quote:

Originally posted by Buzz Charlton:
I believe that the Non consumptive guys from the National Parks need to raise the money , identify possible iconic animals, collar them at their expense and then make it law that they cannot be hunted.

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
If the animal was hunted in a fair chase method and was legally killed, then the collar is irrelevant IMO.

Sometimes the hunter gets lucky and the animal screws up. That is part of nature and part of life.

Hunters in the USA killed 100s of geese and ducks that have been collared. No big deal, just part of the sport.

Congratulations to both the hunter and the PH!

JMO

BH63

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

FYI. Since 1960, about 14 million ducks have been banded in the US and Canada, with over 2 million info reports.

By my calculations that would equate to approximately 4% of banded birds taken per year are reported in the USA

Care to come up with a figure for birds flying around between the Middle East and Russia?

quote:

Originally posted by INTREPID SAFARIS:
I did a hunt 2 years ago with a client in one of the APNR reserves that have a open border with the Kruger park, ONE morning hot on the trail of 8 buffalo bulls one of the bulls got taken by lions it must have happened while we where less than 5 minutes behind them, we walk up on it and watch them feed maybe for a hour I had my regular camera man with me, months later we were sitting editing hunts of the season and that clip came up, to our big surprise we noticed one of the female lions had a collar on we only saw it 3 months after the hunt while editing, nether me my client anyone of the trackers or the APNRs representative noticed it while we were watching them feeding on that buffalo... we ended up shooting a big buff out of that same group couple hours later what a memorable hunt!! however months later watching that footage it dawned on me how Easily a mistake can be made on collared animals and this was a female lion not even a male. I am sure in 90% of the cases if a collared animal is shot it is a honest mistake. The last thing on my mind watching those cats feed was looking for a collared lion...

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Where is the accountability in this group? Some blatant accusations were made here that have now been directly controverted by those actually present. Will the poster of these accusations defend the statements or correct them and apologize to those accused and misinformed?

quote:

The sad thing here was that Frankurt Zoological knew where he was and called the hunters to ask them not to shoot him.

quote:

Frankfort Zoological manages Gonarezhou. They knew the ele was in the hunting block from his tracking collar coordinates. Someone from the park made comms with the camp and let them know...hoping with that knowledge they would look close for a collar and let the collared ele walk.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I will just make this one last statement. I am in the same camp as Saeed. I would not shoot a collared ele...especially not today.

The PH I hunt with feels the same but I won’t speak for him. I also feel reasonably sure that in that situation he would be looking for a collar and note it if it were there.

The above are my own personal ethical believes.

The rub that affects us all is this: If the Zim guys want the US market back in entirety...it will mean reversing the import suspensions.

I can assure you 100% guaranteed that shooting this bull and like...is 100 steps backwards in reversing those suspensions. The anti lobbying orgs are POWERFUL. At this particular time...this shoot was the shot-in-the-arm they wanted and they will exploit it.

We ourselves are going to have to change tactics or we will become a chapter in history sooner rather than later.

quote:

If 14 million ducks banded with 2 million returns = 14% rate, not 4%. Sleep thru math class? Info from USFWS bird band lab. Have no idea about Mid East returns.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz Charlton:
Make the fine on a collared animal $20 000 to the Ph and make the trophy Non exportable. In that way the fine is certainly a serious blow for any PH and if a PH should have a client with no scruples he would not be tempted to pay the fine plus a little " bonus" as he would not get the trophy anyway.

quote:

Hi Brad,
I am pretty confident in my statements. While at this point due to negativity created by the event that will be adverse to hunting and reversing the ivory import suspension...I am happy to let this die...if push comes to shove...I will share how I know what I stated is true.

Again, would rather just let it die.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM
Hunter/Conservationist

quote:

No one was aware of the collared elephant in the concession.
No one and I repeat no one reported the elephant to the camp and or the PH and or the operator, in fact the management of FZS who run the park knew the bull had been active in the hunting area for over a month by its GPS collar and refrained or decided not to inform the hunting company despite having comms daily with the safari operator and having a national parks ranger with a radio from their unit on the vehicle.

quote:

....He was not informed of any collared elephant in the communal area although this bull had been mostly resident in the area since the 20th February this year.....Current finding: After interviewing the PH in charge of the safari and communications with authorities from Gonarezhou, it is unfortunate that neither the PH, Ranger or RDC representative where notified by the Authorities that the collored bull had been in the hunting area since the 20th of February, nor had any of them attempted to establish if a bull of significance was in or near the hunting area. The EXCO concludes that, while a tragedy, based on information provided by the PH, the Gonarezhou ranger and the authorities in Gonarezhou this was a genuine mistake due to a lack of communication.

quote:

FACT 1-
FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY KNEW THE WHERE ABOUTS OF THE SAID BULL BUT DID NOT WARN THE OPERATOR/PH THAT IT WAS IN THE HUNTING AREA - THERE IS A LETTER FROM THE FZS CONFIRMING THIS.
FACT 4/
NATIONAL PARKS INCLUDING THE FZS HAVE DONE THIER INVESTIGATIONS AND CLEARED MP OF ANY WRONG DOING.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Lane,
I have received "the truth" from you:

quote:

Hi Brad,
I am pretty confident in my statements. While at this point due to negativity created by the event that will be adverse to hunting and reversing the ivory import suspension...I am happy to let this die...if push comes to shove...I will share how I know what I stated is true.

Again, would rather just let it die.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM
Hunter/Conservationist

Lane,
Since your accusations the following has been posted on the same topic:

By the operator on the hunt "Martin Pieters":

quote:

No one was aware of the collared elephant in the concession.
No one and I repeat no one reported the elephant to the camp and or the PH and or the operator, in fact the management of FZS who run the park knew the bull had been active in the hunting area for over a month by its GPS collar and refrained or decided not to inform the hunting company despite having comms daily with the safari operator and having a national parks ranger with a radio from their unit on the vehicle.

By the ZPHGA:

quote:

....He was not informed of any collared elephant in the communal area although this bull had been mostly resident in the area since the 20th February this year.....Current finding: After interviewing the PH in charge of the safari and communications with authorities from Gonarezhou, it is unfortunate that neither the PH, Ranger or RDC representative where notified by the Authorities that the collored bull had been in the hunting area since the 20th of February, nor had any of them attempted to establish if a bull of significance was in or near the hunting area. The EXCO concludes that, while a tragedy, based on information provided by the PH, the Gonarezhou ranger and the authorities in Gonarezhou this was a genuine mistake due to a lack of communication.

By Buzz Charlton Quoting Frankfort Zoological Society:

quote:

FACT 1-
FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY KNEW THE WHERE ABOUTS OF THE SAID BULL BUT DID NOT WARN THE OPERATOR/PH THAT IT WAS IN THE HUNTING AREA - THERE IS A LETTER FROM THE FZS CONFIRMING THIS.
FACT 4/
NATIONAL PARKS INCLUDING THE FZS HAVE DONE THIER INVESTIGATIONS AND CLEARED MP OF ANY WRONG DOING.

It seems to me the time for a PM was when you made the accusations if all of the above is true and your "information" is incorrect. These are more than salacious accusations if untrue. If the statements of Martin Pieters, ZPHGA and Buzz Charlton are true, you are literally breaking the 9th commandment. If they are being disingenuous, they are enabling the further destruction of the cause everyone here is discussing.
You did not post your accusations on a PM, so please do not hide their now. I did not join a PM in this discussion, so I will not either. I am interested in hearing your further comments....

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz Charlton:
Make the fine on a collared animal $20 000 to the Ph and make the trophy Non exportable. In that way the fine is certainly a serious blow for any PH and if a PH should have a client with no scruples he would not be tempted to pay the fine plus a little " bonus" as he would not get the trophy anyway.

quote:

Happy Saturday afternoon folks and whilst it may be old news to some who're on FB a lot this might be news to others who aren't...

On Thursday last week ZPHGA had an emergency meeting to discuss the recent shooting of a collared bull on the 7th March in a hunting concession bordering Gonarezhou by Martin Pieters.

They have produced a statement which is hugely disappointing to say the very least considering that this is not the first time he has shot a collared animal.

In 2010 he shot one of Matusadona's iconic bulls the Musango Bull and at the time if memory serves me correctly he was either incoming or outgoing Chairman of ZPHGA!

If memory serves me further he claimed not to have seen the collar because the bush was so thick and basically told everyone to go to hell and that he did nothing illegal.

This is the same excuse being used once again and is bringing the entire hunting industry into disrepute and is not great publicity for Gonarezhou or Zimbabwe.

Had he shot an iconic elephant such as Boswell in Mana there'd be a huge outcry from guides and operators there but the fact that there are so few operators in Gonarezhou means there are fewer people to make a fuss.

Fact # 1: At great cost the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust have collared a couple of big tuskers in the park and have notified the surrounding hunting concessionaires that whilst there was no legal basis to prevent these animals from being shot that the collars would be a deterrent as it would be unethical to shoot them. This was the primary purpose of the collars as they specifically chose those with big ivory. If the elephants moved out of the park then it was never their intention to herd them back in as previous research showed that they cover big distances and from time to time move out of the park.

Fact # 2: The concessionaire (Lloyd Yateman - another operator with dubious ethical credentials) where this elephant was shot failed to communicate this information to Martin Pieters or at least that's what has been claimed. Several other hunters in the past have supposedly seen this elephant and not shot it based on it being collared.

It is not up to the GCT to continually have to monitor each and every collared animal as there is a huge cost attached to this and is why concessionaires are notified that there are collared animals which are off limits to hunting. It is up to them to communicate this to their PHs and it is up to the PH to be 100% certain that an animal is not collared before shooting.

Fact # 3: The GCT cannot legislate laws and it can take years of lobbying to create legally binding instruments which can be enforceable by law. In this case there is no law against the hunting of collared animals so in effect there is no legal recourse.

Legality and ethics are two totally different kettles of fish and just because something isn't illegal should not make it kosher.

The hunting community bemoans the fact that trophy hunting is under scrutiny in Zimbabwe by the rest of the ethical world yet individuals like Martin keep shooting themselves and everyone else in the foot again and again and then blame everything on social media and anti hunters.

I am not anti hunting but I am anti unethical hunting and using the argument of "I did nothing wrong. It was perfectly legal" doesn't carry any weight.

When incidents like this happen the hunting community should be the first to stand up and take action and it is important that ZPHGA's members take a strong stand should they wish to protect an industry coming under pressure as a result of acts such as this.

Their statement that this was a genuine mistake is not acceptable.

All of us, irrespective of whether we are members of ZPHGA or not should stand united in wanting to know 1) What is ZPHGA's official position on the hunting of collared animals and 2) What disciplinary action are they going to take against Martin Pieters and 3) to push Parks for a permanent license revoke for repeated unprofessional conduct that tarnishes Zimbabwe's reputation.

PHASA are going to have a field day with this if no action is taken following ZPGHA's stance on canned lion hunting and it is about to get a LOT of international press coverage.

The statement published by the ZPHGA, herewith attached needs to be challenged by every one of us.

Some very simple solutions to prevent the shooting of animals that should be regarded as a National Heritage were proposed and discussed at length at the 2015 ZPHGA AGM which was held in December whuch was a couple of months after the Malipati Bull was shot.

The AGM was dominated by hunters who had zero interest in any compromise for a proposal that was tabled ie having a maximum trophy size of say 80lbs that can be hunted (much like a minimum size for salmon) and is extremely easy to police and enforce.

The only three non hunters who attended (out of an audience of approx 60 people) were told that non consumptive operators should collar specific animals which would be respected by hunters as being off limits to hunting.

I don't suppose any of this was actually minuted but there was a very drawn out discussion on this and that was the position of those hunters present.

As we have now clearly seen this does not work as several past experiences have shown.

How many times can one bring ones country and industry into disrepute before anyone thinks to lift a finger or speak out against those who are jeopardizing our livelihoods?

Based on Martin Pieters track record of having previously done this without any consequence and if they again do nothing then this makes a total mockery of any integrity that ZPHGA might have and they together with any ethical hunter who does not challenge this is an accomplice to adding another nail to the coffin of trophy hunting.

I implore everyone on this group to take action and individually write to ZPHGA asking what disciplinary action they will be taking and to the DG of parks requesting for his license to be withdrawn.

A strong message that such behaviour will not be tolerated will do a massive amount of good for the industry.

quote:

Originally posted by cow-trader:
Circulating around some us old bullets:

quote:

Happy Saturday afternoon folks and whilst it may be old news to some who're on FB a lot this might be news to others who aren't...

On Thursday last week ZPHGA had an emergency meeting to discuss the recent shooting of a collared bull on the 7th March in a hunting concession bordering Gonarezhou by Martin Pieters.

They have produced a statement which is hugely disappointing to say the very least considering that this is not the first time he has shot a collared animal.

In 2010 he shot one of Matusadona's iconic bulls the Musango Bull and at the time if memory serves me correctly he was either incoming or outgoing Chairman of ZPHGA!

If memory serves me further he claimed not to have seen the collar because the bush was so thick and basically told everyone to go to hell and that he did nothing illegal.

This is the same excuse being used once again and is bringing the entire hunting industry into disrepute and is not great publicity for Gonarezhou or Zimbabwe.

Had he shot an iconic elephant such as Boswell in Mana there'd be a huge outcry from guides and operators there but the fact that there are so few operators in Gonarezhou means there are fewer people to make a fuss.

Fact # 1: At great cost the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust have collared a couple of big tuskers in the park and have notified the surrounding hunting concessionaires that whilst there was no legal basis to prevent these animals from being shot that the collars would be a deterrent as it would be unethical to shoot them. This was the primary purpose of the collars as they specifically chose those with big ivory. If the elephants moved out of the park then it was never their intention to herd them back in as previous research showed that they cover big distances and from time to time move out of the park.

Fact # 2: The concessionaire (Lloyd Yateman - another operator with dubious ethical credentials) where this elephant was shot failed to communicate this information to Martin Pieters or at least that's what has been claimed. Several other hunters in the past have supposedly seen this elephant and not shot it based on it being collared.

It is not up to the GCT to continually have to monitor each and every collared animal as there is a huge cost attached to this and is why concessionaires are notified that there are collared animals which are off limits to hunting. It is up to them to communicate this to their PHs and it is up to the PH to be 100% certain that an animal is not collared before shooting.

Fact # 3: The GCT cannot legislate laws and it can take years of lobbying to create legally binding instruments which can be enforceable by law. In this case there is no law against the hunting of collared animals so in effect there is no legal recourse.

Legality and ethics are two totally different kettles of fish and just because something isn't illegal should not make it kosher.

The hunting community bemoans the fact that trophy hunting is under scrutiny in Zimbabwe by the rest of the ethical world yet individuals like Martin keep shooting themselves and everyone else in the foot again and again and then blame everything on social media and anti hunters.

I am not anti hunting but I am anti unethical hunting and using the argument of "I did nothing wrong. It was perfectly legal" doesn't carry any weight.

When incidents like this happen the hunting community should be the first to stand up and take action and it is important that ZPHGA's members take a strong stand should they wish to protect an industry coming under pressure as a result of acts such as this.

Their statement that this was a genuine mistake is not acceptable.

All of us, irrespective of whether we are members of ZPHGA or not should stand united in wanting to know 1) What is ZPHGA's official position on the hunting of collared animals and 2) What disciplinary action are they going to take against Martin Pieters and 3) to push Parks for a permanent license revoke for repeated unprofessional conduct that tarnishes Zimbabwe's reputation.

PHASA are going to have a field day with this if no action is taken following ZPGHA's stance on canned lion hunting and it is about to get a LOT of international press coverage.

The statement published by the ZPHGA, herewith attached needs to be challenged by every one of us.

Some very simple solutions to prevent the shooting of animals that should be regarded as a National Heritage were proposed and discussed at length at the 2015 ZPHGA AGM which was held in December whuch was a couple of months after the Malipati Bull was shot.

The AGM was dominated by hunters who had zero interest in any compromise for a proposal that was tabled ie having a maximum trophy size of say 80lbs that can be hunted (much like a minimum size for salmon) and is extremely easy to police and enforce.

The only three non hunters who attended (out of an audience of approx 60 people) were told that non consumptive operators should collar specific animals which would be respected by hunters as being off limits to hunting.

I don't suppose any of this was actually minuted but there was a very drawn out discussion on this and that was the position of those hunters present.

As we have now clearly seen this does not work as several past experiences have shown.

How many times can one bring ones country and industry into disrepute before anyone thinks to lift a finger or speak out against those who are jeopardizing our livelihoods?

Based on Martin Pieters track record of having previously done this without any consequence and if they again do nothing then this makes a total mockery of any integrity that ZPHGA might have and they together with any ethical hunter who does not challenge this is an accomplice to adding another nail to the coffin of trophy hunting.

I implore everyone on this group to take action and individually write to ZPHGA asking what disciplinary action they will be taking and to the DG of parks requesting for his license to be withdrawn.

A strong message that such behaviour will not be tolerated will do a massive amount of good for the industry.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz Charlton:
FACTS FROM ZIM ( which seem to be ignored at the moment)

FACT 1-
FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY KNEW THE WHERE ABOUTS OF THE SAID BULL BUT DID NOT WARN THE OPERATOR/PH THAT IT WAS IN THE HUNTING AREA - THERE IS A LETTER FROM THE FZS CONFIRMING THIS.

FACT 2/
IT WAS A LEGAL HUNT

FACT 3/
IT IS LEGAL TO SHOOT A COLLARED ELEPHANT

FACT 4/
NATIONAL PARKS INCLUDING THE FZS HAVE DONE THIER INVESTIGATIONS AND CLEARED MP OF ANY WRONG DOING.

FACT 5/
ZPHGA HAVE WRITTEN A STATEMENT CLEARING MP AND THE OPERATOR OF ANY WRONG DOING

The grey area which we can discuss till we are blue in the face is

1/ Was it ethical
2/ Was MP aware of the collar
3/ Would you shoot a collared elephant.

What I can tell you is at this time of the year it is extremely hard to see a collar. The bush is thick and often the bulls have rolled in mud etc. I do believe it has come at the worst possible time for the negative publicity will have an adverse effect in the whole process of up lifting the ban which I hope is imminent.

quote:

Originally posted by Bud Meadows:
Using the phrase “ethical conduct” and Martin Pieters together is like discussing tall dwarves or short giants- they don’t go together. After the bait-and-switch scam of the Drazen brothers and failure to refund agreed upon overcharges, I just can’t accept his word at face value. Now that it turns out he shot another collared elephant in 2010 and reused the same “I didn’t see the collar” alibi, I believe him as much as I believe Hitlery or Bill Clinton.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

but there is general acceptance that the ethical position is that a hunter will avoid shooting an animal with a collar

A non biased statement from FZS. As Martin has stated it was a mistake and maybe that is how we should leave it and move on.

quote:

Not seeing something before shooting it is a pretty dangerous argument to make...think about that in all contexts.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
As a memeber of the ethics committee, I do not think Marin Pieters has been vindicated. I hope, strongly, with every being hoe so. I will recant, apologize, and delete my post.

However, if his statement is not independently confrimwd that the Outfitter was not made aware this bull have moved in the concession my condemnation stands.

I do not trust M. Pieters. The last time he posted on this Forum, he was switching hunting areas on clients without notice or prior approval.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Lane,
I have received "the truth" from you:

quote:

Hi Brad,
I am pretty confident in my statements. While at this point due to negativity created by the event that will be adverse to hunting and reversing the ivory import suspension...I am happy to let this die...if push comes to shove...I will share how I know what I stated is true.

Again, would rather just let it die.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM
Hunter/Conservationist

Lane,
Since your accusations the following has been posted on the same topic:

By the operator on the hunt "Martin Pieters":

quote:

No one was aware of the collared elephant in the concession.
No one and I repeat no one reported the elephant to the camp and or the PH and or the operator, in fact the management of FZS who run the park knew the bull had been active in the hunting area for over a month by its GPS collar and refrained or decided not to inform the hunting company despite having comms daily with the safari operator and having a national parks ranger with a radio from their unit on the vehicle.

By the ZPHGA:

quote:

....He was not informed of any collared elephant in the communal area although this bull had been mostly resident in the area since the 20th February this year.....Current finding: After interviewing the PH in charge of the safari and communications with authorities from Gonarezhou, it is unfortunate that neither the PH, Ranger or RDC representative where notified by the Authorities that the collored bull had been in the hunting area since the 20th of February, nor had any of them attempted to establish if a bull of significance was in or near the hunting area. The EXCO concludes that, while a tragedy, based on information provided by the PH, the Gonarezhou ranger and the authorities in Gonarezhou this was a genuine mistake due to a lack of communication.

By Buzz Charlton Quoting Frankfort Zoological Society:

quote:

FACT 1-
FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY KNEW THE WHERE ABOUTS OF THE SAID BULL BUT DID NOT WARN THE OPERATOR/PH THAT IT WAS IN THE HUNTING AREA - THERE IS A LETTER FROM THE FZS CONFIRMING THIS.
FACT 4/
NATIONAL PARKS INCLUDING THE FZS HAVE DONE THIER INVESTIGATIONS AND CLEARED MP OF ANY WRONG DOING.

It seems to me the time for a PM was when you made the accusations if all of the above is true and your "information" is incorrect. These are more than salacious accusations if untrue. If the statements of Martin Pieters, ZPHGA and Buzz Charlton are true, you are literally breaking the 9th commandment. If they are being disingenuous, they are enabling the further destruction of the cause everyone here is discussing.
You did not post your accusations on a PM, so please do not hide their now. I did not join a PM in this discussion, so I will not either. I am interested in hearing your further comments....

Brad,
It is in our (hunters) best interest to let this go away at this point...the damage is already done.

Since you are revealing that you are disingenuous enough to make public a polite PM...I certainly don’t care to engage with the likes of you in a public forum monitored by many anti-hunting groups.