How would a ban on trophy imports affect your decisions?
- Thread starter User00047
- Start date
MAH
Well-Known Member
Just a though!
I guess your question is aimed at uk members of SD and thus, maybe, you could add another question, to see if your questions are aimed at the right pool of people. e.g. Provide an opportunity to tick
"I do not hunt abroad, or outside uk"
I look forward to seeing the results.
M
I guess your question is aimed at uk members of SD and thus, maybe, you could add another question, to see if your questions are aimed at the right pool of people. e.g. Provide an opportunity to tick
"I do not hunt abroad, or outside uk"
I look forward to seeing the results.
M
CarlW
Well-Known Member
I think the challenge will be that people will still want to hunt but that they will be willing to pay less for their 'non-trophy' or 'non-exportable' animals. That means that we, as safari operators, would need to see perhaps twice as many animals killed in order to manage our anti-poaching and conservation operations effectively.
That said, the UK is a small part of the industry. The real worry is if this nonsense were to become infectious and start spreading to Europe and North America.
Kind regards,
Carl
That said, the UK is a small part of the industry. The real worry is if this nonsense were to become infectious and start spreading to Europe and North America.
Kind regards,
Carl
The actual import of trophies would not affect me as I don't hunt abroad but the export of them would my
business relies on foreign stalkers .
This is as much about the ability to export trophies as it is about importing them.
business relies on foreign stalkers .
This is as much about the ability to export trophies as it is about importing them.
NoIDeer
Well-Known Member
I would go for the quality of the hunt, bushbuck in Eastern Cape, eland and impala in the Kalahari with Bushmen trackers... I have a tiny bushbuck trophy on my living room wall, it is a memory of my best ever stalk. Three days walking/stalking in the Kalahari desert tracking Eland nearly got a shot off at last light on the last stalk, treated to a group of shadows and the unmistakable click, click. Walking back to the truck the dark knowing there are big cats about.
As I posted on another thread, for me, the trophy is a memory the actual hunt is the thing. Knowing that every animal you shoot is eaten, helps to support the local wildlife and economy justifies the act for me.
As I posted on another thread, for me, the trophy is a memory the actual hunt is the thing. Knowing that every animal you shoot is eaten, helps to support the local wildlife and economy justifies the act for me.
I'd go anyway.
Because f*ck this ridiculous and asinine ban, and the absolute bell-ends who thought it was a good idea not for scientific reasons but because it will make the thick as pig sh*t Guardian reading urbanites who know naff all about it happy.
To those people I say f*ck off, and then keep f*cking off until you're back here again. Then f*ck off some more.
Because f*ck this ridiculous and asinine ban, and the absolute bell-ends who thought it was a good idea not for scientific reasons but because it will make the thick as pig sh*t Guardian reading urbanites who know naff all about it happy.
To those people I say f*ck off, and then keep f*cking off until you're back here again. Then f*ck off some more.
sikamalc
Administrator
Its not cast in stone yet Stu. How they hope to regulate it IF they decide to go ahead is beyond me. In theory it wont really impact too much on me. But I can assure any tree hugging prat or extinction rebellion idiot that it will not stop me shooting or going abroad to take any legal quarry I desire.
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Very few people are 'trophy hunters'. They are just hunters.
Indeed and I include myself in that but as a hunter, I can and do endorse and defend those who want to engage in hunting with a view to retaining part of that animal as the benefits are many fold as you well know.
I feel then that any potential ban would affect me as a hunter. It would lessen our hand and dilute the good we do.
So i guess my answer is that I don't hunt abroad, I am unlikely to hunt abroad, I doubt I will ever retain part of an animal that isn't edible but that I do feel any ban would impact on me and not in a good way.
I've never understood this "trophy hunting" distinction.
If you shoot something, eat the meat and throw all the inedible bits away then you're not a trophy hunter. And thats ok.
But apparently if you shoot something, eat the meat and keep one of the inedible bits to stick on the wall or make into a rug then somehow you're a murdering bastard? Never understood that "logic".
What about people who are in the former camp but took a picture and stuck it on FB? Is that a "trophy hunt" or not?
If you shoot something, eat the meat and throw all the inedible bits away then you're not a trophy hunter. And thats ok.
But apparently if you shoot something, eat the meat and keep one of the inedible bits to stick on the wall or make into a rug then somehow you're a murdering bastard? Never understood that "logic".
What about people who are in the former camp but took a picture and stuck it on FB? Is that a "trophy hunt" or not?
Scotty99
Well-Known Member
Stu,
Totally agree like many on here I hunt / stalk / Shoot for the opportunity to be outdoors, to be at one with nature, to use fieldcraft, to engage in ethical fair chase hunting, to work with my dogs, to protect crops and livestock, to protect woodlands, to harvest meat for the table and to manage deer populations.
The above are my primary reasons I do this. If as a by product I retain part of the animal (brush, antlered head, horns, tusks, hide) as a permanent reminder of the event then I see nothing wrong in that.
The anti-hunt fraternity, in collusion with "liberal" media, presents all taking of animal life as cruel. Hence they attack not just hunting, but also livestock farming. Mercifully, antis cannot get much traction for their vegan villification of all meat eaters because most voters in western democracies remain omnivorous...
...but what antis can do is give those who have qualms about meat eating [but continue to do so] a redirected target so that they can distance themselves from the "gratuitous" takers of life. And painting all hunters as black-hearted trophy gatherers who are denuding the planet of wildlife is an easy lie to tell. The reality is that non-hunting meat-eaters line up behind that rally cry as it is an easy way to take themselves out of the antis firing line [pun intended].
I have some respect for committed vegans. Provided they have no blindspots: do not lie about low mileage beef produce in the UK, acknowledge high environmental cost of oils and exotic veg, benefit of organic fertiliser over chemical, etc.
BUT. And this really gets me ticked off: Politicians like Zac Goldsmith pursuing trophy bans with zero consideration for ecosystems and species survival. These parasitic politicians ride the emotional zeitgeist wave du jour to further their own standing and carreers at the long-term expense of wild life. ALL the conservationists of Africa acknowledge that trophy hunting funds their work. That their work utterly depends on those funds. The governments of many African nations have made state level appeals to our government. Deaf ears. That is criminal.
...but what antis can do is give those who have qualms about meat eating [but continue to do so] a redirected target so that they can distance themselves from the "gratuitous" takers of life. And painting all hunters as black-hearted trophy gatherers who are denuding the planet of wildlife is an easy lie to tell. The reality is that non-hunting meat-eaters line up behind that rally cry as it is an easy way to take themselves out of the antis firing line [pun intended].
I have some respect for committed vegans. Provided they have no blindspots: do not lie about low mileage beef produce in the UK, acknowledge high environmental cost of oils and exotic veg, benefit of organic fertiliser over chemical, etc.
BUT. And this really gets me ticked off: Politicians like Zac Goldsmith pursuing trophy bans with zero consideration for ecosystems and species survival. These parasitic politicians ride the emotional zeitgeist wave du jour to further their own standing and carreers at the long-term expense of wild life. ALL the conservationists of Africa acknowledge that trophy hunting funds their work. That their work utterly depends on those funds. The governments of many African nations have made state level appeals to our government. Deaf ears. That is criminal.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
I would say that it’s not a black and white thing, there are many subtle levels of “trophy hunting”
Anyone who keeps any part of the animal has kept a “trophy” of sorts, meat included, so to not be a trophy hunter is wasteful.
To most hunters, antlers, tusks, skin and horns are a welcome bonus and secondary to gathering the meat and enjoying the experience.
Which is the real trophy?
sikamalc
Administrator
The whole day or trip itself is the trophy. Whether you take an animal or not. It stays with you in many instances all your life. I am sure we all have moments we cherish and would not swap for the world. That's something none of these nuts can take away from you or me. So they can, as Stu puts it F...k off.
Do you think that foreign hunters would stop coming if they couldn’t take the antlers home?
Or would they come to hunt anyway and just leave the antlers with you?
Both actually some would still come, for some the trophies are a big thing for them and would not.
Presumably the same animals would be culled each year irrespective of who shoots them and where the antlers end up? The result of a ban would affect some people’s livelihoods but not actually affect how the deer are managed. Is this correct?
Similar threads
