Which is more noble, hanging a trophy on the wall, or providing food for one's family? I would hazard a guess that when the very first shard of knapped flint was attached to a stick, bragging rights never entered the equation. And for those who believe that the need to hunt for sustenance is long past, I will repeat the offer I make every year when this subject comes up: Come ride with me for a day, and I will open your eyes. It still exists and it's still out there, off aways from the blacktop. Assigning blame or coming up with excuses as to why the need still exists does little to stretch the grocery budget.
I'm not a deer hunter, so help me understand. How is it that removing that trophy buck's genetics helps the herd as a whole? Sure, I get that he's hopefully had a few seasons to spread those genetics, but how do you know he doesn't have a few more left in him? Is one season enough? Two? Three? Seems to me that more would be better. If we let that trophy buck go, and he continues to spread those genetics, he will eventually go into decline, correct? So by that reckoning, if I am a trophy hunter I need to kill that animal while he still displays trophy status....in his prime in other words. Is that not counter-productive to managing the herd for improvement? Or is it actually a case of management not towards overall health of the herd, but merely the production of a select few trophy animals, intended for the kill?
