Contributors to this thread:
Trophy hunting documentary
Tomorrow night at 9 pm on CNN ( don’t bash me)
It was actually pretty objective considering who produced it. Some people on there were total dipshits, but thats life. The best part was how the guy running the anti poaching unit described how hunters help keep the anti poaching unit running. The same guy also described how poachers will shoot everything and hunters in this day and age typically focus on sustainable actions.
It amazed me that in the face of cold hard facts how many people still disregarded Humes position on legal trade of rhino horn. He basically said keep horn trade illegal and his 1400 rhinos will die off because he cant afford to keep them alive and if they legalize it he can increase to 10,000 rhinos. Hes not even hunting them and he still had "pro rhino" opposition during his testimonies.
Replaying at midnight ET if you missed it.
Weird program...Not at all what I expected.
No. Me either. I don’t think it’s bad at all. So far.
The worst part so far, is having to suffer through the commercials promoting their other “news” programs.
Why bother just a remake of the anti-hunting "Guns of Autumn" put together by stupid Dan Rather types in 1975.
I was young then but will never forget it.
Tony, it’s not anti hunting in the least from what I have seen.
And to this day I STILL won't eat a Quaker Oats product because they were the sponsors of that crap Tony!
I didn’t think it was “anti”...just a bit of an odd program.
They were pretty kind to hunters, and I thought it was very balanced. No wonder the antis are frothing over it.
I thought it was very well done for anti-poaching and benefits of hunting. Made the antis look silly when protesting.
I thought it was good, I was thinking it was going to be anti hunting with a lot of false info.
This was done by award-winning Israeli documentarians. Certainly not "Dan Rather" types with an axe to grind.
that one hunter though, with the smoke and beer, kind of a jack wad, perfect for what they were trying to show,,,,, not a bad film, showed the reality of killing, that's for sure
Liked it, thought it was pretty unbiased. I'd like to string up that idiot shooting the croc in a man made pond. Canned hunts have always burnt my arse, and they should not be legal. Glad t see that Mr. Hume won his lawsuit.
I like the fat lady that didn't eat any meat really fat for a veggy eater
Dan... she only ate her vegetables deep fried...
I felt the hunter was portrayed as a bit of a stooge. Never know. I haven't watched the last 10 minutes.
It wasn’t as biased as I had thought it would be, but I still think it sucked. It only showed can hunting and even that first segment with the boy and his dad only portrayed a typical Texas style hunt. Nothing about the majority of hunters who hunt fair chase and eat what they kill. We are the vast majority and we had zero representation.
I agree with Pat 100%. It would be great to have someone do a documentary on what hunters go through to prepare for an elk hunt, through the hunt, ending with how we put the meat on our tables, etc. No one likes to see a lion in a cage.
Brodsky, I would just like someone to document on how much money we spend. Just don't show my wife.
Is it replaying again? Missed this
Agreed Pat... I think it only hurt the vast majority as you mention.... The film seemed to focus primarily on African issues concerning the rhino trade, poaching, and "trophy" hunting. There were a few positive moments that made the case for the success of the conservation models in Africa, but showed very little in terms of the practical and economic benefits these models have been proven to sustain. It only showed one quick scene of the villagers in Zimbabwe standing in line to get the meat from the elephant. No mention was made of the money generated from the hunt itself funding much of the the anti-poaching law enforcement. Also no mention of the entire communities that are surviving because of the employment generated from all of the safari related jobs created.
What little positive that was portrayed was quickly negated by the deliberate portrayal of that A$$hole hunter who shot the croc as a typical representative of hunting methods and hunters which is obviously false. Also, focusing in detail on the long, drawn out deaths and close-ups of the animals eyes only played into emotion which is the only argument the anit's have or ever will have.
The other gentleman hunting the Big 5 was also a negative portrayal in my view. Allowing the cull elephant to die a slow, drawn out death was baffling to me? Never seen this done on any dangerous game hunt I have ever been a part of....Furthermore, his main argument was a philosophical one of religion in regard to man's dominion over the beasts of the Earth is God's will was ridiculous. Although I agree, that animals exist on this Earth specifically for the benefit and use of higher species, that is not the strongest argument, by any stretch, to support the multitude of undeniable benefits as a result of hunting through managed use and habitat conservation.
Legitimate hunting conservation groups need to put out their own "documentary" showing the real facts and numbers. It seems however, that since Cecil, the strategy of these groups has been to hide in hopes of not being noticed. Every dollar that these "anti" groups raise through their emotion-driven propaganda goes into paying the salaries of the board members and a barrage anti-hunting media of every form. Zero goes into actual conservation, wildlife management, or habitat preservation. When the neutral majority of most folks on the fence about hunting only hear one side, they start to wonder why the other side is deliberately staying quiet. It makes it look as if we truly do have something to be ashamed of.... Just my 2 cents. I would love to hear more opinions on this....
yep it airs again on the 27th...type in "trophy" in your tv search function.
As I watched it, I was left with the same impression that Pat had. I saw nothing that reflected the motivations, values, or culture of hunters I know. It matters none to me if folks go to Africa and participate in this activity, other than how society will view it and how that societal view affects hunting in North America. Motivations matter to society, regardless of the stated rationale or reason. The interviews at the SCI convention and the comments of the guy they followed shooting the lion and elephant did not express motivations that most viewers would find comforting. The motivation as expressed in those segments came across as though the collection of animals were a sort of score sheet in life. Not a motivation, perceived or real, that is going to help hunting in a society that could care less about the supposed economic benefits of that style of hunting.
To each their own, but this did no favors to the average person who is out hunting for food or the enjoying the cultural traditions hunting has in rural America. It did nothing to show how millions of hunters contribute their time, money, and advocacy to the cause of wild places and wild things as a different form of conservation than raising animals on farms as a substitute.
Maybe what was portrayed is "Conservation" in Africa. I can't speak to that, as I've never been there. The message came across as though hunters are willing to accept farming of scarce and coveted animals as conservation. That is not how hunters view conservation in the place that I am most connected to, North America.
The average viewer has no context in their life experiences by which to separate what they saw on that documentary from hunting as it happens for most on this forum. Most viewers will think that the whitetail doe, or the bull elk, or the (insert here), was pen raised, that we went out half-drunk, shot it in some artificial setting, and then notched another item on our score sheet.
Maybe I live in a small world, but if this documentary is how the majority of society does see, or will come to see, our actions; if this becomes even more of their stereotype of a hunter; if this is what they think is our expressed motivations for hunting; and they resolve that hunters have a seeming willingness to farm animals as a substitute for conservation, then I see the road ahead to be a lot rougher than the road we have already traveled.
Hunting is not and never was translatable to the masses. We lose every time and always will. It is a personal private activity not suitable for public consumption
"Trophy hunting" to most Americans means the hunting of exotic animals.
"Trophy hunting" to most of us means hunting older individuals of our native big game animals.
This documentary defined "trophy hunting" by the first definition.
You know, it's funny. I saw an interview with the films directors where they were asked about Cecil the lion. They themselves actually called it a legal hunt that got blown out of proportion. There was no demonizing of Walter Palmer like I expected to see from them, only defense. Yet, none of that appeared in the actual documentary. Just more rehashing of biased public opinion.
Perfect example why I have never or will never "shoot" or so-called hunt behind a high fence.... Don't care how many thousands of acres, a can is a can regardless of size, and programs like these promote these cans as the image of hunters.... Its a BAD image to the non-hunting general public...
Hopefully the general public watching saw how ridiculous the anti-hunting animal rights people are. Over the top whack jobs.
They needed a broader approach...way too much time on the Rhino stuff..
As Chris mentioned above, the directors seemed to be much more understanding of the benefits of hunting than the movie actually conveyed. If you missed the interview with them about 15 minutes prior to the movie, they said that they had come away with a new understanding of it, and made it sound like these feelings would be demonstrated in the movie. I do like the words they periodically put on the screen to show the differences between sport hunting and poaching and stressed how poaching is really the thing driving these animals toward extinction.
Forgot to add - they did not put SCI in a good light neither...
This was retweeted heavily last night.
It costs around $50,000 to kill an #elephant, but a living elephant can generate 30x's more in tourism revenue over the course of its life in #ecofriendly tourism!
The WWF says there are about 400,000 elephants in Africa. That equates to over 600 billion dollars over their lifetime. 21,000 per elephant per year. Where is all this money?
Big Fin, you bring up some good points. Perhaps organizations like RMEF, WSF, P&Y, and B&C - organizations that do represent the average hunter and conservation as we know it, should band together and put together or sponser a well-made piece specifically for non-hunters, showing true free-range hunting, it's benefits, etc, in an effort to combat the misinformation and lies spread by anti-hunters.
I recorded and just watched this. I agree completely with Pat, firehuntfish, and Randy. The croc in the pond and the lingering death of the elephant were particularly distasteful and I suspect by design. The lean to the anti side was very subtle but was there nevertheless. IMO, this so-called documentary was never meant to be fair, or even a documentary, but a hit piece in sheep's clothing.
On Ike's point, I personally think that's a great idea, but would anybody air it ?
Even if it wasn't aired, it could be put on YouTube. It would need some advertising money behind it as well.
Come on, did anyone really think CNN, a liberal network run by anti-gun Democrats was ever going to show hunters, hunting and wildlife management in a positive light... hell, they 'prolly had HSUS as sponsors and technical advisers....
JTV, you obviously did not watch the show last night. CNN had nothing to do with this show. The show I saw was very balanced, and actually leaned toward the side of hunting as most people have posted here. Good grief, give credit when it's due.
CNN didn't produce it. They just bought it.
Dutch, read the next to last paragraph in Big Fin's post, pretend you are the person he was speaking of, a non-hunter, and then think again about how you would view hunting as portrayed in the "documentary ". In fairness, I missed the first 15 minutes or so of the program, so I don't know how the Texas hunt was portrayed, so I'll have to plead ignorance on that part, but if it intimated that we all hunt behind game proof fences, then it's not just wrong, it's very wrong.
After watching the documentary, I asked myself, did it change any one's mind concerning their individual regards of "Hunting" and its contributions. My answer was," NO not really!." Depending on ones views, there was just enough visual and audio parts to confirm your already made up mind concerning this subject. IE, Hell no or Heck yes.-- and no in between.
I have never hunted in Africa but I did not realize, if true, the height of farming and breeding that may go on vs the natural production of the various species.
I did not read all the posts so, this may be a rehash. I recorded it and just watched it. I replayed several segments. I found it to be very cleverly couched and extremely slanted. The portrayal of the African Trophy hunting, though possibly, in some instances, spot on, was not at all complimentary, especially the croc shooting and the elephant segments.
To me, the unfortunate downside is that hunters in the U.S. are going to be labeled as trophy hunters across the board. Not one mention of meat usage and enjoyment of the outdoors. It was 100% focused on killing and trophies and money generated to do just that. It was presented as being fair-presenting both sides-when in fact, it did everything but that. It said, "Money goes to promote conservation". Then went on to point out nothing supporting that. The focus on the rhino horn controversy dealt with poaching and rhino depletion. That is a problem, no question about it. It is an economic situation. What has that to do with trophies? That is no different than drilling oil wells in a national park or smuggling drugs into the U.S. If I were going to title a program "Trophy", I believe I would have dealt with "Trophyism". But I saw nothing in that program presenting the good side of true hunting. Why was I not surprised?
Of course, that is just my opinion.
I felt exactly as Paul did. Nothing there that would change anyone’s mind.
I wish they'd keyed-in more on the free range hunting. That's the only kind I've done in my trips to Africa. Show the jobs that are provided in the real bush where poaching is thwarted by PHs and poor villages are fed versus a luxury commercial camp that literally has a menu for what animals you want to shoot on the game farm.
Yes, I realize some of the game farms are more wild than the others. However, many of these bait and even cover the pans/water so that they are only open during hunting hours to force the animals to comply. If I go to DSC or SCI in Vegas, you won't catch me gawking at the high fence genetically mutated whitetails. They are livestock, not game.
The problem is that we all have to stand united: rifle, bow, traditional, and even the high fence boys. Am I anti-high fence? No. My best response is that it's not my thing. In some instances, it can be equated to hiring a call girl--it's that easy and predictable.
The rednecks in RSA that were shooting the croc and yelling, "Hell yeah, motherbleep!" are probably not the people with whom many of us would wish to share a camp. They are also not the people I would wish to have representing us on national TV. A little slighted--absolutely.
The guy from TX seemed like a nice guy but a bit of a different duck. What was the point of adding the evolution comments? I really disliked the elephant scene, as most of us know that a brain shot on an elephant is the most desirable way to harvest one. It's quick and painless.
I must say though, it could have been a lot worse. As others said, it didn't cause anyone to shift their views on the matter. There are plenty of "hunting" shows on the networks that have idiots that almost want to make me anti at times. You are going to have your groups who are embarrassments in hunting, golf, tennis, and just about everything else in life. That's just the way it is and we won't change it.
Well that was pretty much a waste of 2 hours of my time.....
some on here are defending CNN ??.. lol .... dosnt matter if they "purchased" it or not, it was shown on that god forsaken outlet ... it was a hit piece, same as "The Guns of Autumn" was when CBS put that crap out back in the '70's
Another pet peeve, none of these shows ever address the hunting imperative relative to our own biology and evolution. For were we not killers, we would not have had the nutritional basis to evolve intelligently enough to produce, buy, televise or even watch such a show.