Vamaz, I think you are the first to come out and say what everyone reading this thread is probably thinking, including myself. Certainly killing is fundamental to hunting, but now we read that killing the biggest of the big is also fundamental to trophy hunting. Without a physical, tangible object that we can claim as our own, the experience is incomplete.
This apparent disparity between trophy hunting, vs. trophy fishing is fascinating to me. Why are we content to catch the fish of a lifetime, photograph it, (maybe have a replica made), and release it, but the notion of doing the same with a trophy deer (the electronic rifle scenario), is not satisfactory? It seems to me that stunning the animal would still require skill, time, practice,....and would still demonstrate the hunter's mastery over the animal. The difference being the lack of a physical trophy. It can't be food, as there are other, non-trophy deer to be taken to fill that need, so the only thing I can think of is...pride. The fourth "P". The need to say "look what I killed".
And I suppose that's why I will always struggle with the concept of trophy hunting.
Dave, as I read your latest post I was nodding in agreement. I've had my share of squirrels get hung up in treetops, and saw what remained of rabbits in my snares after a canine found them. It's painful, irregardless of the size of the animal. And you're right..when a hunter no longer feels that twinge, he or she has lost something vital. Something human.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.