airlocksniffer
Member
Social media in general has eliminated the idea of "catching up" with friends you don't see too often. Just one of my gripes with social media in general.
Social Media & Hunting
- Thread starter NKQualtieri
- Start date
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I like this post - very insightful and well stated.
There's a series for you - How to Win Friends and Influence People for Hunters.
RobG
Well-known member
Speedgoat, those are great insights that never occurred to me.
Matt-LSI
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2015
- Messages
- 143
i think this issue is much bigger than the hunting aspect itself. i could write thousands of words on this but ill try to keep it short(ish)
every person has to be careful of how they present themselves on a public forum. It all comes down to being responsible for your own actions and portraying your message in a responsible (respectful) manner.
The internet on any given topic has those for and those against. We just happen to be apart of something that has multiple topics wrapped into one. Firearms, public (and private) land use and wildlife conservation. It only takes a person to dislike one of these integral parts of hunting to hate the whole thing.
From my standpoint, working in social media for a firearms company, it is very difficult to put out a message to the public that will be accepted by all. Granted most of the people who are going to receive my message are in to it already. I have had instance (personal and professional) where i have had negative feedback, even hate speech for something i have put out.
There is no clean cut answer to this, people will dislike what they like but i believe that the best way to to lessen the negative impact is education. The people who have listened to how the hunting world actually works have learned enough to accept it. Even though they may not like it , they have at least accepted it.
every person has to be careful of how they present themselves on a public forum. It all comes down to being responsible for your own actions and portraying your message in a responsible (respectful) manner.
The internet on any given topic has those for and those against. We just happen to be apart of something that has multiple topics wrapped into one. Firearms, public (and private) land use and wildlife conservation. It only takes a person to dislike one of these integral parts of hunting to hate the whole thing.
From my standpoint, working in social media for a firearms company, it is very difficult to put out a message to the public that will be accepted by all. Granted most of the people who are going to receive my message are in to it already. I have had instance (personal and professional) where i have had negative feedback, even hate speech for something i have put out.
There is no clean cut answer to this, people will dislike what they like but i believe that the best way to to lessen the negative impact is education. The people who have listened to how the hunting world actually works have learned enough to accept it. Even though they may not like it , they have at least accepted it.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,384
Excellent post Charlie. My family has raised turkeys in the Valley since I was 14. Having walked through more turkeys in my life than I could even begin to count, I consider our farm to be completely normal and acceptable. However, I do see where a portrayal of the worst aspects of commercial farming and abusive or negligent animal husbandry practices as the norm in farming practices has shaped a negative perspective on those who are largely ignorant of how that cellophane packed cut of meat made it to the grocery store shelf.
The average person who holds a negative view of negligent and harmful practices often fails to realize that people in the industry also share those views.
In the same light, many people who have a negative view of hunting because they consider all hunters to be poachers, don't realize we can't stand poachers either.
RobG
Well-known member
I know a lot of people who have no hunting for food, but have a problem with "trophy" hunting. Even if you claim to eat the meat there is the perception that you are taking the best out of the gene pool, the opposite of what predators do. What should hunters say to that?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Big animals have more meat on them...pretty simple.
We talked about that in the podcast. It is a complex topic, for many reasons.
First, what is "trophy hunting?" Some would say that shooting any antlered/horned male is trophy hunting. Some would say hunting anything that is not consumed from nose to tail is trophy hunting. Each of us in the hunting world would have a different definition, but the term in the non-hunting world has been used to imply something negative.
I had a discussion with a person a while back about the same issue. They stated they opposed "trophy hunting." I asked, "What is trophy hunting?" They stumbled to answer it. To this person, "trophy hunting" seemed like a good term to hang on hunters. From the short conversation I got the impression this person has not had much interaction with and is likely to be swayed by the negative connotation of hunters being trophy hunters.
Time allowed us to go into a bit deeper discussion. I explained that in a management model designed maintain or increase herds, taking the male of the species was the best solution. It allowed the herd to grow, allowed for some to be taken for food, and generated advocacy and funding to increase the herd, no matter the species in question. I used the analogy of how a rancher sells the steer crop, but if wanting to grow his herd, keeps the heifer calves. I could see some progress being made.
I then asked, "I get your opposition to shooting big males, but what is the alternative when the goal is to sustain or increase herds?" Not much was given as the answer, mostly a head nod.
I felt I might be overbearing and pushing the comfort level this person had, so I tried to change the topic. The person then asked, "Do the old males get eaten, are they preferred for food quality?"
I explained that for most all species, with few exceptions, not only is it illegal to waste the meat, male or female, but the cultural ethos of the hunting community is utilization of the entire animal, which is why my my freezer is full of meat, my shop is filled with antlers and horns, and I have tanned hides in a lot of places. Again, mostly a head not. I felt this person was trying pretty hard to overcome some biased formed by not being exposed to hunting, except for what was presented in their media consumption.
The topic then got changed to something else. As benign as this conversation was, it showed me just how much work we have to explain something as complicated as taking the life of another living animal. Taking it for food is a safe start to a conversation, but if we took the best "table fare" we would be mostly shooting young and female, which would be counter to the entire notion of sustainable use that is at the core of the conservation definition hunters have historically adhered to.
I will be interested to see how this discussion on the podcast comes across to the listener.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I've heard it said that if you harvest a trophy it's better for the gene pool, because chances are he's already bred a bit and passed his genes on, vs shooting a 2-point buck or small raghorn you might have killed an animal with superior genetics but never got a chance to breed. I can't say that I'm read the literature on it, but it makes sense to me.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Why don't we just call a spade a spade, and if someone is intentionally hunting for the biggest animal admit they are doing so for that reason only? I don't buy for a minute that folks take the biggest so that they can "save the gene pool". That's disingenuous to say the least.
Even if I don't agree with someone, I appreciate candor and honesty. If someone is to tell me they hunt for the biggest of the species because of the additional challenge that comes with it, I'm fine with that. If someone tells me they are hunting for the biggest of the species because they want fame and notoriety, then I'm not overly okay with that but I appreciate their honesty.
Trophy hunting doesn't necessarily have to be ego driven. We all know the guy that has a trophy room that would blow your mind, but will never talk about it. Again, it comes back to your motivation. Are you trying too prove yourself the #baddestassonthemountain are do you simply love to hunt and challenge yourself against the wiliest of the species? Is it the need to be a pro-staffer for brand X, or do you simply want the opportunity to hunt a unique species in a setting most won't ever experience?
Let's not try to put lipstick on a pig. Be truthful about the motives that drive you.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Because of the strong correlation between age and size, shooting a "trophy" typically means shooting an older animal. I can only speak for myself, but I feel better shooting an older animal than a newborn. If we put value on the life of animals, then all else being equal, and considering meat is consumed in both instances, it is better to allow animals that have had less life to live an attain a status of "more life".
I aint good at it, but how about we formalize it'?
1. It is better to allow animals to live a "full life" than to kill them before they reach maturity.
2. Killing an animal for the purposes of what is colloquially known as Trophy Hunting is more likely to result in the death of a mature animal.
3. Therefore trophy hunting is better than hunting that correlates indiscriminately with age.
1. After an animal reaches maturity, it becomes morel likely with every year of its life that it will die of natural causes.
1b. When an animal dies of natural causes, it typically suffers significantly.
2. Suffering is bad.
3. Therefore, it is good to provide mature animals with a quick avenue to a death that is likely to happen sooner than later that will result in very little suffering.
2 following from 1 may be dubious there.
1. There is a correlation between age, "trophy status", and size. ( Greater the age greater the size).
1b. Size correlates with the amount of food a trophy animal produces. (Greater size = more food)
2. If we are going to kill an animal whose capability for suffering is equal with its peers, then it is better to produce the least animal deaths possible.
3. Therefore, If food is a consideration, the greater the age, and thus trophy status, of the animal, the less animals will have to be killed to attain a comparable amount of food in comparison to non-age-discriminate killing.
Translation: Often times, Trophy Hunting results in more bang for your buck. Also, big horns are sexy. :hump:
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I wasn't trying to explain why I or anyone else hunts for larger animals but merely providing an alternative view to the one Rob proposed were shooting trophy animals negatively impacts the gene pool.
I personally have only killed one old/trophy animal, and it was hands down the least memorable big game kill I've had. My first and only limit of chukars takes the cake for the best trophy hunt I've ever had.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Randy,
Honest question.
When those that are asking these questions become educated to the point that they realize the MFWP currently has bull to cow ratios in the single digits...how are you going to reconcile that hunters, along with the MFWP, are practicing proper herd management?
Because, I can tell you that less than 5 bulls per 100 cows is NOT managing a herd properly. There seems to be a large portion of the MFWP upper echelon that believes elk are akin to pheasants, where you simply can not kill too many of the male population.
That's just flat wrong-headed and not correct. For proper genetic exchange and variation, I think that 12-15 bulls per 100 cows, post harvest, is about the minimum. Some may argue differently, but if that's their argument, there are lots of states that hit the panic button when BTC ratios drop much below that 12-15 threshold.
Another argument we use as hunters a lot is also that we kill the "surplus" animals to avoid habitat degradation, over-use by ungulates, and in a way mimic natural predation.
I can think of exactly ZERO places in Montana where I have seen habitat that is at risk of being over-utilized by big-game (crops on private perhaps the only exception, although my definition of damage is likely different than the guy who's crops are being eaten).
Since I believe this to be true, that elk, deer, and other big-game are not at population levels that are a detriment to their available habitat...how can we say we're killing the "surplus"? Another question, is how do we explain shoulder seasons that are trying to reduce (not sustain or increase elk herds), by 40-50K elk?
I think its time that hunters start being honest with themselves, and more brutally honest with the Departments that are charged with managing wildlife resources. The MFWP is, IMO, putting hunters in a position where we can not really defend hunting...we're not hunting surplus animals, there aren't proper bull to cow ratios, there are areas that are under population objectives (and still have 11+ weeks of general seasons and now even shoulder seasons), etc.
If I were an anti-hunter, or even a knowledgeable non-hunter, I would be asking some pretty serious questions on the MFWP's idea of management, as well as the arguments that hunters are making to defend their killing of animals...at a minimum. I would perhaps even be inclined to call a lot of what is going on as complete indefensible BS.
Somewhere along the way, hunters, and the Game Departments in some cases, have lost the ability to recognize that if we are going to defend hunting, that we have to do what's best for the wildlife resource FIRST. There also better be some science, mandates, reasonable objectives, etc. to defend our actions.
That isn't always happening as the needs of outfitters, landowners, real-estate agents, hunters, etc. etc. have largely taken priority over the best interest of Wildlife resources.
Yeah, we can BS the uninformed that we eat the meat, kill only the surplus, are trying to sustain and/or grow the herds, practice proper wildlife management etc. but that's far from reality in many cases.
Honest question.
When those that are asking these questions become educated to the point that they realize the MFWP currently has bull to cow ratios in the single digits...how are you going to reconcile that hunters, along with the MFWP, are practicing proper herd management?
Because, I can tell you that less than 5 bulls per 100 cows is NOT managing a herd properly. There seems to be a large portion of the MFWP upper echelon that believes elk are akin to pheasants, where you simply can not kill too many of the male population.
That's just flat wrong-headed and not correct. For proper genetic exchange and variation, I think that 12-15 bulls per 100 cows, post harvest, is about the minimum. Some may argue differently, but if that's their argument, there are lots of states that hit the panic button when BTC ratios drop much below that 12-15 threshold.
Another argument we use as hunters a lot is also that we kill the "surplus" animals to avoid habitat degradation, over-use by ungulates, and in a way mimic natural predation.
I can think of exactly ZERO places in Montana where I have seen habitat that is at risk of being over-utilized by big-game (crops on private perhaps the only exception, although my definition of damage is likely different than the guy who's crops are being eaten).
Since I believe this to be true, that elk, deer, and other big-game are not at population levels that are a detriment to their available habitat...how can we say we're killing the "surplus"? Another question, is how do we explain shoulder seasons that are trying to reduce (not sustain or increase elk herds), by 40-50K elk?
I think its time that hunters start being honest with themselves, and more brutally honest with the Departments that are charged with managing wildlife resources. The MFWP is, IMO, putting hunters in a position where we can not really defend hunting...we're not hunting surplus animals, there aren't proper bull to cow ratios, there are areas that are under population objectives (and still have 11+ weeks of general seasons and now even shoulder seasons), etc.
If I were an anti-hunter, or even a knowledgeable non-hunter, I would be asking some pretty serious questions on the MFWP's idea of management, as well as the arguments that hunters are making to defend their killing of animals...at a minimum. I would perhaps even be inclined to call a lot of what is going on as complete indefensible BS.
Somewhere along the way, hunters, and the Game Departments in some cases, have lost the ability to recognize that if we are going to defend hunting, that we have to do what's best for the wildlife resource FIRST. There also better be some science, mandates, reasonable objectives, etc. to defend our actions.
That isn't always happening as the needs of outfitters, landowners, real-estate agents, hunters, etc. etc. have largely taken priority over the best interest of Wildlife resources.
Yeah, we can BS the uninformed that we eat the meat, kill only the surplus, are trying to sustain and/or grow the herds, practice proper wildlife management etc. but that's far from reality in many cases.
Last edited:
Easy answer is this - I'm not going to defend single digit bull ratios as "proper herd management." Fact is, it is not proper herd management. We all know it. I make enough dumb mistakes without accepting blind folly and trying to defend it.
As to the other questions of "surplus," I think those are also very good points. If we are not yet at "capacity," however one chooses to define that, either in biological or social context, then the herd should be growing, which would be harvest of males only. If we are not at capacity, their is no need for shoulder seasons. Yet, some will use their favored data to say we are at "social capacity" and therefore we need shoulder seasons.
My personal opinion, and merely my opinion, is that FWP has "stepped in it" with their full court press on shoulder seasons. I can see it for the guy who has done everything possible to mitigate the impacts elk are having on his operation. I would bend over backwards to help that guy. But, much of the shoulder season concept is a response to self-created problems, or worse, a solution looking for a problem that most hunters do not feel exists.
My summary response to someone who would be a non-hunters would be to simplify my response - that hunters cannot even agree on the rationale or proposed solutions; that hunters are wanting more wildlife at times while other societal pressures are wanting less. Like other communities in our society, we as hunters, at times, will end up being our own worst enemy.
No sense in trying to make excuses to a non-hunter for something I disagree with. Not sure if that answers your question or not.
NKQualtieri
Active member
Let's write it together, HDub--as I call you in my mind
I wish I could respond to everything on here. I'm interested to hear how the podcast comes across. We discussed mostly the idea of social media, how I as a non-hunter perceived hunter prior to getting involved, and the trophy hunting piece--which I'm not sure has any solid answer for any of us. They're all things worth thinking about.
BuzzH--your numbers are super interesting. I'd love to hear a biologist explain why we have the system we do. Science itself always has inherent biases no matter how hard you try to prevent them, it makes you wonder what kind of biases went into that system.
Thinking on it hypothetically, I wonder if all elk had antlers, if those numbers would be the same. I'd venture to guess they would be different.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Randy,
I agree with you that single digit BTC ratios are not proper herd management.
But, again, how do we reconcile that by still allowing 11+ weeks of OTC elk hunting and still claim to care about wildlife resources? How would I defend elk hunting these areas and killing a bull elk (perfectly legal) to a non-hunter?
I'm as pro hunting as a person can be, and I still cant come up with a single valid reason why this should be happening, yet it has been, and continues to happen, year after year. Its also the reason that I will no longer buy an elk tag in Montana. Even though I can kill an elk there every year, I have felt guilty pulling the trigger on the last 4-5 elk I've killed in Montana. Main reason is that I can not say that killing an elk in my area in the Blackfoot is defensible on anything other than its legal according to the MFWP.
If I cant defend killing an elk in MT to myself, there is no way I'm going to ever be able to defend it to anyone else.
I agree with you that single digit BTC ratios are not proper herd management.
But, again, how do we reconcile that by still allowing 11+ weeks of OTC elk hunting and still claim to care about wildlife resources? How would I defend elk hunting these areas and killing a bull elk (perfectly legal) to a non-hunter?
I'm as pro hunting as a person can be, and I still cant come up with a single valid reason why this should be happening, yet it has been, and continues to happen, year after year. Its also the reason that I will no longer buy an elk tag in Montana. Even though I can kill an elk there every year, I have felt guilty pulling the trigger on the last 4-5 elk I've killed in Montana. Main reason is that I can not say that killing an elk in my area in the Blackfoot is defensible on anything other than its legal according to the MFWP.
If I cant defend killing an elk in MT to myself, there is no way I'm going to ever be able to defend it to anyone else.
RobG
Well-known member
Buzz - I think those bad things are driven by money and not hunting by itself. In the Gardiner case the guides do not want to lose money. (In spite of what they say, most businesses are only interested in the short term - very irrational but true.) The shoulder seasons are again protecting commercial agricultural interests, and in that case it goes against the philosophy of hunting.
RobG
Well-known member
How about if you were very selective in the elk that you shot, only pulling the trigger on an exceptional bull? You would have less impact on the population than a mere meat hunter.
I've heard Rinella say that the big animals are past their sexual prime and have already passed on their genes. I don't know how true that is especially when hunting is allowed in the rut.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Based on betterment of the population, hunters would be better served to shoot the dry cows/does and remove them from the equation.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Let's write it together, HDub--as I call you in my mind
HDub - Ha! I like it.
You'd probably be stuck with the heavy lifting on that one NK. My writing style at this point is more "boring biological crap" than "engaging informative entertainment"!
Why does everyone keep complaining about the shoulder seasons? You want those low BTC fixed, don't you? If they keep whacking cows, eventually that ratio will be right where it should be!
Last edited:
Similar threads
