Looking at some articles of hunters with the animals that they successfully hunted, I started wondering why we hunt certain species. Why do we dream of releasing an arrow at a huge this or monster that?
I'm not sure there is a single answer to the question being raised. The fact the responses to this thread are all over the place proves my point. With all the walks of life, the experiences, and the individual goals/ambitions we have surrounding us, it would be nearly impossible to account for the exact cause. And to be honest, I not sure I'd enjoying living on a planet where everyone was cut from the same cloth-or forced to walk one behind another in conformity. I suffice to say, I am glad good folks ask, "Why not?"
Specifically, why do we all dream to hunt a Buffalo or others members of the Big-5? What is it that makes us talk about it around a camp fire? Is it because we want to test ourselves against a dangerous foe? Is it because of the extra adrenalin in our bodies?
I am not sure this is a dream-at least not for me. Dreams are successions of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep. When I hunt the big five, I will be extremely focused on the task at hand. I intend to be fully awake and aware. My muscles will perform the task they were trained to do time in and time out. I yearn the moment hunting the remaining three comes to fruition!
Fritz, let me ask you a question. Why did our ancestors step away from Africa? Why did Charles Lindberg solo across the Atlantic? Why did Neil Armstrong step on the moon? Why did Annie Taylor conquer Niagara Falls in a barrel? Why do we hunts with bows/rifles instead of rocket propelled grenades (I am sure this sort of thing happens)? Obviously, an element of risk was/is involved. Then again, isn't there risk involved with placing your feet on the floor at the start of a new day? I think Mel Gibson said it best in the motion picture Braveheart, "Aï½ll men die, but not every man lives!"
This I do not understand. If the reason is because the animal is potentially dangerous and that it can stomp, bite or gore you to a painful death, then why do we have a PH or someone with a big gun at the ready for just such a possibility?
You can skydive from an airplane without a parachute, but only once. I think the same applies here.
Why is it that we see hunters that have taken a member of the Big-5 or all of them in a different way as the ones that have not?
My father once said, "You can judge a man by his path. If a man's path wanders, that man hasn't a clue where he is going. If a man's path circles a tree, then he (the man) should be able to give you good advice about the tree. If a man's path is deep, straight and ongoing, sit down, shut up, and listen. More than likely, this last man has been there done that. He has found success through failure, and he has lived to tell you about it." I think my father's advice sums it up.
NO.
Have they reached the ultimate in hunting and the rest still have to get there?
I would say perhaps but not necessarily. I know a lot of men who are great hunters with zero desire to hunt the big five.
Why do we always say that you have to work your way up to the Big-5? Who decided on that?
Honestly, I have never heard this.
I have spoken to many hunters over the years and 99% of them said that they will not rest until they have hunted a Buffalo or Lion or Elephant. Why not a Kudu bull or a big blue Eland?
Perhaps you are dealing with a group that has more of the means and the passion to hunt everything. A lion, buffalo, and elephant are part of a natural progression. I only assume...
To hunt a Giraffe with a bow you need a stronger setup than for a Buffalo. A Giraffe is double the size and his skin, bone and muscle tissue is much harder to penetrate with an arrow. Why do we see a Buffalo then as a better trophy than a Giraffe?
I think this is obvious. A buff is without doubt more aggressive. In my experience, walking up to a giraffe verses walking up to a buff are apples to oranges-the former being incredibly easier. Naturally, the proper equipment for each is a given.
If the reason is because of the potential danger and men do have a testosterone problem then I am confused. If you hunt a Buffalo and a suitable rifle is also nearby, then you are preparing for disaster.
I prepare for disaster with every one of life's steps. To walk about willy-nilly is foolish and contrary to survival of the fittest. Are you saying a man is less than a man if he hunts with a parachute?
Besides it being the law and you cannot hunt outside it, why then do we long for it?
I can only speak for myself
It is because my ancestors, in their evolutionary process, failed miserably to make me the size of an ant. I could see my self hunting a different big five with a bow (if I were smaller). That group would include: black widows, scorpions, wasps, mosquitoes, and how fun would it be to tickle an ant lion from his lair? I surmise arrowing rollie-pollies would be a challenge, but not nearly as challenging as tree frogs. If I were the size of an ant, I'd steer clear of anything larger than a lizard. The need to compete (against myself) would be out weighed by the need to survive.
I have seen many wounded Blue Wildebeest turn on a man when wounded. There are cases on record where a wounded Bushbuck or Gemsbok attacked and sometimes even killed a person. What about a huge male Baboon that is wounded and cannot get away from you? Are they less dangerous? I do not think so.
You will get no argument from me.
On a farm near the small town of Mopane close to the Limpopo River a young lady was killed in 2010 by a Giraffe cow. She did not hunt it and neither was the Giraffe wounded or injured in any way prior to the incident. The lady was merely enjoying a walk in nature.
This goes to show, when the Lord calls and it is your time, regardless of a backup rifle, He will send for you. Live every moment like it were your first and last.
These days we all strive to be as ethical as we can while hunting so as not to be frowned upon. If that is the case, then we must not invite danger because we will make sure that the animal we shoot will die fast with as little pain and stress as possible. Why then do hunters want to put people's lives at risk just to fulfil their desire?
I agree and I disagree with your statement. I do strive to be ethical, but life comes with risks. I am not going to sit idle on the porch and watch the world pass because someone thinks there's danger out there! Can you imagine where humanity would be today if everyone failed to take on challenges? A PH and a hunter partner up because they both feel the task can be accomplished. They both willing accept the risks, and they both fulfill their desires if successful. I do not see a problem with this. Who exactly has a gun held to their head?
I like a challenge. I strive to adventure-to see and do it all. I have been told many times, "You won't do that with a bow? I have proved many people wrong (the world isn"t flat as many thought). I push myself to kill number one knowing that someday my number one will be replaced. I pray my children are the hunters doing the replacing. I also pray my grandchildren will replace their parent's number one(s). If this happens, then conservation is working-a continuation of species! How cool is that?
I think that it might be because of the price tag. I might be wrong. To hunt the Big-5 is expensive but people like to attach some un-explained emotions to the hunting of them. For most of the normal hunters out there the cost of such a hunt is more than they can afford. If that is true, why then does a Sable or a Roan Antelope not command the same feelings or respect then?
Personally, I think it does
And yeah, you are not accounting for everything. You will spin your wheels if you try?
Hippo kills more people in Africa every year than all of the Big-5 combined. Why does it not rate in the same category as a Buffalo?
They do in my book.
I personally think that any hunter that has hunted the Tiny-10 has got more (bragging-rights) than someone that bagged the Big-5. That is just my opinion. It is more difficult. The target is a thousand times smaller, they string jump like lightning and it is easier to wound them.
Maybe so, tracking a wounded duiker for two hours at best yields a duiker. Tracking a wounded leopard has the potential of several thousand stitches, a hospital bed, or a coffin. It has been said, "One second with a leopard equals 130 stitches..."
Maybe we are looking for that feeling of adventure of a bygone era. An era where animals roamed free and their numbers were not declining and some were not extinct. Those were also the days where even the dangerous animals did not see us humans as such a big threat as today. The animals can feel the pressure of a declining habitat and human encroachment.
Can we reverse the trend? We as hunters have an obligation to our sport/hobby/career to be as professional and ethical as the times demand. We owe it to ourselves and more so to the animals that we hunt, to put our ego,s away and do the right thing.
Hmmm....
Is someone making this decision for me? I am doing my part to reverse the trend. I also feel I am doing the right thing! My methods include the use of a tape and a little money tossed around here and there-where it is most useful in my opinion.
We must hunt for ourselves and not to impress others. The worst thing we can do is start to compete by killing. I personally think that this is the reason why the anti-hunters cannot/will not understand what we do. The constantly read about trophies. A trophy is something that you win in a competition.
Anti-hunters will question/despise any killing for whatever reason. They are not the people who concern me.
As hunters, we engage in friendly competitions all the time (it is human nature). Who among us hasn't shot the most dove/sand grouse, the biggest buck, etc? The problems arise when we flaunt our craft. The public does not what to see an animal meet its demise. In my opinion, there is nothing glamorous about taking a life, but sometimes it needs to be done. I am very willing to take my turn at the plate-legally and with complete respect for both my prey and those people who grant me the hunting privilege. When I'm finished, I endeavor to put the natural resource to its ultimate use.
A "milestone" is an indicator of distance traveled. What you call a trophy, I call a milestone. I have no problem showing my milestones. I will not compete against another man, but as I've stated, I hope many will go beyond my accomplishments.
For lack of a better word we must continue to use it but we have to be careful in the way that we portray it. There are too many awards that are being competed for. Hunting is not a race. It is an adventure. It is a way of life. It is something we do that makes us a breed apart.
I agree-for the most part. I am racing against myself; I am using every second I can in the limited time I have.
I thoroughly enjoyed your thread Fritz.
i do like hunting other stuff as well 
