Trophy Hunting Undermines Conservation, Right? Wrong

[Hoas]

 

[VertigoBE]

@Hoas or @Frederik , perhaps one of you can also upload the PDF? (Or I can do it)
So people can share it outside of AfricaHunting.com.

 

[Novice Huntress]

Hoas, thanks for posting this info!

 

[Hunter-Habib]

The only people who think that hunting undermines conservation are the Doctorate-In-Disney-Films crowd.

By the way, Africa is no longer a British colony. What grounds exactly do the British have in telling Africans what to do with THEIR wildlife ? The fact that they allegedly know better ? That’s real racism.

Same applies to Asian countries. We have entire flocks of these British vermin come through our airports with diplomatic permission from our money hungry boot licking government agencies and then set up their little camps near our rural areas, in an attempt to convince locals about the “ecological horrors of hunting”. When they don’t succeed, they go back to their little island and start publishing garbage on their local tabloids about how hunting is endangering OUR wildlife.

Well… it’s OUR wildlife. Managing it is OUR concern. Not theirs. We don’t need a foreign babysitter to control us. We want them gone.

 

[baxterb]

A modest proposal: abandon the term “trophy hunting” completely, now and forever.

It is a rhetorically charged term that instantly conjures negative images of white hunters with their foot on a dead animal, whose head will be cut off and the body left to rot.

You might not think it matters…but it does. Continuing to use a term that has been co-opted and redefined by anti-hunters to stain ALL hunters is to be playing on their terms. Don’t do it.

Hunting undermines conservation, right?
Wrong.

Much better…

 

[baxterb]

To see the difference, go back and read pages 2-3 but use “hunting” and not “trophy hunting”. You have a much more powerful and defensible position. P

 

[Hunter-Habib]

A modest proposal: abandon the term “trophy hunting” completely, now and forever.

It is a rhetorically charged term that instantly conjures negative images of white hunters with their foot on a dead animal, whose head will be cut off and the body left to rot.

You might not think it matters…but it does. Continuing to use a term that has been co-opted and redefined by anti-hunters to stain ALL hunters is to be playing on their terms. Don’t do it.

Hunting undermines conservation, right?
Wrong.

Much better…

You know something, @baxterb ? I agree with you 100%. The word “Trophy Hunting” indicates that we are simply hunting the game for a head mount or a hide. So shallow and one dimensional.

It’s no different from hunting a good deer stag/buck and retaining the head as a nice souvenir after sustainably utilizing all of the venison. So why does hunting a Cape buffalo or an elephant or a lion in Africa have to carry this negative title, when not an ounce of the meat goes to the vultures ?

 

[baxterb]

You know something, @baxterb ? I agree with you 100%. The word “Trophy Hunting” indicates that we are simply hunting the game for a head mount or a hide. So shallow and one dimensional.

It’s no different from hunting a good deer stag/buck and retaining the head as a nice souvenir after sustainably utilizing all of the venison. So why does hunting a Cape buffalo or an elephant or a lion in Africa have to carry this negative title, when not an ounce of the meat goes to the vultures ?

Exactly.

When we try to defend a term/activity that THEY define, we are conceding the definition to them. When done properly and sustainably, we are just hunting. Whether if it’s in the UK, America, or anywhere in Africa.

 

[Passinthru]

Thank you for posting this excellent information.

 

[AN.87]

Indeed the pdf or link to the article would be helpful

 

[Troubleshooter]

It’s no different from hunting a good deer stag/buck and retaining the head as a nice souvenir after sustainably utilizing all of the venison. So why does hunting a Cape buffalo or an elephant or a lion in Africa have to carry this negative title, when not an ounce of the meat goes to the vultures ?

Because so long as the anti-hunters control the narrative, they are able to convince people that taking the head and abandoning the meat is exactly what we do. I've lost track of the number of people who have asked me "but what happens to the meat?" When I explain that it is fully utilized by the outfitter, his staff, and the locals the usual response is something along the lines of "oh well then that's OK."

 

[VertigoBE]

Here is the PDF version.

 

[Randy F]

Thanks for sharing.



"Such paternalistic, arrogant and misinformed approaches will only encourage our countries to look eastwards to grow alliances an markets for our natural resources."

Dr Chris Brown - CEO, Namibian Chamber for the Environment


Aside from the hunting aspect, this is a powerful statement, very real, and we're already seeing it.

 

[Sue Tidwell]

Because so long as the anti-hunters control the narrative, they are able to convince people that taking the head and abandoning the meat is exactly what we do. I've lost track of the number of people who have asked me "but what happens to the meat?" When I explain that it is fully utilized by the outfitter, his staff, and the locals the usual response is something along the lines of "oh well then that's OK."

Thanks so much for sharing this. It has some great stats I can use for a talk I am doing at the Serengeti Park Zoom next week (via Zoom). I'm afraid that I'm stepping into the lions den. I'm not sure they knew the message in my book before inviting me. Sue

 

[TheGrayRider]

"Sadly, all too often, Westerners focus solely on animal welfare at the expense of human life in Africa." Philda Nani Kareng - Former Botswana Minister Environment and Tourism.

Spot on. Thanks for posting this article. I will print a copy and study further. Happy hunting, TheGrayRider a/k/a Tom.

 

[James Millerton]

I am a Professional Hunter, and have been in the professional hunting and conservation business for just over 35 years!
LET'S BE VERY CLEAR...
"Trophy hunting undermines conservation, right" YES RIGHT.
Trophy hunting is "trophy hunting", conservation hunting is "conservation hunting" (Sustainable Use for Wildlife Conservation).....trophy hunting is NOT conservation!
READ IT...
That's why is undermines conservation!...my passion, my life and my conservation hunting work!

 

[Woodcarver]

I am a Professional Hunter, and have been in the professional hunting and conservation business for just over 35 years!
LET'S BE VERY CLEAR...
"Trophy hunting undermines conservation, right" YES RIGHT. Wrong, it does not. Do not let them control the narrative
Trophy hunting is "trophy hunting", conservation hunting is "conservation hunting" (Sustainable Use for Wildlife Conservation).....trophy hunting is NOT conservation! Wrong, you're allowing them to control the narrative.
READ IT...
That's why is undermines conservation!...my passion, my life and my conservation hunting work!

@baxterb said it well;

A modest proposal: abandon the term “trophy hunting” completely, now and forever.

It is a rhetorically charged term that instantly conjures negative images of white hunters with their foot on a dead animal, whose head will be cut off and the body left to rot.

You might not think it matters…but it does. Continuing to use a term that has been co-opted and redefined by anti-hunters to stain ALL hunters is to be playing on their terms. Don’t do it.

Hunting undermines conservation, right?
Wrong.

Much better…

When the opposition is allowed to define terms to fit their narrative, and their skewed definition is not contested robustly, then the general public will use their terms in their context. If we (hunters) refuse to use their bastardized term, and never allow them to conflate hunting with poaching, we can open the eyes of the general public one conversation at a time and through writing such as the one posted.
Virtually every hunter knows the definition of a hunted trophy to themselves, but those mental concepts vary as much as the individuals who hunt. Meat hunters to those fixated on head gear, a new hunter taking their first game animal to those who have taken many; each in their success afield taking a "trophy". "A trophy is a tangible, durable reminder of a specific achievement", in our context, a game animal taken. Pictures, hides, antlers and horns, are all "trophies".
The key in all of this is, "trophy" hunting is conservation hunting. Without hunters, there would be very few animals in the wild, in any country. That is what we need to emphasize. The article does an excellent job in pointing this out. Even though we actually know every time we are successful in the field, we have taken a trophy, what we can do is quit using the term "trophy hunting", unless our definition is included.

 

[J.Ogilvie]

A modest proposal: abandon the term “trophy hunting” completely, now and forever.

It is a rhetorically charged term that instantly conjures negative images of white hunters with their foot on a dead animal, whose head will be cut off and the body left to rot.

You might not think it matters…but it does. Continuing to use a term that has been co-opted and redefined by anti-hunters to stain ALL hunters is to be playing on their terms. Don’t do it.

Hunting undermines conservation, right?
Wrong.

Much better…

This is something that Shane Mahoney and Jim Shockey have been saying for a long time, with the former advocating for the term "international hunting," and the latter arguing for the term "selective hunting."

The term "trophy hunting" has been twisted by the mainstream media and anti-hunting groups over many years to refer to a practice that just doesn't happen (i.e. killing rare animals just for their skin/head, and leaving the meat to rot.) Nevertheless, this is what the average person in the general public thinks of when they hear "trophy hunting."

The continued use of the term is counterproductive, even when it is being used in a context that is designed to promote hunting, such as the excellent document posted in this thread.

 

[baxterb]

This is something that Shane Mahoney and Jim Shockey have been saying for a long time, with the former advocating for the term "international hunting," and the latter arguing for the term "selective hunting."

The term "trophy hunting" has been twisted by the mainstream media and anti-hunting groups over many years to refer to a practice that just doesn't happen (i.e. killing rare animals just for their skin/head, and leaving the meat to rot.) Nevertheless, this is what the average person in the general public thinks of when they hear "trophy hunting."

The continued use of the term is counterproductive, even when it is being used in a context that is designed to promote hunting, such as the excellent document posted in this thread.

I have heard 'selective' hunting here and there. It is still differentiated and not as strong as just hunting, in my book. I was talking with a non-hunter co-worker once who used the phrase trophy hunting once, and I asked her to define it. She used the common definition. I told her legal hunting defined in that manner does not exist, and that did she know there are laws against wanton waste of the usable parts of a hunted animal? "Noooo" she said... "wow, I didn't know that." And that was the end of trophy hunting in her mind...

 

[Rubberhead]

I have no intention of letting the duh mass liberals control the conversation and sully the term "trophy hunter". Trophy hunting has done too much good for wildlife to just let them take that that easily. Black wildebeest, scimitar-horned, roan, maybe sable, have all been saved by Trophy hunting and trophy hunters. I'll own that.

The biggest downside to Trophy hunting is that we clean up too well and don't leave enough for Africa's scavengers...but most safari companies know that and are making sure to leave an offering for the vultures...