of an animal I wouldn't shoot, I honestly don't question why he/she shot the animal. After all, that person is most likely on their first hunt and perhaps their only African hunt. Who am I to take away their joy? I have been to Africa more than once, but the best safari I ever had was my first.

I have no admiration for animals taken in a canned hunt nor for hunters that participate in canned hunts. That said, I don't need someone on TV or elsewhere preaching to me about only shooting a mature animal and yadda, yadda, yadda. It's my hunt and I'll shoot what I want to within the confines of the law and what I believe to be ethical hunting.

I also don't need comments on my trophies. My trophies are meant to bring back my pleasant memories and I don't need the adulations of others to give me a sense of fulfillment.

quote:

As for lions, who has the biggest impact? A guy who shoots 8 fully mature lions or some policeman on a once in a lifetime hunt who shoots a lion less than mature?

The same question came to my mind also.

For years we have had people on this forum crying about the taking of soft-bossed buffalo. They say that these hunters should let the buffalo mature so that the next year another hunter can take it as a "real" trophy. These same guys don't seem to mind when someone kills 8 buffalo on one hunt.

I wonder, how many of these "immature" trophies would live to maturity if not killed by hunters? Africa is a pretty wild place. I think there might be a bit of wishful thinking in the idea that passing on an animal means that he will have a chance to pass on his genes, much less live to maturity.

In the case of lions I wonder how taking a mature pride holding male does not have more impact than taking a young male that does not yet have a pride.

What percentage of 4 year old males will ever have their own pride?

According to the current thoughts, the only males that should be shot are those who are mature but don't have a pride. I would guess this means that they don't yet have a pride or pride males that have been dethroned. What is the a average lifespan of one of these males?

Jason,

Management of a few species, notably Lion and Elephant are considerably more complex than most others.

In the case of Lions, if you take the prideholders, then the incoming males will kill all the dependent young to bring the females back into oestrus so they breed with the new boys etc. Therefore by killing the wrong Lion, you're not just killing one animal, you're killing considerably more. - It's a bit like dropping a pebble into a pool of water. The waves go a long way.

I hope you won't mind me correcting you slightly on your last paragraph. Current thoughts are that whilst it's OK to take non pride holders, it's also perfectly acceptable to take pride holding males as long as there are no dependent young, the males are towards the end of their natural reign and there are preferably younger males waiting in th wings to take over.

Hope that helps.

quote:

Current thoughts are that whilst it's OK to take non pride holders, it's also perfectly acceptable to take pride holding males as long as there are no dependent young, the males are towards the end of their natural reign and there are preferably younger males waiting in th wings to take over.

How the heck do you determine all these things about other lions if you see a lion?

Conservation, ethics, sportsmanship and all the trimmings are a good thing. However, we are not far from needing a string of Lawyers, Consultants, Biologists, field writers, Agg Agents, Federal and State Wildlife Officers sitting in our tree stand or blind to tell us whether we should pass or shoot that 3.5 year old buck eating Grandpa's sweet pea's. Junior's just as confused, because even the lowly Doe is a real trophy to him. "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." We are fast becoming NOT the land of free choice, rather the land of the chastised, criticized and condemned. My advice to anyone that loves guns, hunting/shooting and the 2nd Amendment: Join the NRA, support it and let the pissing matches be someone else's worry. Just hunt.....while you can. UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!
LDK

Simple, Act like a gentleman and be polite. If you feel the need to educate them do it at a later time. Take a different track so as not to cast aspersions on the individual or their trophies.