The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Taxidermy ReproductionsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Reproductions | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
I read a real interesting story in this past Sunday's issue of the Minneapoplis Tribune newspaper talking about reproductions for trophy fish. the story told about how more and more people who fish for trophy fish want to make sure those large fish remain in the gene pool so they put them back after they catch them and hopefully they or somebody else can then catch them again. And it got me to thinking about whether someday that might be a good idea for hunting as well. Where instead of actually killing the animal one gets an accurate photo of it, and then a reproduction trophy is made for the wall. After all, very very few people hunt for meat anymore in the sense that they need the meat. By the time one gets done paying for a hunting license and all of the equipment and the travel costs and everything else that meat filling up the freezer cost a lot more than a side of beef and a side of pork. Only thing I have not figured out yet is how to determine whether one is actually entitled to have a reproduction trophy made. Will we have guns that can shoot something to mark the animal (something like a paintball) so we can say we are entitled to say it is ours and have a reproduction trophy made of it. Those fish looked so realistic that I am sure most taxidermists could probably do just as good a job on animals that are normally hunted. | ||
|
one of us |
Unless you use smilies we can't tell that you're joking. Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
| One of Us |
you can pull up the story for yourself. It was in the sporting section of the Sunday Minneapolis paper. | |||
|
One of Us |
Repros still cost like a real mount because -- making the item (horns, antlers, etc.) takes huge effort and lots of time. where would you get a cape?? The reason to duplicate or reproduce something like elephant tusks or kudu horns is either very personal or one of practicality -- someone else likes the conformation and wants one just like the original. Fish are mostly alike and furred critters not. Therefore a fiberglass fish painted like the pics of the one you catch is practical. Rhinos can be darted and molds for repro horns made on the spot before reviving the bull. How would you mold a red stag quickly??? _______________________ | |||
|
One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
I think a lot of hunters forget the value of hunters as a game management tool. We aren't talking about fishing, and a lot of stocked lakes are the same as high fence huting operations. These fished are produced with the end result in mind. Hunters manage wildlife, it is our job. Anything that is a bonus to that is just that. I hunt to manage wildlife, but mostly because I am a hunter. Every couple of years I'll see where someone hunted on some place in Texas and I'll make an inquiry about a hunt there. The idea of shooting something just to shoot it, and stuff it isn't for me. Kill something, by all means, get it stuffed, but that should be a secondary or tertiary thing to game management, and more than anything else, hunting to have hunted. If you are hunting to get a reproduction made, are you hunting? No, you are filling your house full of reproduction taxidermy. Hunting is about hunting, not about trophies. It is about managing wildlife for future generations to enjoy. I remember the old YO and 777 Ranch advertisements from years ago about the how they offered an exceptional experience. I am not sure of the quality of those operations today, but I think the rest of the Texas (and somewhat African) wildlife ranching industry is has shit direction about what way is up. Several of these dickheads down there have basically said, kill something and get of the property. | |||
|
One of Us |
It's really hard to shoot a large animal with a bow fishing outfit and a non lethal arrow(?), reel him in, take pictures and release him unharmed.And making a shoulder mount with plastic fur that looks real is impossible . Seriously, is this a joke? Catch and release of game animals???  Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
No, its not a joke. And its not catch and release of game animals. Its hunting them just as you would if you were going to kill them, but then you don't kill them. You let them go, and if you want a mount you get one just like if you had killed the animal. And if you don't want a mount you don't get a mount. You don't go hunting just to get a mount. You go hunting to have fun, to see animals, to enjoy the outdoors, to enjoy your friends and family, and yes, hopefully to see game. But if you do all of that, and you get very close to the game, why kill it. Either take a photo, or remember it in your head, or have a reproduction made if you need to brag about it. I think that would be the way to best manage wildlife. Enjoy your time in the field, enjoy the animals you worked very hard to get close to, and then let somebody else enjoy them too, just like those fisherman do that make a reproduction mount rather than kill those 25-30 year old fish. Just think, instead of waiting 25 years to draw a sheep tag, you can go hunting them anytime you want. No wilderness restrictions just because you are carrying a gun. And if you get close enough to a nice one (as close as you would have been if you would have shot it) you can then have a repo mount made if, again, you feel the need to show that off. And the sheep lives another day, or the bull elk lives another day, or the elephant lives another day. And somebody else gets to enjoy them too. And you can still shoot your guns all you want. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In other words, a photo safari or just plain hiking with a camera. I don't think that would be called hunting. Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are still missing the most important part of hunting beyond the phychological effects it has on us. The point is game management. Every species has to be managed. Humming birds to house cats, aardvarks to zebras, it doesn't matter. If you want to be a photographer, there are hundreds of sites for it. Go do it! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have been hunting for 50 years of my 65 year life. I know what game management is. Most of the time its said to be objective based on science and then turns out to be subjective based on who has the most money or the loudest mouth or who is able to kiss somebody's ass. Its not the animals that have to be managed. Rather, its people who should be managed in the way they think about animals. Mother nature has been and always will be the best manager of animals, not based on man's terms, but based on mother nature's terms. As we see the ebb and flow of that management, we should react with our own responsible use of wildlife. How many times do I read, almost every year, where conservation officers find piles of whole deer, many not even skinned, with many having their heads cut off. Some conservation. What good is in anywhere to shoot an endangered species animal. What good is it to shoot an elephant when you don't eat it and you can't bring back its ivory. Why not look at it and have a taxidermist make you a set of repro ivory. Same with rhinos and many different animals. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I will tell you this. I am a wildlife biology grad student. I personally believe the North American model is flawed. The concept of guaranteed participation is a bad one, and it creates a lot of problems with slob hunters. The divide between personal freedoms and people feeling they have a right to something because they pay taxes breeds contempt. You are confusing locally endangered with sustainable management. Everything needs to be managed: elephants, tigers, doesn't matter what the species is. Only so many elephants can exist on a refuge or national park. So that population needs to be controlled. Etosha Pan national park can only manage so many elephants before nothing else can live there. They have to be managed, and Namibia having a tremendous natural real estate resource a lot of this is done on private lands and tribal areas. Cross the border into Angola and you have someplace that elephants are endangered, because of development, war and people. So of course you wouldn't hunt elephants there. And no hunter is, I am sure poaching exist. Some of the resource must be removed to keep a sustainable population. There will be wildlife violations, there will be slobs, but the majority of hunters are good conservation minded people. The key is that the wildlife training that is paramount in youth, should continue in adulthood. | |||
|
| One of Us |
lindy2 You can't repro hunted species. Impractical, regardless of the idea to hunt and not shoot. The closest you'd come is dart, photo and release/revive which still stresses the animal. In fact, catch-and-release does kill fish. (You'd have to immediately return them to water without blinding them in sunlight, taking photos and compromising the slime barrier with all that handling. I have a degree in fish farming and a couple years practical experience. I absolutely HATE pro fishing, ear tagging "game" animals for breeding programs destined to fill hunting paddocks, and acting toward wildlife like it were same as NASCAR,) My guess is that you'll keep arguing even though you've gotten plenty of input counter to the idea. Also, animals die of age too. Without room to roam, managing is what we must do. (Actually, removing a LOT of people would help, but that is morally impossible and reprehensible.) I'd go fishing, now that hunting has become a moral dilemma to you. 2 cents. Barry _______________________ | |||
|
| One of Us |
"I'd go fishing, now that hunting has become a moral dilemma to you." your argument is ad hominem. I don't know why you would go fishing now that you think hunting has become a moral dilemma to me, which it has not. Please stay on he issue rather than on personalities. I am not against hunting. I am not against killing animals. but I am against wanton wastefulness, and about conservation, and about the irony that all wild animals are supposed to belong to all of us but many, including endangered species, now seem to be for sale to the highest bidders so they can get a trophy to put on their wall and brag about. And you did not read what I said. I said a person should get as close to the animal as if he or she were going to shoot it, and then either take a photo, or remember the animal as it is, and then make a reproduction. The hunter will have accomplished everything important about hunting without the stress to kill it. For example, in fishing, these guys go so far as to use special long nets that stay in the water, and the fish is unhooked in the water, and very few die. I wonder how many animals die each year that are not recovered but have been shot, just because the hunter is too lazy to go take a look. | |||
|
one of us |
I've been doing this for the past 40 years. It's called wildlife photography.  Tony Mandile - Author "How To Hunt Coues Deer" | |||
|
one of us |
From a taxidermist's position, reproduction mammals will never be cost effective and all reproductions you see have used animals skins and hair so your purpose would be defeated. Mass producing repro mammals is just not going to happen. Jerry Huffaker State, National and World Champion Taxidermist | |||
|
| One of Us |
They once said the same thing about putting a man on the moon. Money makes a lot of things that are impossible possible. | |||
|
one of us |
Except the meat in my freezer! And yes, I read your opening post about just spending the same or less money on a side of beef or pork. I'd rather not thanks. I prefer the fresh lean healthy meat from wild animals to that of raised livestock. I hunt for the experience and the food. Killing is the necessary end result of successful hunting. Without the chance of that death, it's not the same experience; it does not provide the same nourishment (spiritually and physically). Humans are predators. It's in our genes. To deny it is to deny our very essence. I choose to embrace it, to hunt and kill, to be a real part of the circle of life, to feed my body and soul. There's no reproduction mount that will do that. _____________________ A successful man is one who earns more money than his wife can spend. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As suspected, you are arguing. Double monologue is not dialogue. Buh-bye now. _______________________ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Desert Ram If you want to eat what you shoot that's fine, although I suspect that a lot of so called wild meant comes from the same chemically sprayed crops that domestic meat comes from. I don't necessarily agree that killing is the necessary end result of hunting. Not the same experience for sure, and I suppose if you have some kind of thing for killing its okay. But I doubt if there is any scientific evidence that humans have genes that control for predation. I think considerably more people don't hunt than do. | |||
|
| One of Us |
 It's pretty obvious that your protestations to the contrary, you are not a hunter. Go have a nice bowl of kale and STFU. Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
classic ad hominem argument. The fallacy of shifting a discussion from the point being discussed to the personality of an opponent, usually because the person is incapable of dealing with the thesis of the discussion on the merits. Regardless I have been hunting for over 50 years. | |||
|
| one of us |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lindy2: I don't necessarily agree that killing is the necessary end result of hunting. Not the same experience for sure, and I suppose if you have some kind of thing for killing its okay. /QUOTE] "In our rather stupid time, hunting is belittled and misunderstood, many refusing to see it for the vital vacation from the human condition that it is, or to acknowledge that the hunter does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, he kills in order to have hunted." José Ortega y Gasset - Meditations on Hunting Tony Mandile - Author "How To Hunt Coues Deer" | |||
|
| One of Us |
Were you hunting with a weapon or a camera? Did you kill anything? Are a member of PETA, Born Free, USUS, Lionaid, etc. ARE YOU A HUNTER OR A TROLL????? Your comments thus far suggest the latter. Your discussion has no merit in a context of hunting as what you propose is not hnting but simply wildlife photography. Carry on, though. Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
Lindy 2, you sound like a person who has never hunted, and never experienced the thrill of the chase. If you traipse around the woods with a camera strapped to a benign stick, taking pictures of game, you are doing something, just don't call it hunting. You sound like one of those misinformed folks that mistakenly believe that "trophy hunting" means taking the horns, or antlers and cape, and leaves the rest to rot. This is a propagandized version of the hunt that Petaphiles like to perpetrate in order to caricaturize what real hunters do. The truth of the matter is that nearly all of the animals taken, ESPECIALLY in Africa, get used for human consumption, even the innards, which the locals there seem to relish even more than the flesh. I have been a hunter most of my life, and a so called "trophy hunter" during a large majority of that time. You would be hard pressed to find an animal on my wall that did not also end up in my freezer, and onto my dinner plate. What is your point, exactly? | |||
|
One of Us |
Perhaps those would be the genes that give humans the jaws, teeth, and digestive system designed to ingest and digest meat. Before markets, trade, and bartering all humans were eating meat any way, every way, and anytime they could get it, primarily by hunting. . | |||
|
| One of Us |
Please don't confuse linda with facts. I am sure she eats meat as long as someone else kills it.... Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
Everyone seems to be confusing the issue by either getting off topic or using ad hominem argument. I am not against hunting and I am not against eating meat. I am against killing animals, especially endangered species, for no other reason than to put their head or some other part of their body on the wall. And I don't buy the idea that a person has to hunt to feed his or her family, although I think its okay to hunt for meat as long as the meat is used rather than thrown away. I am against the idea that people with lots of money are more likely to be allowed to shoot animals, especially endangered species, when these animals are supposed to belong to all citizens. But again, this is not about me. Rather, the specific issue or topic then, very simply, is whether reproductions like those used in the fishing industry could curb some of this behavior. And again, for those who cannot read well, I did not propose to replace hunting with wildlife photography. Rather, I suggested it as a way to record an animal to use as an example for the reproduction trophy. Nevertheless, in response to one poster who did not use ad hominem argument, you will see the difference between animals that are truly genetically designed to hunt and eat meat. Very large incisors, very short intestines, no problems with high fat, high cholesterol diets, the ability to kill prey without tools, the ability to run faster than most of its prey, etc. I am thinking about animals like big cats, wolves, etc. Man hunted meat out of necessity, not genetics. | |||
|
| One of Us |
. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Isn't a "forum" a place for discussing ideas? And please stay on the issue. it can be done by not using the word "you" in a response. And the issue of this thread is not the difference between omnivors and herbivores. Rather, its about whether conservation of some animals might benefit by using an idea that came about in the fishing industry. | |||
|
| one of us |
And for those who don't understand wildlife photography and it's end result, an enlargement of said animal IS a REPRODUCTION of that animal and can even be REPRODUCED to billboard size and hung in Times Square. In fact, it's usually complete with its living habitat, something a bunch of hair and horns suspended on a nail doesn't convey. I have dozens of reproductions of BOTH types hanging throughout my house, and both types provide satisfaction and memories of how, when and where the "kills" took place. Further, as soon as you remove the weapon to kill and replace it with a camera, you are no longer engaged in traditional hunting anymore than you would be if you are online with your mouse "hunting" for a new tie. As Ortega said, one kills to have HUNTED. Lastly, as Jerry stated, the idea is impractical. Recreating a fish takes nothing more than molds, some fiberglass cloth and resin, a glass eye and paint. Until someone figures out how to create capes/hair for the hundreds of critter types, exactly reproduce antlers and horns from everyone's "trophy" photo, your idea will never fly. Tony Mandile - Author "How To Hunt Coues Deer" | |||
|
| One of Us |
His idea will never fly with true hunters anyway. Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
These are your words, "I am against killing animals...for no other reason than to put their head or some other part of their body on the wall... the issue then is whether reproductions like used in the fishing industry could curb some of this behavior." Plainly, you want to "curb" behavior that you are "against". Pretend you have a pair and own up to it. Outdoor Writer says photographs are reproductions that can be put on a wall. But he hasn't suggested using photographs to "curb" anyone's behavior. Photographs are great. They do not provide life-sized, realistic, three-dimensional representation of actual animals, including antlers, tusks, fur, feathers, claws, or teeth. Neither can one walk around and touch the subjects frozen in a photograph.. But photos do provide glimpses of animals, living and/or dead, and their behavior in natural settings while, at the same time, preserving the appearance of those settings as well. Movies and video do the same with the inclusion of motion and sound. The best examples of taxidermy often include realistic representations of the environment, sometimes even including photographic elements.  I have never met a trophy hunter who doesn't also have photographs of the quarry. Often the photos also feature live animals in their habitat, usually many, many more animals are photographed than the number killed. Many trophy hunters also have movies or video of not only the hunt but the animals in the natural state. In fact, trophy hunters tend to be amateur naturalists, conservationists, environmentalists, and animal behaviorists. Surely, we should not wan to curb those behaviors. Fish are represented by reproductions because of the difficulty in creating fish taxidermy that is realistic and which will last for decades. That is also why artificial eyes are used in taxidermy instead of trying to preserve real eyes. But it is important to point out that neither reproductions of fish skin nor the use of artificial eyes is done to curb or alter anyone's fishing behavior. In fact I would bet that being able to have an inexpensive reproduction of a game fish has probably worked to encourage and increase game fishing and not to suppress or "curb" it. Unlike fish skins, animal skins, fur, antlers, skulls, horns, tusks, teeth, and claws are very easy to preserve, they retain a realistic appearance, and they last for many decades. Animal taxidermy is relatively cheap and possible alternatives look and feel fake. There is no imitation fur that looks like fur, especially when you add in stripes, spots, or other natural color variations found in animals. Bird and butterfly and other insect collections are created from real animals for the same reason for using real animals mammal taxidermy - there is nothing as realistic as the real thing. . | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia