Please read the
article without notations here first.
http://outdoorcanada.ca/32593/hunting/article/in-defence-of-hunting-for-the-biggest-game-of-all
Trophy Fight
In defense of hunting
for the biggest game of all
In a feature article I wrote for this very magazine in
2001, I recounted the hardships I faced during a bighorn sheep “trophy” (you
weren’t meat hunting, be specific) hunt in Alberta’s Rockies. The ram I
took on that adventure was a true trophy, with the age and score to back it up,
and that is how I referred to it in my story.
To my surprise, (how on earth were you surprised? You write
for Canada’s only national fishing and hunting magazine, you want us to believe
you didn’t know prior to this article that some people don’t like trophy
hunting? Don’t try and garner sympathy points by playing that you were somehow
blindsided) the article prompted a letter from an irate reader, outraged
that I would hunt an animal just for its horns and allow all the meat to go to
waste on the steep mountainside. Nowhere in the article, however, did I discuss
the meat (because the point of the hunt wasn’t the meat). While the
horns were indeed my ultimate goal, I just thought everyone would have taken it
for granted that the meat was equally important (you JUST said the
ultimate goal was the horns, and inferred the meat wasn’t worth writing about.
Don’t try and tell us the meat was equally important. It’s contradictory, and
again chasing sympathy)—not to mention that I was legally bound to
recover it (we will talk about laws later… stay tuned). The letter was my
first real taste of the disdain for trophy hunters in some quarters (again, proving
you weren’t blindsided since this implies you’ve had at least one previous
“unreal” “taste of the disdain”).
Indeed, there’s no group of hunters surrounded by more
controversy than trophy hunters, with most of the ill will born out of nothing
more than ignorance (most? So you admit there is ill will born out of knowledge
not ignorance? Thanks for the concession, and the insult, you’re gaining
respect for trophy hunters by the second). Sure, there are bad
folks in every crowd, but in most cases, a trophy hunter is nothing more than
someone who chooses to pursue the biggest and most mature specimens (was that
supposed to be a defense? Because all it does is outline why trophy hunters
shouldn’t exist) while still respecting the laws (again, we will discuss
laws later) of the land and the universal ethics of hunting (there is
nothing ethical about trophy hunting, but more on that later as well).
Certainly the University of Alberta’s David Coltman didn’t
help the cause of trophy hunters with his 2003 paper Undesirable Evolutionary
Consequences of Trophy Hunting. While the paper created quite a stir upon its
release, many notable wildlife experts later took Coltman and his co-authors to
task for his conclusion that hunters had prompted the evolution of
smaller-bodied and smaller-horned rams. The paper is now basically regarded as
too limited in scope to have any universal value, with some even referring to
it as junk science. (Is there a scientific paper on how trophy hunting helps
wildlife? Didn’t think so. Furthermore, “too limited in scope” and “junk
science” it may have been, but that doesn’t prove the conclusion wrong, it
proves the method wrong. With a less limited scope, the conclusion could still
be proved, could it not? So this whole paragraph of yours doesn’t prove that
trophy hunters don’t “ prompt the evolution of smaller-bodied and
smaller-horned rams” it just proves that one scientific paper had too small a
data pool. What a waste of words.)
Nonetheless, Coltman’s paper briefly reared its ugly head
again last year when Alberta’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development was looking at reducing sheep-hunting opportunities, citing the
declining quality of rams in the province. The department quickly washed its
hands of the paper, however, after being challenged by Alberta hunters. Trophy
hunters are an easy target, I suppose, in part because some are driven by ego(trophy hunters
can only be driven with ego, by definition. Please remove the word “some”). There’s a
certain pride that comes “to some” (here’s a good place for the word “some.”
Don’t lump all hunters into this category please and thank you) from
taking a high-scoring animal, after all, with numerous clubs and organizations
recognizing trophy animals and the people who hunt them (“some” of us
don’t need a club to send us a certificate, or a list with our name on it). But with
that ego typically (really? Typically? I’d be curious to see that scientific
study) comes a commitment to the resource and to the heritage of
hunting that is unmatched (so earlier we were “ignorant” for having ill
will, and now we are “mostly” not matching your commitment to the “resource?”
Again, you’re really ingratiating yourself to your viewership. Making fun of
the people you are trying to convince and convert is an interesting approach) by most
others in the hunting community.
I’m not saying that only (are we ignorant again? We
knew what “typically” and “mostly” meant in the previous paragraph, but thank
you for explaining things and talking nice and slow to us “ignorant” folk) trophy
hunters work hard for conservation and our heritage (standing behind
“heritage” is a really pathetic ploy. Give me a minute to ask my girlfriend if
we should revoke her voting right because it was part of our heritage, I’ll be
right back). But if you look at the prominent hunting and conservation
groups in North America, most have a strong trophy-hunting component (are you going
to jump off the bridge after me, because I did it too? Monkey see monkey do
isn’t much of a defense. Other groups do it? That’s your proof of it’s righteousness?). I can’t
see why an apology is required for that. (I really hope you regret
this sentence someday)
Safari Club International, for example, is a global
conservation and hunter advocacy group, and one of the leaders in promoting the
benefits of trophy hunting across the globe. In 2011, the president of Safari
Club International Foundation, Joseph Hosmer, testified before the U.S.
Congress about the benefits of trophy hunting. According to Hosmer, hunters
inject more than $200 million a year into the rural African economy alone (Damn, I forgot
that money makes things ethically defensible, my fault). And without trophy
hunters travelling to Africa, the future of wildlife in many areas of the
continent would potentially become tenuous. (Interesting
time to use a word like “would” on it’s own, don’t worry I fixed it for you. “Typically,”
“most,” “mostly,” “many,” should you really be picking on scientific articles?
Also, that entire final sentence is simply conjecture.)
Even here in North America, trophy hunting puts a lot of
money into local economies (really? Money is again your defense?), while
playing a major role in ensuring the future of wildlife in some regions (be honest
here, “some” means that you want to ensure areas with “trophy” potential). Combine
that with the countless hours that trophy hunters volunteer to promote
conservation, and wildlife is the ultimate benefactor (except your ram, and any
genetic lineage and offspring he could have sired, but you’re right, this is an
article about wildlife winning).
In the end, trophy
hunters are simply hunters who choose to travel, focus only on the mature males
of a species and dedicate a lot of time to their passion. They practise good ethics (we’ll see about that), follow the law (again…. Give me a minute to broach
this point) and
promote the heritage (*coughs) of hunting. Why is it again that these dedicated people are so hated? (Thank
you I needed a reason to write a follow up piece) They really are just hunters who pursue their passion for
reasons that may differ from those of others
(certainly can’t argue with that). I guess
for some, that’s reason enough (it’s not, THAT
their reasons differ, it’s HOW their reasons differ). And that’s a shame.