Trophy the film - let your voice be heard

[BobT]

Philip Glass is a very experienced hunter and I feel that had Philip been alone, the elephant would have been dead very quickly. In my opinion, when we as hunters place ourselves in the hands of the PH's we accept their experience and expertise and follow their instructions, even though when left to our own devices at home, we may have done things differently.

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I was not second guessing nor did I intend to be critical of Mr. Glass, he shot well and did exactly as the PH directed. As a life long hunter I understand that things don't always go as planned. I think that a little editing might have made the scene a little more palatable for non hunters while still getting the message across.

 

[Philip Glass]

As a hunter I was offended....shame on the hunter and the PH!

Don’t be duped by a little movie magic.
Philip

 

[ActionBob]

On the elephant.

First, hunting can be brutal. We all know that. It's a fact. No, that elephant wasn't dead before it hit the ground, not all animals are. Would any hunter who had an issue with the elephant have the same reaction if that had been a kudu, or a whitetail, or a buffalo? I honestly doubt it. If you can tell me you always put more lead into any animal that isn't dead the second you reach it then great, but I bet no one here hasn't waited a minute or two for an animal to expire. I know I have.

Second, based on the video it wasn't that long and a final chest shot was put in when it became apparent the cow wasn't dead. Remember, this was an elephant at close range, not a 300 yard PG shot that gave the animal time to die. Again, stuff happens. Perhaps in the experience of the PH hunters are so shaky after shooting an elephant that the PH prefers a chest shot, even at that close range, as the finisher. And, almost certainly the PH thought the animal was going to quickly expire from the initial lung shot.

Lastly, elephants are DAMN TOUGH. They don't always die like the book says they should. As anyone who read my hunt report knows my elephant took the initial shot through both lungs and creased the heart. As it was running off it took five more shots between me and the PH. That's 3000 grains of bullet. We found it very much alive and pissed off 11 hours later and it took a final frontal brain shot to end it. I would have very much preferred for that to have gone down differently, but it didn't.

Anyone who wants to second guess Philip, go for it, but you weren't there.

Royal you make great points. To me the difference with an elephant is that you should be shooting solids, and an elephant's head is not going to explode like a duiker's, whitetail's, or cat, etc. So you would not likely be destroying a trophy by putting a finisher in the head.

From my admitted limited experience, but having done this.... That is probably most often "the way " it is done on elephant. So yea it is an animal same as is a kudu, but there is a difference even if just structurally. Thus my dismay in the decision of the PH. Especially as he knew it was being filmed for broad distribution. But no way can I fault the hunter, as explained earlier.

 

[Philip Glass]

Another point for me, the poster advertising for “Trophy” depicts a white rhino in the crosshairs of a rifle scope. It was clear from the content of the production that sport hunting has nothing to do with the decline of rhinos. Seems either to be “baiting” to attract more viewers, what I call the “Howard Cosell” approach in broadcasting or it sets the stage to catch an anti-hunter with a surprise.

One part I did truly appreciate was the attention paid to the growing emphasis of hunters to what is hanging on the wall versus the story of the hunt. That was most evident in that sorry croc hunt and the auctions of hunts for specific types/sizes of animal heads. I don’t blame game ranchers for wanting to breed bigger/wider, more unnatural headed animals. That is what the market demands. I offer that we hunters have lost sight of the value of the experience of the hunt and our competition with other hunters in “mine is as big or bigger than yours”. Think not? What is the first thing asked of most hunters? “How big is it?”.

When Phillip is wading through the Caprive wetlands, that captured my soul. Too bad the show couldn’t capture the heat, mud, dust, long miles of walking, the exhaustion at the end of the day. I also wish he had shot the dying elephant in the head rather than the body but I defer to the PH onsite.

Thanks for your comments!

 

[Philip Glass]

I'm not willing to throw Phillip under the bus on this. Two main points come to my mind on the elephant.

1. Having been there and done that; Even for an experienced hunter, there are many firsts. I'm sure that elephant was a first for Phillip. As was the case for me. We read up, practice, talk to other hunters, etc. But when you are there, in the moment, you at experiencing tons of emotions and adrenaline. You are relying on your instincts and your PH. That is all you have at that moment. Most of us have the expierience of pretty much never shooting an animal in the head, it is just not instinctive for most of us.

2. I was very disappointed the PH did not say "put one in the top of the head to finish it". But i can't fault the hunter, especially knowing full well how things go in these situations. In my case, the PH was patting himself on top of the head telling me to put another in.

I thought it looked like Phillip' s shooting was all top form. Not positive but it seemed to me like a fantastic shot anchoring that elephant on the 3rd shot. And seemed like the first shot was good.

Very interesting watching the translations of the locals. Wanting 30 elephants killed for the season, but only going to get 7.

Phillip thanks again for putting yourself out there. Those of us on the sidelines cannot criticize any part of what you are doing here and have done, lest we step up to the plate ourselves. You are poised, prepared, proper and precise. I don't see how our entire hunting community can do anything but be grateful for your efforts.

You are very kind. Yes ele was my first DG and first thing on camera so that played into the scene. Also I’ll say it again the sound was embellished! That ele made one little sound and that was all. The editing room made that sound go on for a long time. Easy to armchair QB I understand.
Thanks again for watching it.
Philip

 

[ActionBob]

Thanks for that explanation Philip and apologies to your PH.

Real shame they did that but I suppose it is all part of the process.

 

[cpr0312]

Just watched it, Philip again I commend you for your part!

 

[Rick Cox]

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I was not second guessing nor did I intend to be critical of Mr. Glass, he shot well and did exactly as the PH directed. As a life long hunter I understand that things don't always go as planned. I think that a little editing might have made the scene a little more palatable for non hunters while still getting the message across.

Totally agree.

 

[686]

Thanks again for watching it.
Philip

Philip, I just saw the film and the debates and wanted to say I really admire your courage and confidence to put yourself out there for the world to see. This is a hard time to have rational debate with so much hysteria coming from the anti hunting side, and so much frustration from the hunting/management/facts side. Your patience, thoughtfulness, and honesty in engaging with the folks behind the camera and the folks on the other side of issues is a huge service to people on both sides. Thank you!

I am reminded of this:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

Again a profound thanks.

 

[Philip Glass]

Philip, I just saw the film and the debates and wanted to say I really admire your courage and confidence to put yourself out there for the world to see. This is a hard time to have rational debate with so much hysteria coming from the anti hunting side, and so much frustration from the hunting/management/facts side. Your patience, thoughtfulness, and honesty in engaging with the folks behind the camera and the folks on the other side of issues is a huge service to people on both sides. Thank you!

I am reminded of this:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

Again a profound thanks.

686
Thanks and very well said! WE are in a battle for what we believe in.
Philip

 

[barryk]

New Links:
CNN Cuomo Prime Time - aired live Fri. 1/12

https://app.frame.io/f/490ae906-7430-4465-bce6-e8f3f015f9ea


CNN Newsroom w/Ana Cabrera - aired Sat. 1/13

https://app.frame.io/f/10103325-9435-428f-9a7c-1160dbabdf66

Philip,
Well presented....I heard Shane Mahoney say at a banquet couple of years ago..."The North American Model" of game management works. You noted this also.....first time I've heard this brought up for discussion by a news media...in particular CNN...keep up the good work and fight because the concept of this model is getting national attention for the first time I'm aware.

 

[lwaters]

Philip,
Well presented....I heard Shane Mahoney say at a banquet couple of years ago..."The North American Model" of game management works. You noted this also.....first time I've heard this brought up for discussion by a news media...in particular CNN...keep up the good work and fight because the concept of this model is getting national attention for the first time I'm aware.

Oh but the RSA model works better

 

[barryk]

Oh but the RSA model works better

lwaters,
Is this because of the use of the meat and village/community involvement in the RSA model? I know the game ranching model in SA has increased wildlife exponentiallly as compared to Kenya's loss. I know giving the wildlife value so that they can be sold, used , consumed is working quite well in countries where it is allowed to be implemented and has enabled outfitters to better control poaching. Where the "antis" get hung up is on the killing part...for some people, this part will never sit well.....and I can understand and respect that......but they cannot get past this in order to see the greater good for wildlife and community.

 

[686]

lwaters,
Is this because of the use of the meat and village/community involvement in the RSA model? I know the game ranching model in SA has increased wildlife exponentiallly as compared to Kenya's loss. I know giving the wildlife value so that they can be sold, used , consumed is working quite well in countries where it is allowed to be implemented and has enabled outfitters to better control poaching. Where the "antis" get hung up is on the killing part...for some people, this part will never sit well.....and I can understand and respect that......but they cannot get past this in order to see the greater good for wildlife and community.

Regarding game management models and "antis" attitudes, there was a study done in the US that looked at what changed anti-hunters attitudes towards hunting. I believe the only successful arguments were:

A. That all the meat is utilized and the animal isn't wasted.
B. That hunting is a necessary activity licensed and regulated by states to manage wild animal populations appropriately.

Nothing else worked. Not "we've done it for years, I grew up doing it," etc. (Source: Episode 53 of the MeatEater Podcast; I believe the study was done by PhD candidate Greg Blascovich - definitely worth a listen if you have time: http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/episode-053-greg-blascovich/)

I think we are at a bit of a turning point on the issue of hunting in public opinion (at least in the US). A big percentage of the younger "millenial" generation is interested in food quality/sourcing/organics/free-range stock, etc. and has realised two facts: 1. Game meat is healthier and more "organic" and "sustainable" than farmed beef/chicken; and 2. The hypocritical nature of eating meat and being anti-hunting. (I.e., if you eat a hamburger or chicken nugget, you have just as much blood on your hands as a big game hunter, hunters just don't completely rely on other people do their "dirty work" for them)

Regarding African hunting, I think the "if it pays it stays" argument should be added as well (when the animal has value to the local impoverished community, it is protected and managed, when it is a drain on the resources of the local impoverished community, it will be poached). I think Trophy did a decent job illustrating this fact, mostly with the Maasi segment, I wish they would have gone into more exposition when the locals were discussing Philip's elephant, and how they wished more would be hunted.

We're probably never going to change the minds of a lot of vegans or "bleeding-heart" animal rights folks, but that's ok, we just need the rational middle-ground folks to see that what we do is much more authentic, responsible, and necessary than it is often portrayed to be. It also helps to note that hunting revenue pays for all of the state Game and Fish agencies in the US, and provided millions to the wildlife agencies in Africa as well as anti-poaching.

Anyway, I guess my point is when you end up talking to folks in the pub or whatnot, those talking points may be our best way to educate and change the attitudes of the middle-ground folks.

 

[barryk]

Regarding game management models and "antis" attitudes, there was a study done in the US that looked at what changed anti-hunters attitudes towards hunting. I believe the only successful arguments were:

A. That all the meat is utilized and the animal isn't wasted.
B. That hunting is a necessary activity licensed and regulated by states to manage wild animal populations appropriately.

Nothing else worked. Not "we've done it for years, I grew up doing it," etc. (Source: Episode 53 of the MeatEater Podcast; I believe the study was done by PhD candidate Greg Blascovich - definitely worth a listen if you have time: http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/episode-053-greg-blascovich/)

I think we are at a bit of a turning point on the issue of hunting in public opinion (at least in the US). A big percentage of the younger "millenial" generation is interested in food quality/sourcing/organics/free-range stock, etc. and has realised two facts: 1. Game meat is healthier and more "organic" and "sustainable" than farmed beef/chicken; and 2. The hypocritical nature of eating meat and being anti-hunting. (I.e., if you eat a hamburger or chicken nugget, you have just as much blood on your hands as a big game hunter, hunters just don't completely rely on other people do their "dirty work" for them)

Regarding African hunting, I think the "if it pays it stays" argument should be added as well (when the animal has value to the local impoverished community, it is protected and managed, when it is a drain on the resources of the local impoverished community, it will be poached). I think Trophy did a decent job illustrating this fact, mostly with the Maasi segment, I wish they would have gone into more exposition when the locals were discussing Philip's elephant, and how they wished more would be hunted.

We're probably never going to change the minds of a lot of vegans or "bleeding-heart" animal rights folks, but that's ok, we just need the rational middle-ground folks to see that what we do is much more authentic, responsible, and necessary than it is often portrayed to be. It also helps to note that hunting revenue pays for all of the state Game and Fish agencies in the US, and provided millions to the wildlife agencies in Africa as well as anti-poaching.

Anyway, I guess my point is when you end up talking to folks in the pub or whatnot, those talking points may be our best way to educate and change the attitudes of the middle-ground folks.

Thanks for the info....I will listen to Greg's podcast. Worthwhile also to note that hunters dollars in the U.S. pay for growth of "spin-off" wildlife that isn't even hunted...this, however, I'm sure falls on deaf ears of the "antis".....again, confusing the emotional issue with rational thought. I think that if we can minimize the perceived suffering of an animal through as clean a kill as possible, the middle-ground folks will listen, understand our point of view, and realize there is some merit in our hunting.

 

[BSO Dave]

@Philip Glass,

Along with many others here, I think it is commendable that you were willing to put yourself out there. I have no issues with your hunts, and I am the last person that would armchair quarterback anyone here when there is no way to put myself in your position. I would not appreciate that being done to me. I realize that you attempted to represent that for the vast majority of devoted hunters, this is not a sport, but more of a lifestyle rooted deeply in a philosophical perspective of nature and man's place in it. I only wish that came through more clearly.

I watched the film twice. I won't pay it the compliment of acknowledging it as a documentary, because to do so would imply that the depiction of all events were accurate and without prejudice, which they were not in my opinion. My only question to you would be why would you think for one minute that your part of the story would have any shot at being portrayed unedited and in context? I assume you had no editorial control in regard to your scenes? That would be a big red flag for me.

On a side note, does anyone know the PH/Outfitter that hosted the beer-swigging, croc shooter? Mabula Safaris I believe? Correct me if I am wrong because I would regret slamming the wrong party. That ass-clown should be ashamed for conducting his safaris in such a manner. I believe he was also the same guy that started crying while being interviewed in the course of showing trophy pictures to the camera. Apparently he regards his game animals as family pets?? At first, I thought that scene was a joke. He is in the wrong business. Anyone with a deposit to hunt with that guy needs to get their money back.

 

[Philip Glass]

@Philip Glass,

Along with many others here, I think it is commendable that you were willing to put yourself out there. I have no issues with your hunts, and I am the last person that would armchair quarterback anyone here when there is no way to put myself in your position. I would not appreciate that being done to me. I realize that you attempted to represent that for the vast majority of devoted hunters, this is not a sport, but more of a lifestyle rooted deeply in a philosophical perspective of nature and man's place in it. I only wish that came through more clearly.

I watched the film twice. I won't pay it the compliment of acknowledging it as a documentary, because to do so would imply that the depiction of all events were accurate and without prejudice, which they were not in my opinion. My only question to you would be why would you think for one minute that your part of the story would have any shot at being portrayed unedited and in context? I assume you had no editorial control in regard to your scenes? That would be a big red flag for me.

On a side note, does anyone know the PH/Outfitter that hosted the beer-swigging, croc shooter? Mabula Safaris I believe? Correct me if I am wrong because I would regret slamming the wrong party. That ass-clown should be ashamed for conducting his safaris in such a manner. I believe he was also the same guy that started crying while being interviewed in the course of showing trophy pictures to the camera. Apparently he regards his game animals as family pets?? At first, I thought that scene was a joke. He is in the wrong business. Anyone with a deposit to hunt with that guy needs to get their money back.

BSO Dave,
You are correct that I had no control of any of the editing it was a big RISK for me. I am grateful you acknowledge that. That said from the beginning I was willing to take the risk to be a part of the conversation with the other side on the issues. It worked and although I certainly don’t like parts of the film I’ve been around the country and even on CNN speaking about what we love and that is hunting and conservation. So overall it was worth it.
As for Mabula that is ultimately the PH’s fault for allowing a bad hunt to be filmed much less conducted in that way. Remember although it’s ultimately the owner who is responsible in most cases the PH’s are fairly independent in what they do. So for me I would lay blame on he PH others may see it differently.
Thanks for watching the film and joining the discussion!
Philip

 

[Philip Glass]

Philip,
Well presented....I heard Shane Mahoney say at a banquet couple of years ago..."The North American Model" of game management works. You noted this also.....first time I've heard this brought up for discussion by a news media...in particular CNN...keep up the good work and fight because the concept of this model is getting national attention for the first time I'm aware.

Thanks!

 

[Philip Glass]

Oh but the RSA model works better

Yes you are right. The NA model of conservation is based on the government owning the animals. The RSA and Texas example are of private ownership of animals and we know what works better between government and private ownership! They both work but the private model has for a fact saved more species from extencintion. For instance I own and raise Addax antelope which are extinct in the wild. Private example. In Texas it’s silly that there are seasons and bag limits on Whitetail deer. Just government making jobs for people. We kill 500,000 deer a year!
Regards,
Philip

 

[lwaters]

The western states have millions of acres that is managed poorly. A lot of it has a bunch of jackasses and wild horses it would be a lot better if it were managed like Texas.