quote:
Originally posted by Steelhead S2
Since asked, and it is a good question, my definition of "trophy hunting" is taking down the animal for a trophy with no intention of making any use of any of the flesh. I do agree that "trophy" is in the eye of the beholder, but that's talking about something different.
I also agree that "united we stand, divided we fall". But I don't think that means our interests as sportsmen are best served by standing up and defending all hunting and fishing activity, regardless of the tactics, methods or purposes. As I understand it, one purpose of standing united is so that, as a stake-holding group, we can exert meaningful influence on the long-term regulation of our chosen recreational activities. But there is no doubt that, in order to be taken seriously, we need to have a rational and coherent message. For example, although poaching is a hunting and a fishing activity, it would not be in our collective interest to stand up for poacher rights just because they are our brother sportsmen (I realize that is a debatable point in itself).
I agree that there is a fine line (or a slippery slope?) between identifying what activities we do and do not support, on the one hand, and fragmenting into a bunch of self-interested, arrogant niche groups on the other. But I think it is an essential task if we are to make a meaning contribution to the management of out natural resources in the long run.
We are starting to see this kind of multi-sector cooperation on the fish farm issue. Sporties, commercials, and FNs are banding together in an effort to preserve their common interest.
While I find trophy hunting distasteful at a personal level, it may also be politically untenable. Perhaps it is unpleasant to factor that kind of optics into assessing an issue that has such deep roots in our rural and sporting communities. But it is just that kind of optics that guides the decision making in Victoria. If trophy hunting for grizzly bears becomes a political issue of any significance it is not in our interest to cling to it. That would risk our other activities being painted with the same brush. To add another well-worn expression to this discussion, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".
If we stand up and make one small concession, it might improve the image of hunting in the province and bring greater credibility to our sport. In the end, if the hunter who kills the bear is required to take the meat, nothing is really lost. And the bad optics of "trophy hunting" is significantly reduced.
Just two more of my cents.
