"Trophy Hunting" - The Phrase

[Vashper]

It's all very difficult to explain. The modern fauna of Africa has been preserved only thanks to the trophy hunting of wealthy, mostly white, people. If there were no trophy hunting, the local authorities would not see any value in the local fauna, and all these carriers of animal protein would have been eaten by the local population long ago. And it would not require modern small arms. But the public does not understand this.
An example from another region: one of our publicists, formerly an employee of nature reserves, Ph.D., and then PH, tries to explain that in order to preserve the Amur tiger, regulated hunting for it is necessary. Now the presence of a tiger on the territory of the hunting area is an encumbrance. He hunts wild boars, and there is no use from him. And alas, the huntsman will find a way to get rid of him. It would be a completely different matter if this tiger was a valuable resource.
But it is impossible to explain this to either politicians or the public.

 

[BigSteve57]

Pretty much every time I recall using the word "trophy" in conversation it led to people assuming I just shot the animals so I could hang them on the wall and left the rest to rot. This sometimes included other hunters! So I quit using the word trophy and referred to my exploits simply as hunting and the stuff on the wall as "taxidermy.

Silly as that is, it seems to work. But deep down they'll always be trophies to me.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Pretty much every time I recall using the word "trophy" in conversation it led to people assuming I just shot the animals so I could hang them on the wall and left the rest to rot. This sometimes included other hunters! So I quit using the word trophy and referred to my exploits simply as hunting and the stuff on the wall as "taxidermy.

Silly as that is, it seems to work. But deep down they'll always be trophies to me.

Bingo!

 

[VertigoBE]

When talking with people about hunting, I always actively avoid the term “trophy hunting”. For me, the trophy in a hunt is not in the size of the horn, but in the challenge overcome, the experience lived and the ethical management of the different animal species. Before I went on my first safari, i had only ever taken one animal that would be seen as a trophy. All other animals I have taken were for meat or management purposes.

That being said, when my safari to Africa comes up in the conversation, the first question is usually “you didn’t kill simba/dumbo, right?” To which I categorically say no(t yet). Leaving out that last part of course... and I explain that to me hunting in Africa is actually an ingenious system of preserving the different species over there. It is a perfect triangle between 1. an idiot willing to fork over large amounts of money to get a chance to hunt over there, 2. The local population being incentivised not to poach the animals and even keep terrain in pristine wild conditions and 3. The different species that are not replaced by cattle, have the space to flourish and only have their oldest non-reproducing animals shot, thereby increasing their numbers.

Money goes to Africa, terrain and species get protected, the horns of the oldest non reproducing animals go back with the hunter.

I usually follow this up with the question if they know what a black wildebeest is. Most people have never seen such a goofy looking animal, with the horns forward instead of sideways. I then use the succès story of how hunters and farmers in South-Africa brought this species back from the brink of extinction, so they could continue to be hunted.

Most of the time, people actually listen to the logic. Those that are still getting emotional and angry will never listen to reason, so I just leave it at that.

But I would never mention that you just go to Africa to get the biggest whatever. That is bound to fail and illicit strong negative reactions. For me in any case, trophies have never been the purpose. Sure I like a more impressive set of horns just as much as the next guy, but it would never be the reason for me to hunt.

Protection of species and habitat, through the ethical management of the balance between the different species and the encroaching human footprint, rendered possible through an ingenious market based set of incentives for all parties. That’s what it is about.

 

[Vintageguy]

An article from Peta concerning their, "the antis", real opinion on trophy and sport hunting. Labeling trophy hunting as evil and those who do it the same is nothing but the foot in the door. The antis love it when hunters label one another with the antis labels. They know they are winning. They don't have to be right or honest, they just have to win the ignorant with labels and they do that in spades when hunters do it too.

7 Reasons Why Trophy Hunters and Sport Hunters Are One and the Same

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I do not use the term. But I don't shy away when someone does. I try to educate in some fashion every chance I get, and to some degree it's my profession. I am a professional educator. I deal with topics centered on wildlife and the outdoors. Also, where I live the resources are managed for native Alaskan subsistence lifestyles. So I wind up with opportunities to address hunting and varying perceptions of it. I say I don't shy away because I am tired of being hounded and criticized for who and what I am: conservative, white, male, Christian. Running from or trying to step aside accomplishes nothing. Vintageguy is right: it's just a foot in the door, and I am not willing to grant that. We are smart enough to have a fair idea of who might be genuinely receptive and who isn't. Our answers do not have to be one size fits all.

 

[HUNTROMANIA]

We have the same problem here in Romania. “The greens” are using this word “trophy hunting” accusing us for killing only big animals (trophies).
In our hunting law we have specific terms of Trophy hunting (meaning only medals) and selection hunting ( meaning old animals or trophies who are never going to be medals) only for deers. We get specific quota for trophy( medals) and selection.
Now is everywhere “trophy hunting” even in bear hunting or other animals.

 

[PARA45]

Give them an inch, and they'll take a foot. Stand your ground for what you believe, and educate those who want to be educated. PETA uses their resources to push misinformation, and change laws. We need to have the hunting organizations we support do their part and expose the lies from PETA et al, and show what we do for conservation. If we continue to be politically correct to please everyone who doesn't hunt, soon we will not be able to say guns, because someone will say it's a weapon of war and is offensive.

 

[Bullthrower338]

Political Correctness has never been something I am good at, just ask my HR department and several labor boards across the country so I have a hard time being able to justify changing a descriptive adjective to make someone feel fuzzy and warm. I prefer to just show them where the line begins to kiss my Lilly white ass! Pandering to people’s “trigger” mechanism so they don’t get hurt or angry about what I do is just not in my bag ‘o giveashits. Like @Vintageguy stated, I Trophy hunt, I have plenty of food, the means to acquire more food if I run out of venison in my freezer so I do not hunt to survive. At one point in my life it was imperative that at least one of us put an elk in the freezer and the old man would whip your ass if an ounce of antler was packed out before the last slice of meat including the heart and liver. I still do this, every bit of usable meat is out of the field before antlers are strapped to the pack board.
The word trophy has a different meaning to everyone, I feel a raghorn bull killed with a bow after an epic stalk is as much a “trophy” as the 370 bulls hanging on the wall.
Trying to reason with or educate an anti hunter is about as productive as trying to convince a feminist of the merits of masculinity, an atheist to believe in prayer or Hunter Biden to not get a hooker and some coke! Wasted breath is unfortunately what it is in 99% of the cases.
The cancel culture wants you to apologize for being white, straight, employed, Christian, that you own things other people don’t, they want to portray cops as bad but thugs hopped up on dope resisting arrest are saints, for the love of God the world is bat shit crazy! As Hank Williams Jr sang, I’m against fishin in the rain!
im on my way to NM now to take my boys Elk Hunting, trying to teach them Trophies are earned not given out because you got out of bed and showed up to the game.
P.S. I will be giving out hugs at DSC to anyone I upset throughout the year of non PC posts.

 

[Doug3006]

Nothing we say...don't say...or say differently.....will matter a whit to the anti-hunting crowd. We will win the day by convincing the majority of people who don't have strong feelings one way or the other. There's a LOT of them. Most of the people in my life fit into this category. I am a proud hunter. I don't hide it...or try to couch it in euphemisms (i.e., harvest vs kill, trophy hunting vs hunting.) I just try to tell the truth and not be a zealot. ( A zealot is someone who can't win the argument but won't change the subject.) I live my life to hopefully earn the respect of people whose respect is worth having. So when they hear that hunters are a bunch of evil doers, they say...."Hey I know a hunter who's nothing like that. He's a good guy."

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

It seems to me we're probably losing people to the anti crowd who otherwise we would not have were it not for this misconception. We can't do anything about the anti's and the lies they tell, but I think we can certainly do our part to stop propagating this mistaken image that we're just blood thirsty killers with no respect for the wildlife we hunt.

Well I figured this thread might stir the pot a bit, but it's kind of got derailed a bit. So I've quoted my original post to once again make my point a little clearer.

I'm not talking about making any changes to what we say or do in regards to the anti-hunters. I stated in my original post that "We can't do anything about the anti's and the lies they tell...."

It's akin to a someone trying to run for President of the USA. Whether that candidate is Democrat or Republican it matters not. Which party they represent, they're going to win the voters who identify strongly as the one their candidate won the nomination of. The ultimate winner is the one who gets the independent voters, or perhaps those who don't strongly identify with a specific party.

What I'm talking about is winning over or at the very least not losing that person who isn't a hunter but otherwise has no issue with hunting. They may however as the gent I spoke about have an issue, albeit ignorantly so, that when we say trophy hunting we're allowing the meat from the animal to go to waste.

By being careful in using the phrase trophy hunting, or dropping the word trophy altogether, along with educating that particular demographic perhaps we keep them from going to the anti-hunting camp. It doesn't seem like that's all that difficult to do or is in any way "giving an inch" to the anti-hunting buffoons.

 

[Deleted member 40394]

I also hate the word. It’s hunting and a way of life for me and many others. Of course I try to shoot big ones but at the end of the day hunting is hunting and I don’t discriminate.
no such thing as trophy hunting. It’s a word I think made famous by democrats and peta.

 

[Tom Leoni]

I don't like the term "trophy hunting" but I haven't quite made up my mind about this subject yet. My immediate thought is to realize that I seldom, if ever, use the term "trophy hunting," and that it wouldn't be much of an adjustment for me to consciously avoid it altogether.

But I also know the antis and their constant goalpost-shifting. It's likely that today the word-idea being attacked is trophy hunting, and when we no longer use it it will be sport hunting ("you kill for fun"). And so on from there. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy only when there is no evidence that a certain cascade of events may realistically produce itself.

So, first of all I choose who to share my thoughts with. Secondly, when I do but am unsure of my interlocutor's beliefs, I simply label it "hunting," making sure that I describe what it is and preempt possible objections like "but what do you do with the meat?," or "but aren't those animals endangered?"

It behooves us, who not only hunt but are passionate and knowledgeable enough to invest so much of our time and money in our hunting, to be ambassadors and leaders--polite, well-informed, with figures and facts at hand, never defensive, and as mature and ethical in how we present our sport as we like to come across as men. Some may still come away not liking hunting, but at least they'll respect you and your character.

After this, qualifiers like "trophy" or "sport" become largely secondary.

 

[Buffalo1]

"Trophy" can have a wide range of definitions or mean. To a young hunter a WT doe or 3" spike could be a trophy. It's his/her first deer. We've probably all taken a "trophy"!

To a seasoned hunter, "Trophy" could be an over-the-hill animal that is deteriorating from old age. May not be an animal in "prime" condition, but because of long lasting life, the animal has earned the status of being a "trophy".

What does a tree-hugging, anti-hunter know about hunting definitions?

 

[Newboomer]

I don't like the term "trophy hunting" but I haven't quite made up my mind about this subject yet. My immediate thought is to realize that I seldom, if ever, use the term "trophy hunting," and that it wouldn't be much of an adjustment for me to consciously avoid it altogether.

But I also know the antis and their constant goalpost-shifting. It's likely that today the word-idea being attacked is trophy hunting, and when we no longer use it it will be sport hunting ("you kill for fun"). And so on from there. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy only when there is no evidence that a certain cascade of events may realistically produce itself.

So, first of all I choose who to share my thoughts with. Secondly, when I do but am unsure of my interlocutor's beliefs, I simply label it "hunting," making sure that I describe what it is and preempt possible objections like "but what do you do with the meat?," or "but aren't those animals endangered?"

It behooves us, who not only hunt but are passionate and knowledgeable enough to invest so much of our time and money in our hunting, to be ambassadors and leaders--polite, well-informed, with figures and facts at hand, never defensive, and as mature and ethical in how we present our sport as we like to come across as men. Some may still come away not liking hunting, but at least they'll respect you and your character.

After this, qualifiers like "trophy" or "sport" become largely secondary.

To me it's hunting. If I am lucky and kill a good one I have a token of that hunt on my wall. It's not a trophy, it's a physical reminder of a great adventure. A trophy is a cup, statuette, banner, ring, medal or some such. I don't like the word trophy associated with hunting and try to avoid it. It doesn't ring true.

 

[Tbitty]

Give them an inch, and they'll take a foot. Stand your ground for what you believe, and educate those who want to be educated. PETA uses their resources to push misinformation, and change laws. We need to have the hunting organizations we support do their part and expose the lies from PETA et al, and show what we do for conservation. If we continue to be politically correct to please everyone who doesn't hunt, soon we will not be able to say guns, because someone will say it's a weapon of war and is offensive.

Speaking of pushing misinformation, here's a direct quote from that article that had me literally LOL. "When hunters use lead bullets, most of which fragment into hundreds of tiny pieces when fired..." They go on to say how poor the Conservation angle is from a hunter.

It doesn't matter what you say, there's always a counter argument (lie or not) the other side will use. If your going to win over the undecided, or at least keep them undecided, they'll accept the same explanation no matter what terminology you use, because they are open to the discussion.

The same way crazy Nancy could ever convince me Joe Biden is a great president, I could never convince her Trump is great. Both sides are too dug in. But if you take a true independent off the street, I am confident I could prove my case easily with facts and common sense.

 

[Tanks]

I make no apologies or concessions. I don't hide what I do. Over the years I have lost business due to my passion in hunting. At the same time it was balanced by the business I have gained because of hunting, especially when you go into a general manager of a plant's office and it is also a trophy room with all kinds of game on the walls. I knew at that moment we had gained a lifetime client for my company.

 

[Vintageguy]

Everyone makes great points and we all engage different folks with different methods depending on how receptive we think they may be. But negative labels are intended to do one thing, galvanize the opinions of the uneducated. Once that is done you will have a very hard time getting through to that person with facts or reasoning. The term trophy hunter has been pushed that way and successfully so because they have hunters rejecting it and next is sport hunting. That is the point I’ve tried to make. If they stop all trophy imports as they are trying to do how will that help a place like Africa? When they have successfully labeled sport hunters the same as trophy hunters what identity do you claim then? I don’t know any subsistence hunters and welfare and food stamps negate that. They understand the best way to win the uninformed is enrage them and paint your opponent as evil, propaganda 101. Much easier than trying to educate them.