Is the Definition of Trophy Hunting Changing?

When most people think of trophy hunting, their mind wanders to the game reserves of Africa where rich Europeans hunt lions and elephants for what appears to be nothing more than a quick photo and a pile of wasted meat. Photos of these hunts have been enough to cost participants their jobs and have led to countless protests targeted at stopping the hunts altogether. The outrage over these wasteful hunts was even, in large part, supported by the North American hunting community as the wasting of meat and the unnecessary killing of animals directly opposes the North American model of conservation and the ethical code that hunters are accustomed to following. While the debate was seemingly resolved, as both hunters and non-hunters shared a rare slice of common ground in the disavowing of wasteful hunting, the term has recently begun taking on new meaning and the willingness to allow it to enter the conversation in western hunting is having some dangerous consequences.

Defining a Trophy

The term trophy hunting is used by most to refer to a type of hunting that is aimed at killing an animal for something other than meat; whether that be antlers, ivory, or a simple boost of the ego. Although this agreeable, and rather uncontroversial, use of the term may be the first that comes to mind, the actual definition of what constitutes an animal as a trophy makes the phrase much more malleable and subject to an unnecessary amount of debate.

According to Merriam-Webster the word trophy, in this context, is defined as: "a game animal or fish suitable for mounting as a trophy". As even a non-hunter can recognize, this definition is dangerously vague and incredibly subjective, as any animal that is hunted could be considered a trophy should the individual deem it worthy of display. As I sit to write this article, for example, a fan of wild turkey feathers sits above my desk. Does this mount make me a trophy hunter? According to this definition- yes. Should buying a hamburger while wearing a leather jacket constitute the same designation- perhaps also yes.

To a reasonable person, however, the answer to both of these questions is no, though the answer may be very different if I was sitting below the antlers of a moose or ordering my Big Mac in a jacket made from buckskin. The reason for these discrepancies largely comes from our association of certain animals with food. In the case of my wild turkey mount, very few would find the display offensive as it is rather easy to imagine that I ate the bird rather than simply plucked its feathers. This attitude significantly changes, however, when the animal involved is less associated with food, most notably bears and big cats.

These less commonly eaten animals, as well as many others (as you will see soon), are often lumped into the category of trophy due to their lack of place on most kitchen tables. Whether out of malice or ignorance, lumping these species into trophy categories simply because they are not a mainstream food source has been effectively used by animal rights activists to rally blind support from uninformed urban dwellers and has begun to give these groups a loud and supported voice in the banning of some of our most long-standing and scientifically supported hunts.

Weaponizing the Term

In changing the definition of Trophy Hunting from “hunting without retaining meat” to “hunting animals that are not commonly regarded as meat”, animal rights activists have begun gaining serious traction in using the term to muster support from both the public and their politicians.

As I covered at length in a previous article, one of the most recent examples of this shift in definition occurred just last year in the state of New Jersey. In 2020, New Jersey’s Governor, Phil Muphy, announced that, despite pleading advice from the scientific community, he would end the state’s long-standing Black Bear hunt should he be reelected; which he since has. Although the state is known to contain one of the healthiest Black Bear populations in the country, the notion has been met with significant support, primarily from the state’s urban population. One of the key reasons for this support was due to the rhetoric of the hunt’s opposition when discussing it with the public, labelling bear hunting as trophy hunting as frequently as possible to fuel outrage from their uninformed audience. This was highlighted most notably when former state senator and opponent of the hunt, Ray Lesniak, was asked about bear hunting in his state, to which he said: “Most bear hunters are trophy hunters. I’ve never been to a restaurant that served bear.” (see video here). Not only did this comment highlight the general public’s attitude towards the hunt, but showed the ignorance of some its leading officials as the selling of game meat, of any kind, has been illegal in the United States since the days of market hunting, as has the failure to retain meat from a hunted bear.

In Canada, animal rights activists, with the help of celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, used the same strategy to pressure the NDP government into banning the Grizzly Bear hunt despite overwhelming scientific support arguing against the ban. Since then, opposition to Cougar hunting has used a similar approach, claiming that:

“I realize in today’s society that there are idiots that will say cougars are worth eating but we all know that is more about celebrity status and feeding an ego than anything else.” (Beth Warlow, Kelowna Daily Courier)

Despite the absurdity and ignorance in comments these comments (cougars are both very edible and in great enough numbers to be hunted), the province’s NDP government cowered once again and banned the Pursuit-Only Cougar season in 2020. As of 2021, the remainder of the Cougar season is up for debate, joining Black Bear, Sheep, Lynx, Bobcat, and Elk on the docket to soon be classified as trophy hunts.

Defending “Trophy” Hunting

As mentioned at the start of the article, trophy hunting has been historically defined as “hunting without retaining meat” and has only recently begun its transformation. In its original definition, trophy hunting quite literally has no place in the modern-day hunting conversation in North America, as it has been illegal to not retain the meat of a hunted big game animal for nearly a century.

Even with this law in place, however, many non-hunters still see hunters’ lust for big antlers and large paws as a product of a trophy hunting mentality, which can often make them question the integrity of North America’s system of hunting ethics. While, in the age of Grip-and-Grin photography and endless internet outrage, I am sympathetic to this view of the modern hunting landscape, the reason why hunters select for larger and more mature animals has deep roots in conservation, not ego.

If meat truly was the only purpose of hunting, many hunters would spend their time targeting young and female animals and very little time waiting on mature males. In the case of deer, this was, indeed, the case for generations and our wildlife populations suffered accordingly, with fewer females reaching reproductive age and the average age of male animals remaining exceedingly low. As government agencies began to pay closer attention to wildlife management, however, particularly in the mid-1900s, the connection between healthy animal populations and selective harvest became clear.

One of the ways that governments began enforcing selective harvest was by implementing antler point restrictions. Since antlers are the most predictable indicator of a buck’s age, these restrictions force hunters to take larger and more mature animals while allowing young males to develop and further grow the population. These restrictions have not only helped steady deer populations and balance sex ratios but have also created the “let em go, let em grow” culture that we now see across North American hunting.

In turkey hunting, where there are no age restrictions, for example, the majority of hunters will still pass on young male turkeys in hopes of harvesting larger ones. Whether this is ego-driven or a conservation effort is known only by the hunter, however, the results are the same- mature birds are taken and young ones live to fight another year. This season, for example, I passed up on two juvenile male turkeys in hopes that I would get a chance at a larger male later in the season. This decision was not based on meat, as these turkeys would have provided plenty; nor trophy, as the size of turkey feathers impress only a rare few; but rather to keep the turkey populations in my area as healthy as possible.

The turkey I ended up taking was roughly four years old, a seasoned veteran in the turkey world as they seldom live past the age of five. If I had instead taken the younger bird I had seen earlier in the season, this old turkey would still likely have met his end during the winter as his days of outrunning coyotes, owls, and wolves are long behind him. This is a conscious effort that the majority of hunters make when hunting a wide variety of game animals and, while it may result in larger mounts and more impressive photos, the roots of these decisions, whether the hunter knows it or not, are often based in science, not showmanship.

In Summary

While hunters in North America likely agree with the pushback against trophy hunting in its purest form (hunting without retaining meat), the twisting of its definition by animal rights activists and the way it has been weaponized against North American hunting should have us thinking twice about giving it a place in the conversation. For hunters, this means removing it from our collective vocabulary and shutting it down whenever it is associated with the hunts we take part in. When it is not our hunts that are being targeted, such as the bear hunt in New Jersey, it is similarly important to stand up against the labelling of scientifically-backed hunts as trophy hunts as they are quickly setting precedents for how animal rights groups can successfully remove hunting seasons without the hurdle of consultation. As we are now seeing this formula used in British Columbia, we are much closer, as Canadians, than we have ever been to losing our hunting seasons and now is a better time than ever to push back against the “death by a thousand cuts” approach to activism that has been slowly chipping away at our right to hunt.

If you are a BC resident or simply looking to get involved, check out the Wild Sheep Society’s website for more information on the future of their hunts and ways in which you can help before these hunts are lost for good.

For a more in-depth look at how trophy hunting designations are being used to eliminate hunting seasons, check out my previous article: Emotion over Science: How “Trophy Hunting” Designations are Closing Hunting Seasons