Social Media & Hunting

[HSi-ESi]

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?

Before this thread goes too far down a Shoulder Season / Gardiner wormhole....

I would also point out that predators don't always go after the "sick, old animals". Many times it may be a bull in his prime that is simply vulnerable. If that bull is weakened after rut, harsh winter conditions, etc then wolves have a chance.

Prime cows during calving are susceptible as well.

So predation is not always "survival of the fittest".

 

[airlocksniffer]

I would also point out that predators don't always go after the "sick, old animals". Many times it may be a bull in his prime that is simply vulnerable. If that bull is weakened after rut, harsh winter conditions, etc then wolves have a chance.

I like to think of my hunting style as more like that of a natural predator, ie-I'll take whatever critter offers me the opportunity.

 

[RobG]

I haven't heard anything new here about the anti-trophy hunting argument and to be honest I don't find any of those arguments very compelling. The one question I have never heard asked is "What the hell does antler size have to do with genetic superiority?" I doubt these big antlers correlate to strength or other important traits. However, they do give an advantage in obtaining mates so there is a selection for large antler size. You could probably argue that the large antlers actually prevent more important traits from being preferentially passed on.

I think red deer are an example where the large antlers have evolved with no benefit. I found a study on red deer that suggests that antler size is correlated with nutrition, not fitness. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3061551?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Irish elk (magalaceros) of the Pleistocene had enormous antlers. Perhaps if they weren't such a dominant factor in winning mates they would have evolved relevant traits that would have prevented their extinction.

I also don't find the antis argument very compelling. Wolves, for example, don't select for superior genetics, they select for animals that are good at not getting eaten by wolves. Yes, they will first take the elk that are too weak to survive the winter or disease, but those genes would more precisely be removed by the actual winter or disease! (I don't want to discount the important role of wolves in including preventing overpopulation where hunting doesn't accomplish that goal.)

So those arguments give my mind some peace.

 

[NKQualtieri]

You know, the more I think about it, when I think about trophy hunting from a non-hunter perspective, I don't think of you guys out in the field picking a superior mule deer, that you're also going to eat, put to good use, etc.

I think of people who are going after animals just to collect them. Like someone who wants to kill a tiger. Or a giraffe. Or something that is totally foreign. My personal perception of that is surface--I know that a lot of these animals, even the ones that are hunted on the verge of extinction, are used, fed to villages, blah blah blah, fine, great, whatever--but I think that is the trophy hunting that comes to mind that carries with it a negative connotation.

I recently read Bloodties by Kerasote. I think he did a really good job of trying to create a balanced, nuanced description of the hunters collecting species. But in the end, all those guys had feds at their house for hunting endangered species and smuggling them into the country. Does that disarm them from being able to call themselves hunters? Are they poachers then? I finished that section of his book with a bad taste in my mouth. I feel the same way about the trophy hunters we often see in the media. What are you fulfilling by collecting that many species? I'm not sure.

So personally I'm not a giant fan of that kind of hunter. Collecting animals is a strange thing in that sense. Here in Montana, I've developed a kinship with the animals I want to hunt, I see them regularly, I've encountered them in the wilderness, I am looking forward to continuing to learn more about them and invest time and energy into hunting them. Most of this comes from wanting to eat better, but a part of me would love to put a cool rack on my wall that has a great story.

Does that make me a potential trophy hunter? Maybe. Does that make some of you trophy hunters? Within our circles, you can use that term and I can understand what you mean. I can understand that you busted your ass for that one animal, for years sometimes, I can understand the investment now. That's a big change for someone like me who would've scoffed at that term a few years ago.

In the context of a person unfamiliar with hunting, "trophy hunter" is a culturally-loaded term, and I'd venture to think that my city friends would say something similar to what I said. It's the people shooting Simba, not the people shooting mule deer, whether that mule deer is a "Trophy" or not.

 

[BrokenWing]

Is defending yourself as a hunter via social media a real thing?

I have no social media, so that's a real question.

I get asked on occasion about hunting, consuming meat, etc. It always helps when my beautiful non-hunting bride is near me and raves about the wild game cooking and how she enjoys the fruits of the "labor."

Anyway, I grew up in a small town like many others on here where everyone hunted before and after school and brought their firearms to school during high school.

Living in a larger metropolitan area I see that many aren't of that background and I'm glad we aren't all hunters but I've never run into any one who thought my hunting a worse sin than say, my political beliefs. That is to say, they may not agree with me but it was never a visceral anger that couldn't be parted with a glass of beer/wine or a giggle of a nearby child.

Am I naive? I hear there are people who want all hunters destroyed...but is that a real world concept or is this just the boogie-man? I promise everyone of you who say yes that a dinner involving a few wild ducks, a deer tenderloin and a bottle of cabernet can convince them otherwise!

 

[NKQualtieri]

Is defending yourself as a hunter via social media a real thing?

I have no social media, so that's a real question.

It's real. It's more of like a defensive attitude, in your face, Ted Nugent-y kind of thing. I think it starts with a lot of those big name hunters that are actual assholes, then people just copy their shitty rhetoric and go from there.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Don't pretend that you don't want one.

 

[MNElkNut]

Buzz,

I wanted to address just one of your points. If you have not seen evidence of overgrazing and habitat destruction due to ungulates, wouldn't that indicate that hunting the surplus is working? If you saw it, then the hunting in that area wouldn't be considered effective as a management technique. Maybe I am missing something?

As for the BTC ratios....wow. just wow.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am not strictly a trophy hunter but will always shoot a bigger antlered animal over a small one if given the choice. My standards of what constitutes a trophy are completely my own, for my own reasons and are subject to change at my whim.

My trophy hunting means I'm willing to pass on smaller legal animals in my search for one that meets the criteria of what I am willing to use my tag on. At times, I make the choice not to fill a tag because I don't find an animal that meets that requirement. For me trophy hunting means limiting my take beyond what I could kill legally.

Personally, I am not a trophy hunter for elk. Elk are hard to come by for me, they represent a lot of food and I get a lot of satisfaction over being able to kill any legal bull that I am presented with a shot. I've passed only one legal bull in my life.

On the other hand, I am much pickier about the size of deer that I shoot. I don't particularly care for the taste of mule deer in my area, so any mule deer buck is going to have to have significant headgear before I want to pull the trigger. I really enjoy deer hunting and shooting the first legal buck means my season is not going to last very long. So for me, the process of trophy hunting extends my opportunity to hunt for an animal that is above average. For me, trophy hunting for deer is not based on inches necessarily, it is based on being able to kill a mature buck that is a minimum of 3 1/2 years old and preferably older. My standards also tend to vary according to how much meat is in my freezer. This year, I had plenty, I did not have an opportunity to kill a buck that met my self- imposed restrictions and I did not fill my tag. I could have killed plenty of small bucks but chose not to.

I did shoot a trophy doe this year. She was an old, sway-back, white faced, matriarch and I knew as soon as I saw her that she was nearing the end of her life. She was wary and much more in tune with her environment and danger than the two other mature deer that she was with. I had one doe tag, good for any antlerless deer.The choice to shoot the older deer over the younger one was easy, both for my personal whim of what constitutes a trophy and facts of nature.

When I walked up to this deer, I was proud that I made a clean kill, excited to place my tag on a deer that represented a rarity in being so old, and remorseful that I was the cause of her death. When I examined her teeth and saw they were worn to the gum line I was thankful that she did not have to face a death from starvation in the coming winter. She was actually in pretty good shape fat-wise and I'm glad that her death was quick and merciful while she was still in relatively good health.

I could have legally and from the perspective of table fare, should have shot one of the younger deer. This old doe would most likely be dead from natural causes right now along with the other deer that I had killed. As it is, I filled my tag with a deer that not only gives me food, but also a great sense of satisfaction in how I conducted the hunt that day. At the end of it, I'm satisfied, it's a trophy to me and I'll share the pictures and stories of that hunt to convey the sense of value and pride that I feel in the accomplishment.

I think that at it's core, trophy hunting is about limiting the pursuit of game to those animals that represent a significant achievement when they are taken. There is no doubt that hunters publish their success in an attempt to gain status among their peers to be perceived as extra skillful.

It's no different than any other form of exhibition of skills, acquired assets, beauty, or anything else that people demonstrate to gain attention and status from. It is what it is and until human nature changes you will see people trying to differentiate themselves from the "average" to be elevate their status among their peers.

One thing that can be done is for our peer group of hunters to hone and shape what constitutes as valuable, noteworthy, and status elevating among us. Intentionally celebrating certain actions and achievements as being praise worthy, allows us to shape the values and behaviors of everyone we relate to. Trying to eliminate trophy hunting because it is a form of competition will not work. Redefining what constitutes a trophy can and does work.

 

[MTGomer]

But in the end, all those guys had feds at their house for hunting endangered species and smuggling them into the country. Does that disarm them from being able to call themselves hunters? Are they poachers then? .

Yes. Yes.

 

[RobG]

Nicole, I was going to touch on wolves, lions and other trophies where meat isn't a concern but didn't want to write so much. The main objection seems to be killing without a good reason, although a mount or a rug is a good reason, just not one the anti approves of. In fact the creation of that rug or mount probably has less environmental impact than much of the stuff people buy. Animals die all the time and in the wild it is never easy to watch so we try to ignore that part. The important thing is to determine if the taking is damaging the population or just the person's feelings that doesn't want a human to take the animals life. If the latter, then it is really about that person not approving of my lifestyle rather than harm to the environment.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It's real. It's more of like a defensive attitude, in your face, Ted Nugent-y kind of thing. I think it starts with a lot of those big name hunters that are actual assholes, then people just copy their shitty rhetoric and go from there.

Some in society have figured out that creating a perception of being superior will gain you plenty of accolades from those ignorant of what constitutes superior skills or ability. Sadly, most of those who spend a lifetime deceiving others with their shams, end up deceiving themselves along the way.

In the past relatively few people had the platform to speak authoritatively on the subject of hunting and values. They were given the benefit of the doubt and held as experts by most who read their writing because the audience did not have firsthand knowledge that they were frauds. With social media and new technology, it gets harder to maintain the aurora of expert when the aroma of excrement is flowing out under the curtain.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz,

I wanted to address just one of your points. If you have not seen evidence of overgrazing and habitat destruction due to ungulates, wouldn't that indicate that hunting the surplus is working? If you saw it, then the hunting in that area wouldn't be considered effective as a management technique. Maybe I am missing something?

As for the BTC ratios....wow. just wow.

Good question.

From the standpoint of simply a habitat response in regard to ungulate use, yeah, I'd say that Montana does a pretty good job of ensuring that no available habitat is over used.

But, from the standpoint of creating opportunity and bolstering elk, deer, and other big-game, where a lot more elk and deer could be supported...not so much.

I will give you an example. One of my favorite spots to archery hunt elk West of Missoula had a herd of 400-600 elk in the unit. It was a great resource. The last time it was flown, there were 20 elk observed and I talked with a biologist a month ago that estimated the population at perhaps 80-100. I would venture a guess that the carrying capacity in that unit would likely be closer to 1K elk and still not see any damage to the available habitat. Yet, the elk population there is likely 100 give or take.

A good friend of mine was talking about this area with a Region 2 FWP employee and he said that it wouldn't be surprising if elk eventually go extinct there. Damn likely that will happen with continued pounding via 11 week seasons and considering its proximity to Missoula.

Interestingly enough, in the late 80's I helped conduct 2 large burns in the area to improve habitat for big-game there. My guess is, its not even close to being properly utilized.

How about in the 100 series units, elk populations are low enough that the FWP doesn't even waste time to fly them anymore?

Ever looked at historic elk and deer harvest in the South Fork of the Flathead, Swan, North Fork of the Blackfoot, Bob Marshall and compare it to current levels?

I guess from a very simplistic view, a person could draw the conclusion that we have done (IMO, OVER-done) a great job of making sure that elk and deer are wayyy below actual biological carrying capacities. There's not a snow balls chance in hell of seeing elk and deer over-utilize available habitat anytime soon in Montana.

When I have corned the FWP biologists on how they are still justifying 11 weeks of OTC elk and deer hunting in these units with such low populations, crap bull to cow ratio's, etc. the response I get is, "At this point, there's so few left, killing a few more really doesn't have much worse of an impact".

Try defending that logic to a non hunter...

 

[MNElkNut]

Buzz,
Thanks for clarifying. In effect, what they have done is use the management technique of hunting too effectively causing a different problem...potential damage to the resource.

Gerald,
Great post (the long one). I really liked at the beginning where you stated that your definition of a trophy is yours alone and subject to change at your whim. I have a very similar thought process. To me, the quality of the overall hunt really plays into the measurement of the "trophy". Get out of the truck, load up and a high scoring buck stands up in the ditch ....not much of a trophy in my mind. His rack may score high points, but the quality of the hunt was very poor. On the other hand, work your butt off all week, outsmart a smart buck who is on his "A" game...that is a trophy regardless of inches of antler. combine a high scoring buck with a quality hunt; that is truly rare.

 

[1_pointer]

I haven't heard anything new here about the anti-trophy hunting argument and to be honest I don't find any of those arguments very compelling. The one question I have never heard asked is "What the hell does antler size have to do with genetic superiority?" I doubt these big antlers correlate to strength or other important traits. However, they do give an advantage in obtaining mates so there is a selection for large antler size. You could probably argue that the large antlers actually prevent more important traits from being preferentially passed on.

I think red deer are an example where the large antlers have evolved with no benefit. I found a study on red deer that suggests that antler size is correlated with nutrition, not fitness. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3061551?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Irish elk (magalaceros) of the Pleistocene had enormous antlers. Perhaps if they weren't such a dominant factor in winning mates they would have evolved relevant traits that would have prevented their extinction.

I also don't find the antis argument very compelling. Wolves, for example, don't select for superior genetics, they select for animals that are good at not getting eaten by wolves. Yes, they will first take the elk that are too weak to survive the winter or disease, but those genes would more precisely be removed by the actual winter or disease! (I don't want to discount the important role of wolves in including preventing overpopulation where hunting doesn't accomplish that goal.)

So those arguments give my mind some peace.

Success, in a biological sense, is how many times one's genes get to future generations and in a manner than can then be passed along. So in effect, large antler size is a bit of a measure of genetic superiority as those genes are tied other genes that lead to increased survival. Without it the genes for large antlers wouldn't have been passed along. This is where sexual selection plays a role in natural selection.

One thing often missed about the discussion of 'culls' and herd 'improvement' through removing substandard males is that 1/2 of that genetic make up comes from the females. In most instances we do not have visual way of IDing the females with better genes...

 

[Nameless Range]

A real conversation I have had with a non-hunter regarding why I want to shoot the ones with the bigger horns came down to the challenge of it. We don't hunt solely to improve the health of the herd. Nor do we do it solely for the meat. Why does hunting have to be primarily one thing or another? Rarely do we do anything for just one reason.

Hunting is a game. And some people like the game to be harder than others. It is "harder" to find "trophy" animals than those that would typically not be considered "trophy" class. They are a smaller subset of the population. They are typically older and smarter. They are a harder game to win.

Gerald's post is excellent regarding the subjectivity the word "trophy" can entail, but colloquially, bigger,older, smarter is more likely to be a trophy. The challenge is part of the hunt. The appeal of antlers on the wall could be a part of it too. And why would that be wrong? Some people like paint splattered in a myriad of ways on a canvas and hang it on their wall as art. My walls are adorned by Nature's Art, and my tastes in that class of art lean towards bigger antlers, as subjective as anyone else's taste in art.

It think the big mistake people make when assuming motives behind trophy hunting is that they see the activity of seeking and killing a bigger animal as an act of social signaling - a d!#k measuring contest. For some it surely is, but I would argue for most it is largely not.

 

[RobG]

1-pointer/Buzzkill . That paper on red deer seemed to disagree, although I didn't look at it closely. What are your thoughts on it?

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

Going back to the original question. I have been thinking about this through out the week, and I should add that I am not an avid user of social media, but I am starting to see the huge impact it has had on society as a whole. I am not sure I have as coherent an idea as some but here are some of the thoughts I have had:

1. Social media is a megaphone for everything good/bad/ugly. I think a lot of folk get on social media thinking they are going to communicate just with like minded people, but the reality is you are just vomiting information and ideas into the public space. Most of the time this is also done with little thought as to the consequences, and is really just done in a desperate grasp for validation.

2. Social media seems to be creating a further shift away from internal validation, to the point where people derive so much of their self worth based off of how many likes their last selfie got on Instagram. I have exposure to a lot of "kids" coming into the military, and I can tell you they have a pretty different way of viewing the world, and they are affected by social media good/bad. It is like having your self worth being hooked up to an electroshock therapy machine being controlled by a monkey.

3. There used to be a lot of hoops to jump through to get a public platform, but social media has broken those barriers down. I have seen some great thoughtful folks take advantage of the opportunity, and take a thoughtful approach in spreading their message, but their are just as many people who don't. The physical separation offed by the internet makes it really easy to be a a$$ to everyone you disagree with regardless of how uninformed you are, or how you try and twist other peoples ideas to try and cut them down.

As far as how it relates to hunting....I am not sure it affects hunting any worse than any other fringe activity....people who don't understand will criticize rather than try and understand, because that is where our society is. I think the best thing we can do is try and help our fellow hunters understand their impacts, and try and ride this wave out. I think society will figure out how to handle social media responsibly. I am sure a bunch of cave dwellers got burned when they discovered fire, but they figured it out, I think we will too.

 

[1_pointer]

1-pointer/Buzzkill . That paper on red deer seemed to disagree, although I didn't look at it closely. What are your thoughts on it?

Only read the abstract as I don't have a JSTOR account. That said, the study you link to was a 30year study. Not sure where that fits in on the evolutionary time scale of red deer, but I'm guessing that'd not be more than a blink. However, this seems to fit with what I think I know:

Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that a heritable trait under directional selection will not evolve if associations between the measured trait and fitness are determined by environmental covariances: In red deer males, for example, both antler size and success in the fights for mates may be heavily dependent on an individual's nutritional state.

It's all about the habitat! It somewhat agrees with a non-science article I read last year about where all the B&C whitetails are coming from. The best correlation was with the most fertile soil types. Genes matter, but environmental, in these two cases expressed through diet, variables are also just as important.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I think the only thing we really know about antler growth is how much we don't know. Conflicting studies seem to indicate that different factors impact antler growth differently, depending on species and location. But based on the body of research as a whole, the most common conclusion seems to be that in general, genetics is responsible for conformation and shape, but its mainly nutrition that determines size. That is, as usual, an extreme oversimplification of things because after that, the waters get very muddy. There are models that support a bunch of other variables as well. I've seen soil minerals, age structure, spring temperature, precipitation, timing of birth, and others that have all been linked to antler size, depending on the location and the species. But you know what they say about models - they are only sometimes right and rarely useful. (I have a feeling somebody's going to take that and run with it.) Many of those studies come from captive herds, so its anybody's guess as to how that translates to our wild western herds.

So, hypothetically say you have an elk harem. The lead bull's genetics dictate he is never going to be better than a 5 pt, but he is a damn efficient forager and is a monster with bases like coffee cans. His challenger's genetics dictate that he is a 7 pt, but he's a pretty neurotic dude with a crappy metabolism and a weird preference for low-quality plants so he grows a sort of spindly 7 pt rack. The 5 pt with the better diet beats up the spindly 7 pt all day long. Which one is the trophy? Which one has superior genetics? That's a value judgement, and it's precisely when values enter the equation that the justification of trophy hunting breaks down for the non-hunting public who may have different values than you do.

After all that, what does this mean for the main subject of this thread? If we are looking for a clear scientific justification to present to non-hunters in support of "trophy" hunting (at least as it pertains to antlers), there isn't one. Hell, there isn't even enough justification to get biologists all on the same page on this one. All we can do is convey a well thought out, articulate, heart-felt message like some of the ones posted here about why we as individuals hunt, and provide a non-threatening source of basic facts for people who often have none.