1. Welcome to Taxidermy.net, Guest!
    We have put together a brief tutorial to help you with the site, click here to access it.

has anyone ever done a mount this way??

Discussion in 'Bird Taxidermy' started by Bmdz71, Mar 2, 2010.

  1. THE DUCK IN THE BACK CUPPED AND THE ONE IN FRONT FOLDED UP LIKE AFTER IT WAS SHOT.. i was looking around and saw that someone posted this of an idea on some other site.. i think it would look pretty neat!! just currious if anyone has done something like this before? if so pictures would be awsome!!
  2. Impact shots, animals with arrows sticking out of them, or stepping in traps etc. are not usually well received on this forum. I'm sure there are some who would say that it's legal so why not, business is business. Personally I would not do one like that

  3. ducksdoom12

    ducksdoom12 New Member

    whats the differance between a dead mount and a mount with a bird folded just after being shot? ethics wise? i think there exactly the same and it would be a very cool idea.
  4. I have to agree with ducksdoom. I think it would be cool to see, if it was pulled off correctly. It would be tough to find very accurate reference. Now it isn't a mount I would want displayed because like you said delta hunter, it may be received in a wrong sort of way and hurt your business. If it was done as a personal mount for your house or a friend's house it would be different. But definitely not something I would put in a showroom or on the internet.
  5. George

    George The older I get, the better I was.

    Exactly what would you be proving? You could have a fox licking it's ass and I'm sure SOMEONE would think it was "cool" when in fact, it's just stupid. Most people have enough trouble pulling off a good mount using good technique to start screwing around trying to make a bad mount with bad technique. Most "dead mounts" are done CLEANLY so that multiple species that would not normally be i the same mount can fit and can show off the best sides of their plummage. I see nothing of what you're suggesting being anything but grandstanding and giving anti-hunters and people who don't hunt reasons to think badly of us.
  6. George is in a bad mood tonight. Don't worry about him. ;D I want to see it.
  7. George

    George The older I get, the better I was.

    I'm in a good mood. I just suffer fools badly. This idea is common in beginners who haven't a clue as to the dedication and hard work it takes to make a lifetime of work in this industry. Everytime someone like the true artists tries to impart a bit of class on it, all it takes is one person looking to make something "cool" of it to spoil what reputations we've worked for. I can see Frank Newmyer mounting something macabre like that - NOT. The idea behing taxidermy is to put "life" back into the mount, not show the destruction of it. You guys wan't to play with macabre crap, here's the place for you:


  8. Damn, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with George 100%
  9. George,
    i know I'm a beginner and I would not attempt anything like this because I probably could not. I just read it and thought, hey that's different , like someone else said it would be cool if it was pulled off CORRECTLY by a professional. Didn't mean to upset anyone..
  10. I've seen incredible mounts by a Master where birds of prey pulled meat from the bones of upland birds and waterfowl. Of course, these were not flying mounts. The notion of a real time flying kill shot in avian taxidermy is flawed at it's core. It takes everthing we have to create the illusion of life with the dead body's we recieve, now we're supposed to re-animate the unanimated in an unanimated animation!?!?

    That's it...I'm going fishing.....................................................mmmmm.........................Kokanee.....
  11. ducksdoom12

    ducksdoom12 New Member

    george, i can see what you are saying, and being as avid of a hunter as I am, I get pissed off when people do stupid things to make the antis think badly of us, and I have written 2 papers and 1 speach about the topic. I also think, however that the antis are going to be pissed at us even for mounting birds in a life like pose bacause the bird was killed and it has feelings too and all the bull that they try to use against us. mounting a bird in a standard dead mount, life like mount or something out-of-the-ordanary like that is not going to make a difference to them. I would like to emphize, also that I am a beginner and have done just enough mounts to realize the work that it would take to be successfull in this trade and respect the awesome work that all of the pros on here and everywhere do. I just dont see how portraying a bird in a clean kill situation would be anymore "outrageous" then displaying birds hanging from a post in a shadowbox.
  12. alexm

    alexm New Member

    George Your right on the money with this one !!
  13. George

    George The older I get, the better I was.

    duxdoom, you're off the mark. You are correct about the anti-hunting crew and their perceptions but you're off 180 degrees on where your concerns should be.

    I have to keep repeating this but it's based on facts from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and it should be an eye opener to many of you who think this way.

    In America, over 80% of the population DOES NOT HUNT. Since most wildlife decision tend to be politically inclined, that alone should give one cause to stop and reason. Yet of that 80%, over 60% DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT HUNTING, EITHER PRO OR CON. Of that number, over 80% of them can agree with hunting for over population controls and for animals intended for use as food.

    OK, so think about that. The reason hunting is still not being attacked is because of the attitude of a majority of people that either love hunting or have no opinion either pro or con. So why would ANYONE, especially a taxidermist who was going to preserve a replication of wildlife for posterity every consider doing it in a negative light that MIGHT influence those people "without an opinion" to swing over to the other side?

    Atwater's analogy was also off base. Even the animal rights nuts accept the fact that wild carnivores eat wild prey (and some domestic ones). Yet when the intervention of man enters the picture, things quickly go awry. National Geographic has for decades published glossy color pictures of leopards killing baboons, lions killing zebras, and eagles snatching salmon from rivers. Have you ever seen a picture of a guy shooting an elk? I was amazed last year to see them do a spread on hunting that showed dead animals and hunters, but they were stil careful and tasteful in their portrayal.

    When you shoot a deer, there's usually copious amounts of blood, a tongue hanging out of a bloody mouth or a nose dripping mucous and blood. Ultimately there's a gut pile there. Do you intend on mounting a hunter's trophy that way? If the answer is no, then spend a little time thinking as to why.

    I'm sorry if this offends someone (well, maybe a little bit sorry) but it's usually the testosterone filled young and dumb guys who want the "shock effect" of their capabilities. But let them have their sweetheart beside them trying to impress her or their kindergarten child who asks "Daddy, why does that bird have a broken wing and feathers missing" and then see how "cool" you'd feel. Everytime you mount something, it's there for EVERYONE to see and once it's done, there's no changing it. The arrow in the neck? Forever. And with that "forever" goes YOUR NAME for having done it. Tough to build a reputable name for yourself when you're advertising that you're a joke.
  14. George, you make a really good point. My wife's grandma is not for hunting, and I make my living by hunting, fishing, and taxidermy. She has never understood all the hard work and dedication that goes into hunting, but with face to face conversations and education she now understands it and is not against it anymore, but still would not do it herself. She is an amazing artist, but doesn't like to see dead things, but she has sat there and watched me mount a duck from start to finish and was fascinated at the way it could come back to life. She also saw it as an art form and no longer thinks of it as dead stuff once she saw the whole process, but if I had done a mount like talked about earlier her perception would probably been the same as it was before I met her.

    Don't worry het anti hunting views never rubbed off on my wife, my wife blove hunting almost as much as I do and is like a little kid on opening day.


    i agree with george listen to your elders and skybuster what kind of impression are you giving out with a name like that im a waterfowler and skybusters are the lowest form and slob hunters
  16. Raspy

    Raspy New Member

    "skybuster what kind of impression are you giving out with a name like that im a waterfowler and skybusters are the lowest form and slob hunters"

    LOL, I agree. I have just about quit hunting ducks on public wetlands becasue of skybusters :mad:
  17. sorry for interrupting but what is a skybuster? :-X
  18. ducksdoom12

    ducksdoom12 New Member

    a skybuster is a D-bag that shoots at birds in the 80+ yard range and not only ruins the hunt for anyone who is in the area but sends the majority of his birds off crippled to die elseware. they are the biggest reason that hunters get a bad name.

    george. I understand the concept of not persuading the people who dont have an opinion of hunting against it, and the majority of the non-hunters in the US are like that. IF it was pulled off correctly though, i think it would be a different way to show off feathers that are not normally showing on birds, and who said that the feathers have to be broken with blood and guts showing. like Doty-Taxidermy said, its not something you would want to show off in a showroom or website but theres no reason why that kind of pose could not be done it a tastfull way, after all, that is what all (non-skybusting) waterfowl hunters strive for is to see the bird killed mid-air and folded up so that there is no suffering involved.

    NWWINGS Member

    I've been following along on this thread. I agree with ducksdoom that as waterfowl hunters we want to see that folded bird look in the field. I have had that idea brought up to me a few times for a mount by other hunters I know. I like that look while hunting, but have never mounted a bird like that and would talk anyone out of it simply because I don't think it would look good. I would rather see a dead mount. Dead mounts though, like George said, usually have a classy look to them. Most of the time they are too clean and classy to be realistic. I took advice from Skip Skidmore when he judged the OAT competition several years ago. He was critiquing my hanging dead sage grouse pair and asked why I would want to fix the broken wing on one of the birds. He talked about how much better it would look hanging broken and how much more natural that would be for a freshly shot bird. I agreed with him 100% and told him I wanted to keep the wing hanging broken, but thought it might not go over well in a competition. I was still very new to competing at the time. I listened to his advice. I recently mounted a hanging dead pair of pintails and kept the broken wing look. I like this much more and do not feel that this is offensive in any way. I think this has a classy fresh shot bird look to it. Big improvement over most stiff unnatural looking dead mounts like I've done in the past as far as I'm concerned. If this offends someone then they wouldn't want to see a dead mount anyway. I know I am off base from the original topic, but George mentioned an "arrow through the neck" look to a mount. Is this more offensive than an average dead mount? I followed a judge's advice and agreed with that judge before and after the critique.
  20. snowhare

    snowhare New Member


    GR SN