This is in regards to Andrew's letter to the editor in the fall issue of African Hunting Gazette. I hate to see this type of disloyalty among the ranks of hunters. His quotes about hunting  with dogs ("to disadvantage the chase of any animal with dogs - leopard, cheetah or bongo - is despicable") and (" I also consider the use of artificial light as unethical"), (" It is my opinion that no animals taken by being pursued by dogs should be recorded in any of the trophy record books") really disturbed me.  
I know he has brought it up on this forum before, but African Hunting Gazette ends up in waiting rooms worldwide.
 
I don't own any handguns, but I would loyally defend handgun owners in any forum. It's my duty.
 
I don't own any military style black guns, but I would defend them.  It's my duty.
 
In my own hometown, our newspaper outdoor editor of 25 years started bashing the hunting of wolves, making statements like "any hunter that would shoot a wolf isn't really a hunter and is a disgrace to the sport". Well, I started a campaign against him and he retired within a month.
 
In my own state, we lost the right to use dogs for bear, bobcat and cougar hunting. Some waterfowl, upland bird and big game hunters actually supported this. We lost that right and will never get it back. Now the antis are just focusing on some other area of our sport. We didn't stand together and lost.
 
When a well known person that has access to the media breaks rank and starts badmouthing areas of our sport, the damage can become irreparable.
 
 

Andrew is a well respected PH who is also a good guy and a proper gentleman, he's entitled to his opinions the same as the rest of us.

Would it also be your duty to defend those who choose to run down animals and shoot them from cruisers or helicopters? Extreme analogy, I know, but I am sure that you grasp my point. There are differing opinions amongst hunters as to what constitutes "fair chase".

quote:

Originally posted by Cane Rat:
Andrew is a well respected PH who is also a good guy and a proper gentleman, he's entitled to his opinions the same as the rest of us.

Would it also be your duty to defend those who choose to run down animals and shoot them from cruisers or helicopters? Extreme analogy, I know, but I am sure that you grasp my point. There are differing opinions amongst hunters as to what constitutes "fair chase".

Who gets to decide for all of us what the definition of "fair chase" is?

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:

quote:

Originally posted by Cane Rat:
Andrew is a well respected PH who is also a good guy and a proper gentleman, he's entitled to his opinions the same as the rest of us.

Would it also be your duty to defend those who choose to run down animals and shoot them from cruisers or helicopters? Extreme analogy, I know, but I am sure that you grasp my point. There are differing opinions amongst hunters as to what constitutes "fair chase".

Who gets to decide for all of us what the definition of "fair chase" is?

No one that I know of, only opinions being expressed. However, I think it is ridiculous to accuse a man who happens to hold very traditionalist views, in regard to sport hunting, and who has also spent his life as a successful PH of somehow being guilty of "disloyalty among the ranks of hunters".

i thought traditionally that the British hunted all manner of game in east Africa with dogs, including lion.so how is his view a traditional one? it is simply his viewpoint( to which he is entitled). and no, i don't see any comparison between hunting from a chopper and using dogs to bay a game animal. where i grew up in south Georgia in the 60's, ALL deer hunting was done with shotguns and dogs. unsporting? i don't think so.

That's exactly my point. " a well known and respected PH". That letter to the editor will be in the hands of every group out there to ban the use of artificial light and the use of dogs. When that happens, we all lose

quote:

Originally posted by Dog Man:
That's exactly my point. " a well known and respected PH". That letter to the editor will be in the hands of every group out there to ban the use of artificial light and the use of dogs. When that happens, we all lose

Dog Man,
I feel that which makes us lose is, when we as sportsmen care what a group that will use any and all tactics to acheive said goal thinks of us.

Your argument is the same one Obama uses, we better not piss off the terrorist or they might get mad at us.

As Cane states, shall we defend shooting from cruisers because it is legal in some countries? where should the defence start and where should it end. Healthy debate is always good.

We will never ever no matter what we do short of stopping hunting make the anti-hunting community pleased. They will incrementally kill our passion.

Steve

Andrew can have his opinion, just like everyone one of us.

But, I think going as far as writing letters to a sport hunting magazine to ram his own thoughts down everyone throat is wrong.

Agreed,

when you become well known (won't say important, because if you think you are important try telling my dog what to do) enough that anybody really cares what you say; what you say for attribution can be taken out of context and used against you.

Tom Horn got hanged for saying something that was taken out of context and used in court to against him.

How does this sound in the next issue of the PETA magazine or press release? "Legendary African PH Andrew Baldry stated in a recent magazine article that 'to disadvantage the chase of any animal with dogs-Leopard, Cheetah, or Bongo is despicable and I also consider the use of artificial light as unethical'. It is my opinion that no animals taken by being pursued by dogs should be recorded in any of the trophy record books'.".
We add to this photos of a soggy leopard being savaged by a pack of dogs at the base of a tree.

There, I like that quote even better than the original.

regards,

Rich
DRSS

Well then, why don't we have a meeting with those good folks over at Peta and Greenpenis and those Dummies on that lame anti-whaling show. We can see what kind of hunting they would prefer and that way we don't need to worry to much about pissing anybody off.

Oh and Rich, they may not like double rifles with telescopic sights so that will need to come off as well.

Point is WE stand together or HANG seperatly.

Andrews points may not be to popular to put in a hunting magazine but somebody who has been a PH of merit for many years has the experience and wisdom to make statements we as tourist hunters are not equipped to make.

My hats off to a man as Rich once put it "Will hold his mud" I think was the term.

Steve

i actually like the fact, that andrew voices his oppinion, and his oppinions is not allways PC which i really like about him.

on his stand about dogs, well that is his stand and he proberly has reasons for that, i have never hunted anything in africa with dogs so i wouldent have a clue about weather it is good or not, i use dogs here in DK for pretty much anything i do, so i would love to have andrew here for a bit of the season to hunt with the dogs for comparison.

As long as he keeps being as eloquent in writing as he is, he should keep it going at full speed.

best

peter

quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:
I never hunted anything in africa with dogs so i wouldent have a clue about weather it is good or not, i use dogs here in DK for pretty much anything i do

peter

People think that animals in Africa are different. I promise, hunting a hog in Zimbabwe with dogs are the same as hunting a hog in Romania. (With the exception of habitat).

Baiting bears are not allowed in Sweden but hunting them with dogs is, the difference between me and you Andrew is that I have no problems with trying new hunting methods actually I LOVE all methods of hunting - baiting, calling, dogs, tracking etc !!

One thing I really would love to know is have you ever hunted a leopard with dogs ? IF you have what did you not like ? Ihavent read your article in ASG and perhaps you could put it up here on AR also ?

@Chipo and Drook what have heli/cruiser hunting to do with doghunting ? Is hunting leopard with bait the same as "internet hunting" ? After all you just sit there and wait ?

Craig Boddingtons view on dog hunting

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:

quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:
I never hunted anything in africa with dogs so i wouldent have a clue about weather it is good or not, i use dogs here in DK for pretty much anything i do

peter

People think that animals in Africa are different. I promise, hunting a hog in Zimbabwe with dogs are the same as hunting a hog in Romania. (With the exception of habitat).

anton

i do think there are quite a few differences between hunting with dogs, i for one are not to impressed with the large spanish hunts where large packs of dogs are let lose to push and sometimes destroy wildgame, what i like about hunting with dogs are the work of a well trained dog or dogs. the points and the tracking work gives me a lot of good times out hunting, but then again there are states in the us where you are not allowed to use a dog for blood tracking.

i am sure that andrew will be posting on this when he is back from the bush, but he made his oppinions quite clear on a fewe treads here some time ago.

best

peter



One thing I really would love to know is have you ever hunted a leopard with dogs ? IF you have what did you not like ? Ihavent read your article in ASG and perhaps you could put it up here on AR also ?
[/QUOTE]

OK I should had written a good trained dog/dogs and a PRO doghandler.

As I understand you will be hunting with Baldry this year ? It sure will be interesting campfires

I have to support every writer's free speech and, though it may be controversial, what is the point of a writer if he seeks not to say anything that some readers may disagree with. He may as well write advertising copy.

Being quoted out of context is always a risk but you have to defend yourself when it happens.

There are some hunting practices that I respect and wish to take part in, others which I do neither and some I downright dislike. If I discuss these with others, both hunters and non-hunters, the debate may change my mind or the mind of others.

Not to have any debate is not helpful and shows fear of our own ability to defend our practices.

Personally, I believe shooting from a helicopter unworthy of a hunter but perhaps entertaining when carried out by pest controllers. The distinction between a game animal and vermin control is a key consideration here.

Essentially we all have personal opinions and should be unafraid to voice them anywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:
OK I should had written a good trained dog/dogs and a PRO doghandler.

As I understand you will be hunting with Baldry this year ? It sure will be interesting campfires

Im sure it will be a lot of fun, and i am counting the days allready, i will also be delivering a few of my new C-class doubles while i am down there, it seems that it is cheaper to hand deliver them, than sending them with transport company's.
getting back to africa really is occupying my mind way to much at the moment

best

peter

quote:

When a well known person that has access to the media breaks rank and starts badmouthing areas of our sport, the damage can become irreparable.

What "rank" is Andrew? For that matter, what "rank" am I? Who do I need to contact to find my position so I know when I can and can't speak my mind? And while we are at it, what organization am I organized in? Man, I have a blast on this forum, but sometimes some of you are a bunch of bitches. I hunt for personal reasons, because I enjoy it, and I typically enjoy it most when I am alone. I don't give 2 squirts of piss for what Andrew or anyone else thinks about the way I hunt. And I doubt that Andrew gives 2 squirts of piss about that. So in closing, stop your whining and go hunting.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if the discussion is "which is better," I'll trust the opinion of someone who's tried both, versus the opinion of someone who's tried one and loudly decries the other.

I've hunted leopard and bear over bait. I've also hunted bear, bobcat and coons with hounds.

What I find really interesting is that out of the people I know who have actually hunted big game with hounds and hunted over bait, none of them would consider hunting over bait to be any more "sporting." If anything, most people who have actually tried it both ways would tell you that hunting with dogs is much more difficult and the success rate is often less. Neither method is 100%.

Personally, I find sitting over a bait to be a really boring way to hunt. The only really interesting part to me is the baiting process itself. But, in some situations it's the only effective way to hunt. And boring or not, it's a method I'll employ in the future when the situation calls for it. The same goes with using dogs.

Whether you love hunting with hounds or hate it, or love baiting or hate it, I can tell you one thing. Thinking that either method of hunting will effect the opinions of non-hunters in a negative way more than the other is complete delusion. From the outside (and uninformed) view, neither method seems very sporting.

When I tell the average non-hunter that I'm going on a spot and stalk hunt (and explain what that means) they overwhelmingly think it's pretty cool. When I tell them that I'm going to be hunting over bait or with hounds, I typically get the same look that I get when I tell them that I shot a giraffe....

I don't think anyone on this forum is going to change their opinion on this subject based on any argument put forth by somebody else. But I will call bullshit on anyone who claims that hunting leopards or any other big game animal with dogs makes hunters as a group look worse than hunting over bait.

Pete

quote:

But I'm not sure I grasp how isolating factions of our hunting community is "standing together".

It's no different than fighting within a family, If an outside faction tries to intervene they will furiously fight together as a unit. I also find it interesting that this was posted while the entire forum knows Andrew is in the bush for another week or so.

Steve

quote:

I also find it interesting that this was posted while the entire forum knows Andrew is in the bush for another week or so.

How would the entire forum know what Andrew is up to?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

I also find it interesting that this was posted while the entire forum knows Andrew is in the bush for another week or so.

How would the entire forum know what Andrew is up to?

Second post from the bottom

http://forums.accuratereloadin...831052731#8831052731

Steve

I know that, just wondered what made you think everyone on the forum is following Andrews posts.

I dunno, Does that make me a stalker of sorts?


Steve

I happen to disagree with Andrew about the propriety of hunting with dogs.

I see it as a fine and even noble hunting tradition.

But I certainly wouldn't suggest to him that he censor his remarks for fear of his audience.

I would simply point out to him, as I have before on this subject, that he is mistaken.

I take my hat off to Andrew for nailing his colours to the mast, so to speak.

I happen to agree with him on the point of hunting animals with hounds, but my personal opinion is that it is acceptable to use hounds for hunting animals that have been deemed to be "problem" animals e.g. man or cattle killer lion or leopard.

Ethics are relative to an individual. What is acceptable to one person or situation may be unacceptable to another.

An example of this is that it would be frowned upon to sit in a hide over a water- or food-trough and shoot animals that come in to drink or feed, using a rifle, but it is considered acceptable to do so using a bow.

I think most of us would agree that the use of artificial light is unethical? I have heard n individual (admittedly, he was anti hunting) express his opinion that using a spotlight is (in his opinion) the most ethical way of hunting as a quick clean kill is almost guaranteed. As a non-hunter, he missed the boat completely, but it does give an example of how an ethical view point can be argued.

No one makes the rules, but out of this cauldron of individual ethics we form a moral code that sets s standard by which we practise our sport. I think it is healthy for individuals to question this standard on a continued basis.

With regards to the issue of publishing such a letter in the ASG, and the potential damage that it could do to our sport; My personal view is that the many photos in that publication (in any given month) of a hunter with a leopard draped over his shoulders, are potentially more damning than any letter that questions the ethics of fellow hunters.

quote:

Who gets to decide for all of us what the definition of "fair chase" is?



No one that I know of, only opinions being expressed. However, I think it is ridiculous to accuse a man who happens to hold very traditionalist views, in regard to sport hunting, and who has also spent his life as a successful PH of somehow being guilty of "disloyalty among the ranks of hunters".

I am not entitled to an opinion on this subject, not having hunted cats with dogs or by baiting. I had the pleasure of sharing a campfire and supper with Andrew in Richard Bell Cross' south camp on the Kafue River two weeks ago. Both PHs are intelligent, focused, and dedicated to traditional hunting. Both are straight up guys.

I enter this debate with mixed emotions. Andrew and I have already crossed swords on this issue and have put it to bed so to speak.

First let me say that I am an avid hound man and come from a long family tree of hound men. I actually consider hunting leopard, or bear, or moutain lion, or raccoon, or...more sporting than baiting...but that is my opinion just like Andrew has his...opposing opinions.

Just like Saeed said though...writing a vehemently scathing article about a "long-accepted style" of hunting and then publishing it where it can be referenced over & over time & time again by those who wish to abolish "ALL" hunting is definitely NOT helpful.

But...with that said...I will defend his "right " to say it with my life.

Will just have to give him a sound verbal debate hiding over a camfire one day!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

I also find it interesting that this was posted while the entire forum knows Andrew is in the bush for another week or so.

How would the entire forum know what Andrew is up to?

I keep up with Fairgame's wanderings a bit. And...I did NOT remember he was in the bush right now sir. I am sure Dog Man was NOT being calculating.

i have made 2 baited and 1 hunt with dogs for leopard so i can speak with at least the viewpoint of experience. if you want hours of boredom with a possibility of a shot, by all means sit in a blind. if you want rapid paced excitement, likely ending in a charge, use dogs. your money, your choice. bushwack them from a blind or chase them.

There is no perfect or correct answer really, sufice to say each one to his own, or as they say about a pretty woman !! It is in the eye of the beholder ..

Now over here in NZ some small amount of alpine hunters use helecopters to hunt, some do it on foot ... BOTH are legal so what say you

Cheers, Peter

The only issue I see with hunting with dogs is the quotas set. Because it is a much higher success rate than the othr styles of hunting the quotas and number of permits issued for these hunts need to be much less than the other type of permits. Up untill now there really wasnt a distinction made. From a conservation point of view it only makes sense. I know I will hear some whining about how that isnt fair and why should one group be allowed more than another. Also it will drive up the prices of the most successful and most limited hunts. People being people they will also be drawn to the most productive style. I can hear the howling about all of that already. Still, from a quota system it makes sense that the number of permits are weighted according to the success of the hunts.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
The only issue I see with hunting with dogs is the quotas set. Because it is a much higher success rate than the othr styles of hunting the quotas and number of permits issued for these hunts need to be much less than the other type of permits. Up untill now there really wasnt a distinction made. From a conservation point of view it only makes sense. I know I will hear some whining about how that isnt fair and why should one group be allowed more than another. Also it will drive up the prices of the most successful and most limited hunts. People being people they will also be drawn to the most productive style. I can hear the howling about all of that already. Still, from a quota system it makes sense that the number of permits are weighted according to the success of the hunts.

OK, I'll be the dummy here and ask the stupid question, since I have never hunted leopard.

First of all I'd like to say that I like Andrew and respect his opinions.

Question: If someone like Andrew is against using dogs AND artificial light, then they would be against the methods used to hunt 98% of the leopards being hunted today, would they not?

So how else would you hunt leopard? You surely don't come across many leopard during daylight, and I can't imagine that trying to "stalk" them would yield any results. So how would you do it? I suppose a few leopards are shot off bait during early morning natural light or evening natural light, but not very many, right? If you banned the use of dogs and artificial light (hunting over bait at night), the two main methods being used today, I imagine the success rate on leopard would plummet to almost nothing.

I'm just asking because I really don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by Molepolole:
OK, I'll be the dummy here and ask the stupid question, since I have never hunted leopard.

First of all I'd like to say that I like Andrew and respect his opinions.

Question: If someone like Andrew is against using dogs AND artificial light, then they would be against the methods used to hunt 98% of the leopards being hunted today, would they not?

So how else would you hunt leopard? You surely don't come across many leopard during daylight, and I can't imagine that trying to "stalk" them would yield any results. So how would you do it? I suppose a few leopards are shot off bait during early morning natural light or evening natural light, but not very many, right? If you banned the use of dogs and artificial light (hunting over bait at night), the two main methods being used today, I imagine the success rate on leopard would plummet to almost nothing.

I'm just asking because I really don't know.

With the caveat that I've never hunted leopard, part of the answer is regional. In heavily ranched country leopards are "educated" and getting one on a bait during daylight hours is next to impossible. So these tend to be the areas using artificial light and dogs.

On my last hunt my PH told me about one of the Old School PH's telling him that baits and dogs were unethical, and that a tracking hunt was th real way to hunt leopards.

Mike Smith, I agree with you 100% that establishing the right quotas is the key. That is the key for all sustainable hunting (or fishing, for that matter) of wildlife.

Molepolole, more leopard are shot from blinds over a bait hung in a tree than by any other method. They are generally shot at dawn or dusk.

Night and dog hunting are exceptions to the rule, primarily because they are illegal in many places where leopard are hunted.

Everyone seems to have a view on this subject..

Charl Grobbelaar (In defense of baiting cats)


Mark Butcher ( Hunting leopards with hounds)

Craig Boddington (In defense of hound hunting)

quote:

Originally posted by Molepolole:
OK, I'll be the dummy here and ask the stupid question, since I have never hunted leopard.

First of all I'd like to say that I like Andrew and respect his opinions.

Question: If someone like Andrew is against using dogs AND artificial light, then they would be against the methods used to hunt 98% of the leopards being hunted today, would they not?

So how else would you hunt leopard? You surely don't come across many leopard during daylight, and I can't imagine that trying to "stalk" them would yield any results. So how would you do it? I suppose a few leopards are shot off bait during early morning natural light or evening natural light, but not very many, right? If you banned the use of dogs and artificial light (hunting over bait at night), the two main methods being used today, I imagine the success rate on leopard would plummet to almost nothing.

I'm just asking because I really don't know.

Every leopard shot in Tanzania is "technically" shot during daylight hours without artifical light. I say "technically" because that is the law but not everyone follows it

There are on average 200+ leopards a 6 month season taken by sport hunters in Tanzania in all kind sof areas, including those with a high human population!

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Mike Smith, I agree with you 100% that establishing the right quotas is the key. That is the key for all sustainable hunting (or fishing, for that matter) of wildlife.

Molepolole, more leopard are shot from blinds over a bait hung in a tree than by any other method. They are generally shot at dawn or dusk.

Night and dog hunting are exceptions to the rule, primarily because they are illegal in many places where leopard are hunted.

+1

Slightly off topic:

We can no longer hunt deer in Texas with dogs; but here it really came down to property ownership as the crossing of boundary lines was quite typical.

Chaps,

I used to write articles for AGS and did compile the Zambian chapters for the AGS Safari Hunting Guide. I fell out with the publisher regarding their advertising of De Klerk canned Lions and the hunting of Leopard with dogs. Richard (Dick) Lendrum pulled my subscription.

This correspondence was private or so I thought?

I have said my piece regarding Leopard and hounds and the debate here was much more constructive than the verbal abuse I took from the above Dick.

andrew

welcome back, i hope you had a good trip

cheers

peter