This is why it’s important for ethical hunters to stand up and tell the public that we are what hunting is about, not the badly behaved outliers.

We just recently had a client from upstate Washington who “after” signing our contract which clearly describes our trophy fees and “after” killing a monster 450lb. Boar, says to us, “I only want the head and you guys can keep the meat”!

We also encountered another individual about 5 years ago from Florida who “after” his two young sons had killed a nice meat hog. One each. The man said to us, “You guys can do whatever you want with the animals, I just wanted my boys to experience the kill before I bring them to Africa to take five Trophy Animals home”!

These type of individuals are the very ones of which we all are speaking whom the media will focus upon just to garner the latest headlines. And so that they may sell more papers they will focus upon the “negative” of the minority. Just the same as the “Pitbull” headlines will surely sell lots of airspace as well.

By the way, those two repugnant individuals which I mentioned earlier? I told them that if they abandoned their meat that I would file charges against them for “Wanton Waste”

“Not much happening over there right now”

Ouch!!

Hey Rat… sorry, didn’t realize how that came across. I only meant that there wasn’t a lot of feedback happening on your post… a post which should have elicited a lot of response given what Dr. Brown is saying there.

I can definitely appreciate the point that we SHOULD stop and take a look at what we’re doing and how it’s perceived by the public, then make sure we address that perception. I’ve said it often, both on this blog and in other places, that if we discount the opinions of the non-hunting public, our sport is doomed to an ugly death. Those people vote, and there are far more of them than there are of us.

The trick is in finding a balance, because we also know that not only do non-hunters know very little about our sport… they generally don’t WANT to know. Educating them becomes a little trickier, because we end up doing damage control when something happens, rather than constructive public relations when nothing is happening at all.

I do want to suggest, though, that when we’re talking to non-hunters… or even to some misinformed hunting compatriots… “trophy hunting” is a term that is often misused and even more often misunderstood (just like “canned hunting” or “high fence”).

The stereotype, of course, would be someone who’s hunting ONLY for the antlers, teeth, etc. and doesn’t care about utilizing the rest of the animal. These are the people we often hear about who go out and shoot a great animal, only to take the head.

The fact is, though, that the majority of trophy hunters (all of the trophy hunters I know personally) utilize the whole animal just like any of the rest of us. They just put a different value on the experience, and are unwilling to “settle” for a “lesser” animal. That’s a personal value-set, and not to be discounted.

Most of the folks who consider themselves “trophy hunters” differ from the rest of us only in that resolve to take “quality” animals. They exhibit what I consider an admirable restraint in the field. They also, by necessity, tend to hone the finer skills of woodscraft in order to consistently take the most mature and well-developed animals of any species.

As a community, it should be at least a part of our job to help differentiate between these types of “trophy hunting”, just as we differentiate hunters from poachers and thrill-killers.

This is why licensed and responsible hunters are watching their hunting priveledges being trampled and taken away.

The realy sad part about all this is that if they had taken the mud hens home and boiled them up they could have fed the meat to their cats or dogs!
Good nutrition for them and they do not complain about the taste.

Just too much work for these scums I guess!

I also plan to use this incident in a letter to my lawmakers to talk about why we need more game wardens. Our proposed state budget calls for cutting them.

Take action and follow through with that action.

And Bushwhacker, I share your W.V. friend’s sentiment. I was out on a hunt today on a public refuge where there was evidence that some hunters had walked along the roads the day before shooting coots, which are widely considered inedible, and just LEAVING THEM THERE. We found around 10 of them – and the nearby spent shells. Hunters like that need to be strung up by their huevos, and fellow hunters need to be the ones to do it so the non-hunting public understands that we find that repugnant.

And you’re right that we have supporters in unexpected places. The foodie community is a huge potential partner of the hunting community.

Ouch!!

Thanks for stopping by the Rat’s Nest! I believe, as with any issue, over-simplifying it is dangerous. I also think that even if you don’t agree with Dr. Brown, a “reality check” now and then doesn’t hurt us. I fully agree that your Game and Fish Department sets one set of standards, that for the most part, are a good starting point. The problem is, not always is something that is legal also ethical, and vice versa. Remember too that while we don’t need to be apologists, non-hunters vote in legislators. Your Game and Fish Department operates at the behest of the State Government. Their mandate is always subject to change, as directed (more or less) by the populace.