Which side are you on?

[Mark]

Personal morals or beliefs aside, trophy hunting is by far the best way to improve the game animal herd.

There is a tremendous amount of money in this field, and it becomes a business. Needless to say, any business is concerned with making money and you make more money with a properly managed herd of animals, no matter what the type.

If animals are shot irresponsibly, or the habitat not improved the business drops to nothing in 2 or 3 years, so those things are not done by any responsible business.

Please note I am pointing out that not only are the animals selectively hunted, but the habitat is most always attended to as well to further benefit the wildlife. This benefits quite a lot of animals, not just the target species.

Whether or not trophy hunting is something you personally like to do, it is a simple fact that when it is allowed it allows local businesses to grow in this area, and it does not take long at all for them to realize that responsible management is the key to profiting in it.

[snIPer]

Hunt or be Hunted. Im all for it.

[Oggie]

Well here's my two bits considering that I come from a country that encourages and has a very prolific trophy hunting environment in addition to meat hunting.

The key question to answer for each is "Why do I hunt ? " In my case the honest answer is I enjoy the whole process. 1 in every 6 hunts gets me an animal and if it were only the kill that I enjoyed I would be an ex hunter a long time back ! My point however is that no hunter can realistically or morally claim that meat hunting is OK but trophy hunting is not.

Here's why !

If meat hunting is OK the rationale is that I am eating what I kill - correct ? and therefore my action of taking a life is put to good use as I am consuming what I kill ?

In that case you really do not need to kill as you can buy meat off a supermarket - even venison is available off the rack. Therefore the meat hunter must enjoy the whole process - the kill included. Now here's where it gets interesting. If you enjoy the whole process then what does it matter whether the animal is a trophy one or not ? Abhijeet is right in the sense that the trophy's gene pool has been disseminated making it a viable financial resource to pay for conservation on a larger scale.

Phew.... hope that makes some sense - I'm a couple of lagers down !!!

[TenX]

...Phew.... hope that makes some sense - I'm a couple of lagers down !!!

[Sakobav]

Trophy hunting if it means being regulated like the ones in South Africa and Botswana I am all for it. Hunters are by far the best and biggest conservators out there.
Trophy hunting has to be regulated with revenues being used for upkeep and security of sanctuaries. I am stating this in context of situation in India and its a model worth trying. Pakistan is a good example where they have had better results. Regulation and transparency is required to ensure that hunting doesnt become domain of rich and elite or the poachers.

[TenX]

Trophy hunting if it means being regulated like the ones in South Africa and Botswana I am all for it. Hunters are by far the best and biggest conservators out there.
Trophy hunting has to be regulated with revenues being used for upkeep and security of sanctuaries. I am stating this in context of situation in India and its a model worth trying. Pakistan is a good example where they have had better results. Regulation and transparency is required to ensure that hunting doesnt become domain of rich and elite or the poachers.

India should try out better conservation methods, agreed
But in India, every rule and regulation has two hidden 'advantages' that people misuse... State of affairs.
I guess where ever there are people to over-view and maintain rules, it results in misuse of rules and bribery...

[dev]

I'd be hunting for meat I guess. And if the guy had a big rack it wouldn't hurt either.

Dev

[TwoRivers]

I think what we have failed to establish so far is what exactly do we mean by "trophy hunting". We have not defined it, which we should do to have an equitable discussion, as it, obviously from the replies so far, means different things to different people. I think (pun intended), that in the opening thread Mark missed the mark. Let us redefine it more closely as "hunting under regulated and controlled conditions", which, I believe is what Mark meant with "trophy hunting".
Hunting is in man's genes, he has been a hunter as long as he has been on earth, and has been part of "natural balance". As culture developed, man started to retain "trophies, honoring both the taker and the taken.
I think we can dismiss the argument that there is no need to hunt for meat anymore, as even game meat is available in stores. The latter is not true for large parts of the world, and the former just transfers the guilt to the fellows who raise and butcher the animal. The animal I hunt knows that I am a predator. I doubt that the chicken, sheep, beeve, and whatever else we "befriend", feed and protect from other predators, knows its eventual fate to become our food and joyfully accepts it fate. If you eat meat, but condemn hunting, I have reservations about your intellectual honesty. Given the choice between fatty meat full of hormones and pesticides; and wholesome game meat, I"ll do the dirty work myself and get the latter. If you are vegan/vegetarian, please accept that not all share your believes.
The greatest danger to any species is loss of suitable habitat, not being preyed upon (hunted). As we have progressed and have become civilized in the true meaning of that word, we have been destroying habitat at an alarming rate. We have permanently upset the natural balance (which by the way, never is static) by becoming the superpredator, and our sheer numbers. Now, I do not approve of hunting solely for the "trophy", and wasting the meat. But, having upset the natural balance by becoming the dominant predator and mammal species, it is our duty to all animals to stabilize the balance again, and maintain habitat and suitainable animal populations. That is best done by controlled and regulated hunting. Yes, you can accomplish pretty much the same by government poisoning and culling of game. But that only has cost. So why deny one man's passion, when it's to the overall benefit, and brings in revenue? At least that is this born hunter's and game biologist's postion. And one last question to those on the forum who are against hunting. Where do you think your passion for weapons and shooting comes from? Cheers.

[Sakobav]

Tenx

Agreed that there are two sides the key is enforcement of the rules with a viable force guarding the sanctuaries. India could explore and start a pilot "hunting tourism" project, auction licenses and bring in foreign exchange. Money is a great motivator and gets attention even for govt bean counters and babus when animals become assets with potential worth in pounds, euros, etc. This will ensure that rules are not bend to an extreme extent.

Cheers

[Vikram]

I think what we have failed to establish so far is what exactly do we mean by "trophy hunting". We have not defined it, which we should do to have an equitable discussion, as it, obviously from the replies so far, means different things to different people. I think (pun intended), that in the opening thread Mark missed the mark. Let us redefine it more closely as "hunting under regulated and controlled conditions", which, I believe is what Mark meant with "trophy hunting".
Hunting is in man's genes, he has been a hunter as long as he has been on earth, and has been part of "natural balance". As culture developed, man started to retain "trophies, honoring both the taker and the taken.
I think we can dismiss the argument that there is no need to hunt for meat anymore, as even game meat is available in stores. The latter is not true for large parts of the world, and the former just transfers the guilt to the fellows who raise and butcher the animal. The animal I hunt knows that I am a predator. I doubt that the chicken, sheep, beeve, and whatever else we "befriend", feed and protect from other predators, knows its eventual fate to become our food and joyfully accepts it fate. If you eat meat, but condemn hunting, I have reservations about your intellectual honesty. Given the choice between fatty meat full of hormones and pesticides; and wholesome game meat, I"ll do the dirty work myself and get the latter. If you are vegan/vegetarian, please accept that not all share your believes.
The greatest danger to any species is loss of suitable habitat, not being preyed upon (hunted). As we have progressed and have become civilized in the true meaning of that word, we have been destroying habitat at an alarming rate. We have permanently upset the natural balance (which by the way, never is static) by becoming the superpredator, and our sheer numbers. Now, I do not approve of hunting solely for the "trophy", and wasting the meat. But, having upset the natural balance by becoming the dominant predator and mammal species, it is our duty to all animals to stabilize the balance again, and maintain habitat and suitainable animal populations. That is best done by controlled and regulated hunting. Yes, you can accomplish pretty much the same by government poisoning and culling of game. But that only has cost. So why deny one man's passion, when it's to the overall benefit, and brings in revenue? At least that is this born hunter's and game biologist's postion. And one last question to those on the forum who are against hunting. Where do you think your passion for weapons and shooting comes from? Cheers.

TwoRivers,

Very well said. Completely agree with you. Thanks for your time and effort.

Best-
Vikram

[Shamsher]

Excellent !!
very rightly said - TwoRivers

[shooter]

Pro trophy hunting.... any and all kinds of hunting.