In the first of the three postings about hunting in South Africa I have elaborated on Gerhard Damm’s definition of Put & Take. Then I mined a bit into the meaning of phrase “natural interacting” in the Confederation of Hunting Associations of South Africa’s definition of fair chase hunting. In the third I led a long discussion about ethics. This ended with a plea for members to tell where and how beginner hunters should be taught about ethics. Now I want to use this posting to educate potential clients who wish to hunt in South Africa – many for a first time – about one [my own] view of the ethics of Put & Take shooting. I well know that many clients who come to South Africa for a first time are very experienced hunters in their own countries. But here in South Africa they are “beginners” who may need some guidance on our hunting ethics. My own personal view is given here, but I’m not saying that my view is correct. Nor is this the only view. I’m also not prescribing that you should even read my view. There are naturally many other views about the same subject. Feel free to post your own views here. I wish to also make it perfectly clear that I do not have any mandate to imply that I am empowered to speak on behalf of anyone else, let alone being a spokesperson for the Professional Hunters of South Africa. It is purely my personal view, developed during more than three decades of hunting on high fenced and free range farms, which is given here.

Please see this message as an attempt to honestly help educate you about some aspects of plains game behaviour and the ethical hunting of such animals. I do this because if there is one thing that I really detest [hate may be a better word] then it is the misleading of clients into thinking that they have ethically hunted a trophy while they in fact murdered a bewildered trophy made available by Put & Take practising hunting outfitters! I will go on record again that I’m not trying to put a stop to Put & Take operations – such an endeavour is doomed to failure. I’m trying to educate and warn prospective clients of such Put & Take practising hunting outfitters about what to expect. I’m sort of telling you how things are done in Rome, so that if you don’t like that way you know to go elsewhere to avoid disappointment. I know there are some hunting outfitters who honestly and openly tell their clients that “the males of xyz species on this farm are all auction bought trophies”. I have no objection and will never try to influence any client to decide to not hunt a xyz trophy on that area. The full disclosure of all facts that can have an influence on how a client may feel about the ethics of the situation is one of the foundation stones on which my sense of decent treatment of hunting clients is based.

Please note that this requirement of full disclosure of facts is not only my idea, it is indeed included into the Code of Ethics of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa. I quote from PHASA’s Code of Ethics: • shall not misrepresent himself to clients or mislead clients in any way;


OK The scenario of animal behaviour is on a high fenced game farm that is well managed so that, except during severe drought conditions, there is always enough food for all the species kept in the enclosure. There is also enough space for the spatial needs, the social interaction and territorial needs of the animals. This really means that there is trophy hunting, but even some females are culled from time to time to ensure that long periods of hunger and food shortages is not a driving force in the animal behaviour. We are not talking about a small enclosure in which fair chase hunting is not possible, but a well managed big game farm.

The first truth of animal behaviour that I wish to explore a bit is that plains game animals hardly ever move! If there is no external disturbance and enough food at wherever they are they will graze/browse their fill and at most move to a shaded area to rest up during midday while chewing the cud. Then they will move to the nearest water, drink and go to the closest grazing/browsing area. On a well managed game farm where there are many watering points and ample grazing or browsing close to the water a herd of plains game animals will hardly ever move other than between the water and the closest grazing or browsing and resting area.

Are there any exceptions to this "rule"? Yes, the territorial males do regular territory border patrols! But the males that are dominant and with the females or the males in the bull or ram herd hardly ever move anywhere except between known watering points and grazing or resting areas. Animals that have been in a given game farm since birth know the watering points and grazing areas and use the shortest and easiest route to get from one to the other. It is quite true that neither grazers nor browsers feed in exactly the same area day after day. They do move the preferred feeding area a bit every day, and so naturally “rest” the grass to allow re-growth.

Now you can imagine how a PH would hunt for a trophy in such a scenario as I have described above. Depending on the time of the day, he would go to the area where he last saw the animals feeding or resting or going to the water and really expect to find them in close proximity to where he last saw them at about the same time of the day. A good PH will possibly drive his client to near such an area, then park the vehicle and approach the specific place on foot, moving against the wind while keeping a sharp lookout for the animals.

What is the most likely thing that will alert him and his trackers to spot the game? Movement! In bush area it is almost always the movement of any animal that is seen first by a hunter searching for something to hunt. Because animals move around the absolute minimum, hunting is difficult! You simply seldom see an animal if he remains perfectly still standing in a bushveld area. But when he moves even an inexperienced watchful eye picks up the movement in a flash. Then, once the movement has been seen the rest of the hunting is relatively easy! Exciting, yes, but relatively easy, and particularly if you have seen the animal(s) first without it/them becoming aware of your presence.

The lack of movement in plains game animals that are well adapted to a fenced area which they know well is in stark contrast to that of a trophy animal that has just been released into the area. A bit of background to where such auction bought trophy animals come from may be in order. There are many large and small game farms in South Africa where the owners are “greenies” who do not allow hunting. In some cases there are other considerations why no, or only very limited, hunting is allowed. Naturally the game numbers have to then be controlled by methods other than hunting. Night culling with lamps and sound moderated rifles is one such non-hunting option. Live game capture, is a preferred option for many green and or anti hunting game farm owners, and it is therefore a big industry in South Africa.

Typical game capture operations cannot really separate the target animals into age and sex groups. Mostly a large portion of the total population present in one section of a farm is rounded up by helicopter and chased into the trap to be caught. These are then transported to the game capturers holding bomas or holding pens. Here the animals are divided into groups or “packages” for sale. The sale price is often determined by private negotiation, but in many instances a live game auction is held. Buyers are invited to an auction and they bid competitively on the “parcels”. Breeding groups, typically consisting of many more females and a few young breeding age males, are sold to newly established game farms. The older surplus males are separated and sold mostly to Put & Take hunting outfitters. It is true that a few such trophy males are sold the game farmers who wish to “introduce new genetics” into their herds. These are then often marked with a brightly coloured plastic ear tag so that they can be easily identified and not shot by hunters. It is quite true that the time that the caught game are kept in the bomas is limited to the minimum to reduce chances of stress induced mortality and reduce feeding costs and care. It can however be quite a number of days that the captured animals remain in the bomas, before they are again loaded into specially equipped game transport trucks and delivered to the buyer’s property.

Often, before the final transport a trophy animal is injected with what is known in the animal capture business as Vitamin K – any one of a whole range of potent tranquilizers that calms the animals down during transport. The reduced injuries and stress induced losses of such tranquilised animals during transport more than offsets the odd losses by incorrect use or dosage of the drugs. On offloading I have seen trophy animals sedately walk out of the truck and walk around in the immediate vicinity or the truck and people as if in a daze. It takes some time, shorter or longer, depending on which drug and dose was used, and many other irrelevant factors before the tranquilizer is worn off and the animal is again fully alert.

Imagine what an animal feels as soon as the tranquilizer has worn off. He is now fully awake and alert. May I just warn that I’m not talking about an animal that is still half or in any significant way still under the influence of a tranquilizer – that would be a canned shoot – which is not even under discussion here. We are talking about an animal that has fully recovered from the tranquilizer that may, or may not even have been used during the transport.

The first thing that he will realize is: I do not have a clue about where I am! His actions, although the motive for action will be influenced by his former status in the area on which he was captured, will all involve some unnatural movement! Before being captured he could have been one of three things: (i) A dominant herd male or (ii) an individual in the bachelor herd or (iii) a territory holding male. Whatever he was in his previous environment, he is now lost! He does not know where his harem is, or where his bachelor herd mates are or where his territory is. So, whatever he was, he is now going to search for what he misses so much.

How does such an animal search? By movement – going somewhere, even without knowing where that somewhere is. It is this same movement that makes him easy to be seen by a hunter. To just touch on the former posting in this series: I quote this sentence: A recreationally hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual of a wild sustainable population, located in an area that meets both the spatial (territory and home range) and temporal (food, breeding and basic needs) requirements of the population of which that individual is a member. Do you really and honestly consider this movement by a misplaced trophy animal as natural interacting?

But that is not the only movement he makes: He also does not know where there is water to drink. Nor where he can graze, or browse, or where he can rest up and chew the cud in the heat of the day. He does not know where to go to in order to get shelter from a bitterly cold wind. He has to search for these places too, and in his searching he moves around a lot. This movement is again in stark contrast to the minimum movement that a trophy animal of the same species who already knows the area since birth will make. Do you really think you can convince yourself that such movement is part of natural interacting ? I think that this movement can only be described as an un-natural movement as a result of the translocation of the animal.

Consider for a moment the option the poor misplaced and totally lost beast has when he gets to a high multi-strand game proof fence? If the fence is approached obliquely, he is likely to simply continue walking along the fence. What will he do if he was going “somewhere” beyond the fence and he actually approaches the fence at right angles? Poor guy, he has to turn left or right, and move in a direction he did not want to go to in the first place. Not that he could have actually know well why he was moving in that direction in the first place! Again I ask: Natural interacting? To really complicate matters may I add that some [not many but definitely at least some] trophy animals are captured on free range properties and their first acquaintance with a high fence is made after their release. Now kudu readily jump over a normal stock fence. They know: When you get to a fence, you simply jump over. But now he reached a very high multi-strand fence, and, following what he knows from where he came from, he repeatedly attempts to jump over the high fence too. Sometimes they actually succeed, not jumping clear over, but jumping into and then falling through – usually with some broken strands of wire. But a few gets through/over. Many other species readily crawl through or underneath the typical 5 or 6 strands of stock fencing. But the typical 22 or more strands of tight high tension steel wire mostly frustrate their crawl out efforts. They end up walking endlessly up and down along the fence. Again I ask: Natural interacting? By no means!

But are these movements driven by seeking to find their bachelor herd buddies, his territory or his harem, or the feeding areas, safe areas for midday chewing the cud and watering points the only un-natural movement by such a recently released into a new area? No. He does not have a clue on which territory-holding male’s territory he is at any moment in time. He often gets viciously or simply by “vicious posturing” attacked by a territory holding male. He has no option to run away blindly! Need I again ask, do you really think that animals who know the area well have to often flee from the attack of a territory holding male! They jolly well know where the big, strong and dominant males have their territories, and avoid trespassing there. Is the running away by the lost newly introduced individual part of a natural interacting? Most definitely not!

It is all this movement that makes him such an easy target for a hunter. But in every instance I have argued that this movement is not a part of a “natural interacting”, of that individual in his new environment. As the requirement for “natural interacting” is part of the CHASA definition of fair chase – a pre-requisite for ethical hunting – it follows logically that such an animal cannot be ethically hunted. The frequent un-natural movement makes such a Put & Take animal so easy to spot that in my book you cannot call it a "hunt" it! Shooting such an animal is merely a "killing". It’s movement – that made you spot him in the first instance – was unnatural, it was thus not fair chase, and hence it cannot be ethical!

Please note that it is not Andrew McLaren that says it is unethical! I have only measured the situation against the CHASA definitions and found that the situation does not conform to the requirements for fair chase. If you do not agree with my findings, please motivate where I’m wrong!

But look at yet another aspect of the definition of fair chase hunting. Can such a recently released and still definitely not yet integrated into the social network of the resident population be described as a “member” to meet this part or the requirement for fair chase hunting; “…..of the population of which that individual is a member.”? Sure, once delivered on the farm, he is on the farm. But is he a true member of the farm’s population?

I simply hate the blatant lies, and lies by neglecting to disclose the facts, that so many Put & Take hunting outfitters tell their unsuspecting clients. Sure, the client has great success in killing a lot of trophies in a short time. The hunting outfitter gets tremendous praise for the easy hunting and 10 SCI Gold Medal trophies in 5 days of looking for something to kill [note I do not call it 5 days of hunting!] that he offers. It is mostly specifically the less wise of those lying hunting outfitters that so vehemently attack me if I post anything about ethics of Put & Take killing!

I invite every one of you to re-read a few of the posting in response to the threads that I have started and you will soon see who is guilty! But remember where I said that these Put & Take practising hunting outfitters come in two types: (i) Those that wisely keep quiet when they realize that my posting is a treat to their money making schemes, and (ii) others. In re-reading the old posts you will only become aware of the “others” who think they can scare me off by insulting and giving me un-asked for advice! The wise ones who keeps quiet are much more difficult to identify! They are not wise for knowing when to keep their mouths shut, they are also wise in “covering their false tracks!”

If it does not offend your sense of what constitutes ethical hunting to shoot an animal that was captured somewhere, taken to a boma, was auctioned off, maybe kept in a boma some more and eventually transported and released shortly before you arrive for your hunt, then by all means enjoy your time in South Africa without any further thought to Put & Take. I will never condemn you for doing what you wish to do and pay for yourself. It is entirely your decision! No skin off my back at all!

If, however you are at least in some doubt about the ethics of such a shoot, then please follow my advice and find out more, and explore your own thoughts about what is and what is not ethical some more. I’m not telling you about ethics here – only giving the advise that one should not do something if you are not quite sure if it fits your own sense of ethics! Find out more until you are sure one way or another whether you mind shooting something as a hunted trophy that was on the back of a cattle transport truck a few days ago! If after finding out more you are still unsure, do ask people like bwana cecil and 465H&H who wants to steer clear of Put & Take hunting, why they say so. If you are then still unsure I advise that you rather play it safe and steer clear of any form of Put & Take shooting. It is here where I’d like to say that I do hope that the 4 postings together have convinced some that a Put & Take animal cannot be ethically hunted!

In the next few postings I hope to give some guidance on actions that a true hunter who wishes to steer clear of any form of Put & Take shooting can take to ensure that he does not get suckered into shooting what is in effect a Put & Take trophy. In the meantime I invite you to re-read the postings by hunting outfitters who are so critical to my postings and decide where you think they fit into the classification of either Put & Take or Not Put & Take hunting outfitters.

In good hunting.

Andrew, I use my own ethics, and my own definition of ethics, not CHASA's.

If I pay for a put and take I expect to be given a put and take.

Andrew,

Your argument is not much different from that of "how long is s piece of string".

You have your own ethics, and you are trying to convert all of us to follow them.

It is not going to happen, as each of us has his own ethics, and if we are going to stretch a point, hunting behind a fence is not very ethical either.

So by extension, we should avoid hunting in all the farms in South Africa.

How about going a step further.

Using scopes on rifles is not very ethical either.

We should all use open sights.

No, no hang on a minute.

Using rifles is not very ethical, use a bow and arrow etc etc...

There is a discussion going on on teh Australian and New Zealand Hunting Forum.

A visiting hunter went over there and hunted from a helicopter. A practice which is used by some outfitters and hunters.

Others object to this form of hunting, and took the hunter to task for posting his hunt report.

They are putting the blame on the visiting hunter, totally forgetting that what he did was a legal hunt.

They don't like it, so they are going to make sure he stops enjoying his memories.

eth·ic/ˈɛθɪk/noun
plural eth·ics


1 [count] : rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad
▪ the Protestant/Puritan ethic— usually plural ▪ legal/medical ethics▪ government/journalistic/professional ethics▪ His ethics are questionable. [=some of the things he does may be morally wrong]▪ The company has its own code of ethics. [=its own set of rules about good and bad behavior]

2ethics [noncount] : an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong
▪ Ethics is his chosen field of study.

3 [count] : a belief that something is very important — usually singular ▪ a peace ethic▪ People here have a strong work ethic. [=a strong belief in the importance and value of work]

I may be way off base here, if so it is because of my own Personal view on the whole concept.

Business ethics/Politicals ethics, while debateable are more clearly defined or applied than hunting ethics.

The majority of our game laws, especially the ones that have been in existance for long periods of time were derived from what were originally ethical concepts.

They were formulated when the world was younger and people were better able to define right and wrong and there was not as much grey area in the world.

Increases in human population, decreasers in available hunting areas and advances in technology have all worked in concert, even though it was not done intentionally, to blur the lines/concepts of ethics and legalities.

Hunting ethics are individual, and always will be as long as humans are humans and hunting is legal, and, that is something that will not change.

No one that I know of purposely wants more unenforceable laws enacted, but cajoling/co-erceing or whatever a person wants to call it, to stop a particular behavior, simply because it does not fit in with THEIR concept of ethical vs. unethical, ranks right in there with finding chickens that have teeth or pigs that have wings and fly.

I hold no ones ethics against them, as long as what they are doing is legal in the eyes of the law.

Myself, I deal strictly with situational ethics when hunting. There are situations where I have no trouble "Doing As The Romans Do", but if I feel strongly enough about it, I will express my thoughts and not participate, even though it is perfectly legal.

We also have to take into consideration, that not everyone was born with or developed the exact same ethical concepts.

Since this is a free society and a freer forum, Andrew has every right to express his opinion on what he thinks is ethical behavior and to try to convert you to his opinion. You on the other hand have every right to reject his opinion and to convince him that yours is more correct. Lets not resort to telling someone what they can and can not say on this forum.

465H&H

Andrew, on the smaller game ranches I hunted with in South Africa went to the game auctions in September. They did not hunt those animals until the following season, late April, or May. This I feel gives the new animal plenty of time to learn it's new area.

Introducing new animals to an area helps to strengthen the genetics of the herd. It is also one of the main tools a rancher has to prevent depleating his game population.

I feel we need these smaller operations. Without them the competition is gone, and there is nothing to keep the prices reasonable.

The 1990s and first decade of the Twentyfirst century are the only time in history that an average person can fullfill the dream of hunting in Africa. Let's not go back to the good old days when only the wealthy can experiance the beauty of Africa.

quote:

I feel we need these smaller operations. Without them the competition is gone, and there is nothing to keep the prices reasonable.

One way of looking at it.

quote:

Originally posted by venda axe:
Andrew, on the smaller game ranches I hunted with in South Africa went to the game auctions in September. They did not hunt those animals until the following season, late April, or May. This I feel gives the new animal plenty of time to learn it's new area.

Introducing new animals to an area helps to strengthen the genetics of the herd. It is also one of the main tools a rancher has to prevent depleating his game population.

I feel we need these smaller operations. Without them the competition is gone, and there is nothing to keep the prices reasonable.

The 1990s and first decade of the Twentyfirst century are the only time in history that an average person can fullfill the dream of hunting in Africa. Let's not go back to the good old days when only the wealthy can experiance the beauty of Africa.

In the definition that Gerhard Damm wrote about Put & Take the words ".....killed within a short time after release." are used without any indication of what is meant by a "short time". I do not wish to go into an argument about how long a short time is, but I do know that anyone attempting to accuse your hunting outfitter(s)of Put & Take practices by saying that September to April is "a short time" will have a hard time!

Yes, we need these smaller hunting outfitters! By and large I agree with you that typically the smaller hunting outfitters have the lowest prices. Naturally there are exception, but on average the bigger - the more expensive, and the smaller - the less expensive! BTW, have I mentioned that I'm a very small hunting outfitter!