Social Media & Hunting

[VAspeedgoat]

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.

Great info, but more importantly, GREAT advise on how to present our side.

 

[Matt/VT]

Great essay Nicole, thanks for sharing it! A lot of interesting points on this thread that I think about, daily.

I waver in my social media opinions with regard to photos and the like. I share pictures of my maple syrup that I make and consume, in a big picture way I think that it is similar. I also still drive with my tailgate down. While I don't want to be in your face with it, I'm also not going to hide it. I think people need to know it is happening and I welcome the questions or discussions it might generate.

I think people treat these trophy v meat hunting as a black and white issue, when it is not. Unfortunately this does not allow for easy stereotyping that most people prefer. Based on a recent discussion I listened to, this is pretty typical when a majority (nonhunters) is discussing a minority (hunters). We are guilty of it as well, given how we talk about minorities within our ranks (think trappers, whose approach and consumptive use are different). We all draw lines, often uneducated ones, to simplify our position in our own heads. The more informed we become, the more nuanced we can be and the more accepting of paradoxical associations

Given what everyone has said about the trophy being a judgement call, I agree, no different than what someone thinks is a good day of skiing- open to interpretation based on the experience of the person involved. The meat v trophy slide for me depends on how full the freezer is at what point of the season. But it all goes in there and gets eaten.

As for the angle on predators, it is a misconception to think they take only the weak or ill. They take what they can get, when they can get it. Also as for us 'saving' an animal from starving to death, I think Ted Kerasote said it best in the book Nicole mentioned, that elk have been starving to death gracefully for thousands of years, who are we to judge that?

 

[Matt/VT]

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.

Aside from the trophy hunting discussion, my understanding of antlers, as an evolutionary trait, is that they often represent what a male is capable of in terms of diverting nutrients from his body into a secondary sexual characteristic. The easiest way to think of it is that he is essentially growing a calf (or fawn) on his head. A female likely has a sense (without 'knowing') that her daughters will be able to divert nutrients to the growth of her daughters and so on, passing on successful genes. That, combined with his ability to win over rivals in a fight, conveys a likelihood of genetic 'fitness' to her offspring, perpetuating the species. Over time, as a species evolves, these characteristics of success can change and the antlers will change in response.

 

[MTGomer]

As far as 'trophy hunting' goes, I think those words really have to be defined by the person partaking in it. I suppose the less informed non-hunter's perception of it, is someone that hunts for a big mount, and doesn't consume the meat. To the rest of us, that is a poacher.

I consider myself a trophy hunter. Or at least I try to be one. If I were to measure success by the number of animals I've actually successfully harvested that most of you would consider a trophy, I would be a sad disappointment. 2 big bulls(in my opinion of 'big') and 1 wolf in 15 years of hunting. The rest do not approach anything resembling a trophy. To me the bull in my avatar is a trophy. I shot him on public land, with a bow, 8.5 miles from the pickup on a solo hunt.He was old. That to me, makes him more of a trophy than his score of 313. In Arizona or Nevada, he's a raghorn.
But every year, I try to take a mature animal. I hold out, usually passing on many young bulls, bucks, etc.. Many times this results in taking an animal for the freezer at the end of the season, much smaller than ones I passed. That's okay.

We have a 3 month season in Montana. If I were to shoot the first legal animal I had an opportunity at, I would not get to hunt very much, and not get to enjoy the experiences that I've been privileged enough to enjoy, and the places that those adventures have taken me.

Donnie Vincent summarizes exactly how I feel about hunting in his videos on youtube; its something that is in my blood, inherited from my ancestors, its not a hobby, i don't do it purely for fun. Going is not optional. I have to do it, and it consumes me, nearly to a point of unhealthiness (ask the wife) . Going two days per year to shoot a meat-doe and the first cow elk or rag rack that walked in front of me, would not be enough, therefore I'm selective. Its certainly not about a dick comparing contest with the drunks at the bar.

 

[bobbydean]

Just some thoughts on trophy hunting.

My daughter's antelope was a broken horn older buck, her first. Trophy.

My Barbary was hunted hard over 4 consecutive weekends, Finally took a ewe. Had promised a friend he could have the meat. Was planning on shooting a ram. Didn't happen. The ewe would have probably been good eating. Am I a poacher for not eating the animal. I hunted hard and it was a trophy.

Deer, I give away most times. Still not a poacher; it is eaten My first deer was my biggest and was a trophy because it was my first.

Oryx is the best eating game animal ever. I probably eat half and give away half. Any oryx is a trophy. All 3 of mine are trophies. My 39 incher is special but so was the broken horn bull with the biggest bases recorded that season.

The statement that if you shoot the animal and do not eat them your are a poacher is totally wrong.

My opinion.

 

[MTGomer]

I took it as if you shoot an animal and it doesn't GET eaten, you are a poacher. That is certainly what I meant above.
Doesn't necessarily have to be the hunter eating it.

 

[bobbydean]

MTGomer,

I was hoping that was what you meant, but I was reading otherwise.

Thanks, for the clarification.

 

[BrokenWing]

Selection bias.

Those who are on social media are more apt to be a bit more narcissistic. They want to brag, show, comment, like, dislike, etc. There's fallout from that whatever angle you take.

Its why I'm not on any social media and have no desire. My contemporaries don't understand. But I share my pics and memories with those I know who are interested. Don't share them with those who aren't.