quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
the Zim training for PH's weeds out the unethical.

The above statement is not correct.

There have been a number of Zimbabwe professional hunters who have been nothing but crooks!

You have been lucky, as many of us have, for hunting with decent people.

quote:

Originally posted by ijl:
Very true. You cannot "train" anyone to be ethical.

The ZPHGA goes a long way toward trying to maintain ethical behaviour, but membership in ZPHGA/SOAZ is not a pre-requisite to becoming a licensed PH, so many professionals are not members.

In the end, it comes down to what an individual is prepared to accept as right or wrong if it's not quantified by law.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
the Zim training for PH's weeds out the unethical.

The above statement is not correct.

There have been a number of Zimbabwe professional hunters who have been nothing but crooks!

You have been lucky, as many of us have, for hunting with decent people.

quote:

Those that have shot Ele's, and we all know, that if you can get close to check the potential tusk weight, you can see a collar, don't care what anyone says.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

Originally posted by Baker458:
I drew a CA Desert Bighorn permit in 2009. During the mandatory orientation class, the biologist explained to us that there were several mature rams that had collars and said:

"If you see a big ram with a radio collar, it is perfectly fine to take that ram. Just please pack the collar out and return it to me. And be aware, sometimes the hair under the collar is rubbed off."
And that's in CALIFORNIA for God's sake. By ANYONE'S estimation, the most politically correct state that even HAS a Desert Bighorn!

Where is the “Like” button! The purpose of collaring an animal is to study its life and habits and movement AND it’s mortality. So if an animal is killed by a hunter that is a valuable piece of data for a long term study.

quote:

From ZPHGA:

Dear members
After an amicable meeting with Martin Pieters, he has been issued with a FINAL WARNING for the shooting of a 2nd Animal of Significance.
Further he was given an Immediate SUSPENSION pending further investigations and an appeal by him. Ref. Section . 7 a) of the constitution.

7) MISCONDUCT OF MEMBERS:

If any member in the opinion of the Executive Committee:-
a) Is guilty of improper or dishonest conduct unbecoming or prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the Association.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanna:

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

Originally posted by Baker458:
I drew a CA Desert Bighorn permit in 2009. During the mandatory orientation class, the biologist explained to us that there were several mature rams that had collars and said:

"If you see a big ram with a radio collar, it is perfectly fine to take that ram. Just please pack the collar out and return it to me. And be aware, sometimes the hair under the collar is rubbed off."
And that's in CALIFORNIA for God's sake. By ANYONE'S estimation, the most politically correct state that even HAS a Desert Bighorn!

Where is the “Like” button! The purpose of collaring an animal is to study its life and habits and movement AND it’s mortality. So if an animal is killed by a hunter that is a valuable piece of data for a long term study.

100% agree. I had a large but young leopard on bait in the Bubye several years ago. He was collared, and the English researcher conducting the study informed us that the collar shouldn't be a factor in determining whether to take the cat (aside from the hair rub issue), as the data from hunting offtake was part of the studied ecosystem. (the cat was too young, and we elected not to take him anyway)

quote:

Originally posted by 375er:
I just happened upon this thread and recalled a Capstick story of hunter named Barry Brooks back in the early 1960's. The hunter came upon a very large tusked bull. Eventually as they closed in for the shot, Brooks unloaded his double rifle, took aim and pulled the trigger twice. Then spent time photographing the bull and walked away. In this era, should we all be considering this in all our pursuits given the climate change and effect on wildlife?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

And that Bal is really the point. Call it ethics, call it good judgment, call it acting responsibly . . . or call it not doing something that stinks . . . the point is that the public will tolerate a lot but not behavour that stinks. Shooting a second collared elephant, and shooting it in an area adjacent to a national park, then claiming, like you did on the first collared elephant that you just could not see the collar, just stinks. Shooting pen raised lions that are released and hunted within hours or days of being released, just stinks. And when we try to defend the actions on the basis that they are legal, the public concludes that we stink too.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

And that Bal is really the point. Call it ethics, call it good judgment, call it acting responsibly . . . or call it not doing something that stinks . . . the point is that the public will tolerate a lot but not behavour that stinks. Shooting a second collared elephant, and shooting it in an area adjacent to a national park, then claiming, like you did on the first collared elephant that you just could not see the collar, just stinks. Shooting pen raised lions that are released and hunted within hours or days of being released, just stinks. And when we try to defend the actions on the basis that they are legal, the public concludes that we stink too.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

And that Bal is really the point. Call it ethics, call it good judgment, call it acting responsibly . . . or call it not doing something that stinks . . . the point is that the public will tolerate a lot but not behavour that stinks. Shooting a second collared elephant, and shooting it in an area adjacent to a national park, then claiming, like you did on the first collared elephant that you just could not see the collar, just stinks. Shooting pen raised lions that are released and hunted within hours or days of being released, just stinks. And when we try to defend the actions on the basis that they are legal, the public concludes that we stink too.

I wonder how bad the public thinks we stink for shooting pregnant female elephants?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

And that Bal is really the point. Call it ethics, call it good judgment, call it acting responsibly . . . or call it not doing something that stinks . . . the point is that the public will tolerate a lot but not behavour that stinks. Shooting a second collared elephant, and shooting it in an area adjacent to a national park, then claiming, like you did on the first collared elephant that you just could not see the collar, just stinks. Shooting pen raised lions that are released and hunted within hours or days of being released, just stinks. And when we try to defend the actions on the basis that they are legal, the public concludes that we stink too.

I wonder how bad the public thinks we stink for shooting pregnant female elephants?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

And that Bal is really the point. Call it ethics, call it good judgment, call it acting responsibly . . . or call it not doing something that stinks . . . the point is that the public will tolerate a lot but not behavour that stinks. Shooting a second collared elephant, and shooting it in an area adjacent to a national park, then claiming, like you did on the first collared elephant that you just could not see the collar, just stinks. Shooting pen raised lions that are released and hunted within hours or days of being released, just stinks. And when we try to defend the actions on the basis that they are legal, the public concludes that we stink too.

I wonder how bad the public thinks we stink for shooting pregnant female elephants?

I have no problem defending the conservation benefits of hunting female animals, elephant, lion, elk . . . does . . . and I would far rather defend that practice to the public versus either of the practices mentioned. The reality is that there is not any general public outcry over shooting does or cows, in fact, what limited noise there is on shooting does and cows generally comes from other hunters. In terms of public outcry over shooting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions, that seems to be another story . . . the public gets upset and the hunters are fine with it. Sort of ironic.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:
In Africa anything can be made legal as this was done, but the stench is overpowering

And that Bal is really the point. Call it ethics, call it good judgment, call it acting responsibly . . . or call it not doing something that stinks . . . the point is that the public will tolerate a lot but not behavour that stinks. Shooting a second collared elephant, and shooting it in an area adjacent to a national park, then claiming, like you did on the first collared elephant that you just could not see the collar, just stinks. Shooting pen raised lions that are released and hunted within hours or days of being released, just stinks. And when we try to defend the actions on the basis that they are legal, the public concludes that we stink too.

I wonder how bad the public thinks we stink for shooting pregnant female elephants?

I have no problem defending the conservation benefits of hunting female animals, elephant, lion, elk . . . does . . . and I would far rather defend that practice to the public versus either of the practices mentioned. The reality is that there is not any general public outcry over shooting does or cows, in fact, what limited noise there is on shooting does and cows generally comes from other hunters. In terms of public outcry over shooting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions, that seems to be another story . . . the public gets upset and the hunters are fine with it. Sort of ironic.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So . . . does hunting female animals not have any conservation benefits? Of course it does. Like I said, the public apparently understands the distinction between hunting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions versus hunting female animals . . . and apparently so does ZPHGA . . . it is some hunters that do not appreciate the distinction it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

If the public became more aware you were shooting pregnant female elephants and were in an uproar over it, would you stop hunting cow elephants?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

If the public became more aware you were shooting pregnant female elephants and were in an uproar over it, would you stop hunting cow elephants?

Of course. Why would anyone persist in an activity that is widely condemned by a broad cross section of the public? We adapt our behaviors constantly in the face of changing public perceptions and evolving views of right and wrong. I do not have to be told that something is illegal for me to understand that I need to stop doing it. I would, however, have no problem or hesitation defending the practice of hunting female animals on the basis of the conservation benefits associated with doing so. I cannot say the same for the practice of pen raised lion hunting or hunting collared animals along national park boundaries. If you can, that is your prerogative.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Like I said, the public apparently understands the distinction between hunting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions versus hunting female animals

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is no mistaking that across Africa elephant numbers have decreased alarmingly. This includes some historical hunting areas.

In my mind hunting cow elephant creates the following concerns:

1) shooting cows in herds is accepted as making those herd animals more aggressive. In places in Zimbabwe this would lend itself to those herd animals having more human conflict and more animals (cows) are shot on PAC.

2) cow elephant never go through menopause. They either have a calf in some state of dependency, are pregnant, or capable of being pregnant. Thus, to kill a cow is to kill a breeder. Do we need as many vreeders as we can get?

Ultimately, science based information is what should, and I hope does, determine whether cows should be on quota for a given concession in a host nation. If professional biologists tell me this area has X number of elephant, and the carrying capacity is this number, and this is the ecological damage being done by this z number of too many elephant, then quota should be issued. The general public would be apathetic, but not damning to such science.

The concession holder and host nation should have some voice in what those numbers are. However, those numbers would have to be verified independently by professional scientist, the US Government, and CIITES.

The result would be some concessions it would be against conservation to issue cow quota or shoot cows unnecessarily. In others quota should be issued.

The fact remains that no independent, scientific information is readily available to support or defend issuance of a cow quota. Those studies and like studies for lion are we're our money for hunting conservation needs to go. The PR side of it is to distribute that information. Yes, when such studies say folks the math does not justify to killing as it is being done now for a given area. Instead of decrying greenie science we need to recalibrate what we are doing.

Posters on this this thread have been hostile to the intentions of the Frankfurt group. Frankfurt group has been very polite in this controversy to hunting upto this point. I appreciate them for that. We aligenate these folks at our own risk.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is no mistaking that across Africa elephant numbers have decreased alarmingly. This includes some historical hunting areas.

In my mind hunting cow elephant creates the following concerns:

1) shooting cows in herds is accepted as making those herd animals more aggressive. In places in Zimbabwe this would lend itself to those herd animals having more human conflict and more animals (cows) are shot on PAC.

2) cow elephant never go through menopause. They either have a calf in some state of dependency, are pregnant, or capable of being pregnant. Thus, to kill a cow is to kill a breeder. Do we need as many vreeders as we can get?

Ultimately, science based information is what should, and I hope does, determine whether cows should be on quota for a given concession in a host nation. If professional biologists tell me this area has X number of elephant, and the carrying capacity is this number, and this is the ecological damage being done by this z number of too many elephant, then quota should be issued. The general public would be apathetic, but not damning to such science.

The concession holder and host nation should have some voice in what those numbers are. However, those numbers would have to be verified independently by professional scientist, the US Government, and CIITES.

The result would be some concessions it would be against conservation to issue cow quota or shoot cows unnecessarily. In others quota should be issued.

The fact remains that no independent, scientific information is readily available to support or defend issuance of a cow quota. Those studies and like studies for lion are we're our money for hunting conservation needs to go. The PR side of it is to distribute that information. Yes, when such studies say folks the math does not justify to killing as it is being done now for a given area. Instead of decrying greenie science we need to recalibrate what we are doing.

Posters on this this thread have been hostile to the intentions of the Frankfurt group. Frankfurt group has been very polite in this controversy to hunting upto this point. I appreciate them for that. We aligenate these folks at our own risk.

Zimbabwe's elephant population is roughly double the carrying capacity of the country based up what the experts think. Some of the experts openly advocate large scale culling due to the damage being done.

Conservation isn't just about a single species.

With double the carrying capacity of the country, why wouldn't cows be shot? It makes the most sense.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.