I dont know if this has been posted here already...thought it might be of interest.

BBC BIG GAME STORY

"Big game hunting hasn't died out with fears for endangered species, it's just moved to private game reserves. Louis Theroux went to South Africa to try to understand the thrill of paying to kill an animal.

Last year, having made documentaries on high-stakes gambling and extreme plastic surgery, I turned my journalistic sights on another controversial leisure industry: the world of big game hunting in South Africa. Hunting is, if anything, even more polarising than other subjects I've looked at.

Where the strangeness of gambling and plastic surgery lies in the element of self-sabotage - throwing your own money away, making yourself look weird - hunting gives another turn to the screw by putting another sentient creature in harm's way - specifically, that zebra or lion whose pelt would look so nice turned into a pouffe for the front room.

A lifelong city dweller, my ignorance about wildlife in general and hunting in particular was, at the outset, almost complete. For five or six years I was a vegetarian; I don't cook much meat at home and I still get a slightly weird "farmyard feeling" when I take sausages out of the packet and notice that they're all strung together.

As for big game hunting, my ideas - formed by old films and books - were basically that you'd spend weeks tramping through rough country for a glimpse of a kudu, unleash hell with your shotgun, then retire to the tent for six or seven gin-and-tonics. And I had a notion that nowadays most of the big animals were endangered and therefore off limits - no-one actually still went out bagging rhinos and lions, did they?"



More here:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7329425.stm


Cant believe the outfitter allowed this to happen...

Here is the link to click on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7329425.stm

A true piece of "objective" journalism... But, hey, what did you expect??

P.S. I got fired up enough to send them a (email?) comment about the article - I doubt they will include it... But just for posterity, here are my comments:

quote:

An example of completely one-sided and tendentious reporting! Absolutely no attempt has been made to look at the issue from any other point of view than the author's urban background. Is this the type of reporting the BBC stands for (sensationalism above all!)?? Yet, there would have been plenty other angles that would have been interesting to cover, e.g. the fact that game populations in Southern Africa are thriving *because* the game has a value (also for hunting) and is therefore tolerated or even advanced on territory previously holding only livestock. If you are happy to have your prejudice of blood sports confirmed, read no further. If you might be interested in a peek behind the scenes, try reading this article from National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/11/hunters/poole-text.html.

- mike

Unfortunately, this article is accurate, as far as it goes.

It doesn't go far enough, of course.

But as long as we hunters countenance and are unwilling ourselves to condemn the killing of put and take game on small fenced ranches - we can hardly complain, can we?

MR, I see what you are saying, but in reality we only have the information presented to us filtered through and tainted by the eyes of the vegetarian author. At least to me, he does not give the impression of one who intends to present an impartial view of what he experienced. The sentationalist issues (such as astrononomical trophy fees) are reported, but that is about it.

We have to take his word, that the hunting was a done deal - or in our terms "unsporting". But then again, he would report that way, wouldn't he, that seems inevitable in the gist of his story. I have hunted fenced properties, where the result was definitely not a done deal. Yes, a lot of that had to do with the size of the property, but vegetation also played an important role, as well as many other factors. Was that the case here?? I don't know, and the author does not provide me with any information to form an opinion outside that of his own. In any event, we have discussed fenced hunting and what we would consider sporting frequently in the past - good sides and bad.

Is the hunting world populated solely with ethical outfitters and clients?? Certainly not. But neither is the sensationalist view this guy presents a true or full picture. At best it is fragment (correctly reported or not), and makes no attempt to present anything but this fragment. Poor journalism.

- mike

Actually, having been to South Africa, I can understand why he as a non hunter would find the whole thing a paradox..

I don't think he particularly biased either..He goes on to say:

"Simply put, hunters are paying for more and more exotic animals to be kept alive and healthy - which has to be a good thing. There are now more wild animals on private farms in South Africa than in the nature reserves."

Louis Theroux is noted for taking a look at the more quirky aspects of any subject he reports on..I've never had the impression he's try to report them as anything other than "oddities" and within the hunting world, its easy to see how the South African set up qualifies as that..

Like MHO, I doubt they'll publish my response, and also just for posterity, here it is:
________________________________________________
Should all the "notions" of the Anti-hunting brigade be made into policy, the following will be the outcome:
Approximately 9000 game & 15ooo mixed game/stock farms would no longer be able to sustain any game species, as they would be forced into pure stock farming. These farms are probably on average about 2500 acres each. That’s SIXTY MILLION ACRES in South Africa alone.
Stock farming is very marginal in most parts of Africa, and mixed game species are more productive in terms of usage because they are adapted to this habitat.
If hunting were outlawed, the species degradation that would occur in order to make these marginal lands viable for stock or crop farming would be horrendous. Not just major animals, but from bacteria in soil & water, plant diversity, insects, birds, reptiles. The entire habitat would destruct.

But carry on you mindless, self centred, self-admittedly ignorant, and happily well-off and distant, civilised city folk. Do your damage in your ignorance, from your armchairs and computers. Destroy Africa now with your "ethics" like your forebears destroyed it with their greed.
And as for V, the "deer stalker" of the North; You sir are a hypocrite and an ignoramus.
In closing, the only thing really revealing about Mr. Theroux's article is his clear ignorance of the details for such an "investigation" and his bias from the outset.
My e-mail address is weldec@worldonline.co.z
________________________________________________

Ditto's Stephen, I am elated you did post your response, let's see if they can stomach the truth.

Dirk

Pinko-commie, fag, subversive, bleeding heart, liberal, wally wankers... and that is being polite.

Please read my tail pice in the next feb edition of African Hunter on this.

Hi Pete E,

I have been giving your response to this topic some thought, and obviously, as a South African it is not easy for me to view something I have grown up with as an "ODDITY", any more than eating Mopani worms or locusts should seem like an oddity to a Bushman!

I know that there are a large amount of unscrupulous operators on the fringes of the South African safari industry, but wherever big money is in play there are such villains. But frankly speaking, anyone who gets caught by one of these guys these days has only himself to blame; there are huge resources available nowadays to check & cross reference each and every operator, and a foreigner who does not make use of these resources is simply stupid.

This very forum is great an example of such a resource. Then there is the Professional Hunters Association of S.A. which really is doing a wonderful job within their mandate. There are tons of written resources from South Africa and from the client’s own countries. There are also governmental resources (if you have the patience!)

If it’s hunting on “ranch style†rather than open terrain is what you find odd, then please at least realise that (at this stage anyway) South Africa still has well developed and acceptable by developed norms, rights to LAND OWNERSHIP. This means that an individual or partnership can in fact choose to develop his farm land into hunting land. To protect that business decision & option he needs to protect his assets. It would be highly stupid to buy a herd of antelope, whether simple impala or highly priced sable, and just turn them loose with 3 strand cattle fences to “contain†them. Hence enclosed game fenced farms. That this essentially limits the animals range is a necessary “evil†which is best mitigated by this type of “farming†being successful enough that it is viable for much larger tracts to be so fenced, creating a more natural scenario. What size should be the minimum in this instance is a very subjective debate.

In an ideal world we would all be hunting in areas where the natural, free ranging game have precedence over two thirds of the country, but for the time being, the “right†to hunt in such manner lies with those wealthy enough to afford great Tanzanian, Zambezi Valley or Northern Mozambique safaris. South Africa is “lucky†enough to be too developed for such hunting areas to exist, so hunting is largely owned and controlled by a vast amount of private enterprises. It may not be the “perfect†scenario, but I guarantee that for now, it’s probably the safest in terms of species protection. If it remains as such then, at the very least, South Africa should be a secure supply of animals and genetics to repopulate other countries that need it from time to time after political, economic or natural disaster. Zimbabwe could soon be such a case.

Right now where I sit I can get up and drive 20 minutes to go shoot a blesbuck or springbuck for about R500 to R600 ($60 TO $75) in a camp measuring just 200ha (500acres) That might not be a “classic†hunt, but it’s great to know it’s possible. It certainly was not, just 20 years ago. Back then I could have gone to the same guy and bought a slaughter sheep for about 50% more in relative terms.

Thanks Pete, but if the South African scenario is an “oddity†I hope it’s an oddity that lasts a long time still.

Stephen,

I don't think that the entire south afrcan hunting industry was being termed as an oddity. Indeed there are a vast majority of outfits and ranches that are very ethical within the sphere of ranch hunting. That they may not be a purists approach to hunting is an individuals choice bbut that is not to say there are not any substantial issues at play here. The oddities are the individual practices that were shown.

For starters, there is a prevalence of many who want to hunt from the truck. As far as I know this is not allowed in RSA, but of course because of the financial element a rancher wants the animals in the shed to realise their economic value. They are purely a commodity so shooting from the truck happens a lot more than is ever reported.

The only scene of rifle hunting in the programme was of a guy from Ohio who shot at and missed a zebra off of the back of the Backie. As far as any non hunting viewers are concerned that is how it happens all the time. Their oldy worldy view of hunting Africa by tracking on food has been destroyed in half an hours television.

The rest of the hunting was all done from a blind with scoped crossbows. Now I don't bowhunt and I have no problem with those that do, but whatever the weapon of choice if you sit in a blind over a waterhole on a heavily stocked ranch you are in a position to make quite a body count. Especially if you are not too fussy about what you shoot. Those that walk out into the bush on foot armed with a bow I highly commend, as they need incredible levels of fieldcraft to achieve their goal.

The bottom line is that in this instance the programme made no effort to make any field craft apparent in the taking of any of the game animals. There was no demonstration of the use of the meat, only a pile of caped heads on the bloody floor. The enviromental benefits were briefly touched on in the name of "a balanced view". Over all LT's account was false and transparrently so. He made no discernible effort to show a balanced picture.

Some non hunters I work with came to me today to ask me what I thought and I told them. What they saw was not hunting even in the loosest sense of the word. He asked the same question over and over again, unwilling to give the other side of the argument more than minor exposure. He took the worst of the industry and exposed it. Canned lion hunting with no mention of its legality was touched on. The only thing spoken about was the cost of a lion while showing them behind the fence waiting to be fed.

When asked if it was possible to hunt Rhino, the PH replied that he could get you 20 rhino's to shoot tomorrow if you wanated them. Again the fairchase element was not important only the fact that they had bred Rhinos with excessively long horns, (32" I think he said).

Athought the RSA guys on the whole did a good job of covering their arguments, they didn't stand a chance against the editing suite of the BBC. By nature it was always going to take a while to find someone willing to let them film.

But to come back to your point. The reality is that in RSA the dubious practices are (like anywhere else), prevalent. The problem being that they are far more prevalent. As happy as I would be to shoot some Blesbuck on fenced 500acres for $60-75 with you, I cannot in all honesty call it hunting. Culling yes, but not hunting. I'm not saying the opportunity should not exist but it's label should be different to that of sport/fairchase hunting. In fact the opportunity to partake in a springbok cull was something I looked at for my next safari but it was purely an exercise in shooting in my mind for the experience.

RSA (and other ranch hunts) provide the opportunity for many to fulfil their dreams of hunting in Africa, and I commend that. I have hunted there myself and intend to do so in the future. However unless we (as hunters) keep our house in order we will be jeapordising our future hunting heratige. Shooting from trucks is wrong and for a PH to allow it to happen let alone be knowingly filmed is insane.

No one mentioned the ranches where sustainable populations breed naturally and the excesses are removed through hunting either for trophy or biltong. These ranches will never see the correct media exposure and it is the oddities that the tabloids want to show off.

Rgds,
FB

Hi Fallow Buck

I do agree with all the points you make in this response.
But I think you missed the intended person I was addressing in my 2nd response on this topic: it was Pete E who stated:

quote:

I've never had the impression he's try to report them as anything other than "oddities" and within the hunting world, its easy to see how the South African set up qualifies as that..

I was simply trying to get an idea why, or from what bad experience, had Pete E come to the conclusion that South Africa should be seen as an oddity "within the hunting world".

By the way, as a matter of interest, it is legal to shoot from vehicles in some, if not all provinces here. It is in fact common practice in the Kalahari/Northern Cape. It makes for hot debates on ethics, and each "hunter" should choose for himself what is a hunt, what is a cull, and what is just plain "shootin-fish-in-a-bucket"

I personally have blesbuck horns lying chewed up by my dogs that would have made RW, but were shot from a vehicle: therefore NO HUNT-NO TROPHY.
On the other hand I have made beutiful trophies of undersized specimens because they were the result of a good, solid hunt with a memorable aspect and I wished to hang them on my wall to cherish.

So, as part of the South African "oddity" each year I am lucky to hunt, to cull and to shoot. I's up to me to call each one exactly what it is. Each practice is critical to the sustainability of the industry as a whole. Many people do blur the lines between these things, but if a buddy wishes to trophy a "bakkie-cull" I just try to gently persuade him to my way of thinking, and in any case, that practice should only really piss off the overly seriously competitive trophy hunter, and no matter how "fair" they make their chase, a tape-measure hunter is also no great ambasador of the sport either.

Your idea to possibly include a springbuck cull with your next trip is a good plan. It's a real aspect of South African game farming practices, is damned hard work and excelent rifle practice. You have a clear-cut perspective that it is NOT hunting and as such, you will benefit from the experience

Stephen,

We're obviously singing from the same hymn sheet here.

Just to throw a bit of a swerve ball in for the sake of discussion. I'll use the Blesbuck example because it is already on the thread.

You (as I would in your position) are happy to go and shoot the blesbuck on the smallish ranch you mention, and rightly regard it as a cull not a hunt. Incidentally we do the same thing here with Fallow deer which are farmed for meat, where shooting is the most humane method of harvest resulting in less stressed animals at the time of culling. For us our respective culling operations are close to home so there is convenience. However what happens if an individual travels accross the globe purely to "hunt" in this fashion? He is seeking a hunting experience rather than a shooting/culling experience.

Would you go to the same ranch and pay the same money for a blesbuck carcass that someone else had shot that day, rather than pulling the trigger yourself?

What has happened here in the UK is that experienced hunters are brought in to do the culling. They do not pay for the privilage and the result is a professional job done. However if the experience was for sale then I don't think it should exist in that fasion here. Obviously there is a cultural difference both in the way we hunt and the wider use of game in RSA but essentially the parralel is the same. In RSA the culture of meat/biltong hunting is far more established and acceptable, so it is not my intention to crityisise that part of your culture.

My point is that when a ranch charges for culling it is blurring the line between hunting and culling. This is especially so when individuals travel long distances from abroad for the hunting experience. I may sound like a hypocrite here because I have said I would partake, but only if I happened to be there and like you say there would be no trophy's from it on my wall.

I think these fringe operations of the RSA hunting industry are the oddities that Pete was talking about, rather than the entire industry as a whole. However having known and hunted with him for a few years, I know he had a big enough gob to explain himself!!

Louis Theroux would only ever ave done this documentary with the type of outfitter that used heavily stocked ranches or the type that could show you a photo of the animal with horn measurements on your e-mail before you booked the hunt. It is a shame that as hunters we have tis to contend with in the world of tabloidism, but it is unfortunately the case that a balanced argement doesn't sell papers, or attract viewers.

Rgds,
FB

Fallow Buck,
Yes I certainly agree that such operators that "set up" a phony hunting experience are a problem and that SA has a high percentage of them is no lie; as I said earlier, though:

quote:

I know that there are a large amount of unscrupulous operators on the fringes of the South African safari industry, but wherever big money is in play there are such villains. But frankly speaking, anyone who gets caught by one of these guys these days has only himself to blame; there are huge resources available nowadays to check & cross reference each and every operator, and a foreigner who does not make use of these resources is simply stupid.

Sadly, there are too many hunters who do NOT check out the references, or go to recomended outfitters. I am new to AR, and yet have learned more about hunting South/ern Africa here than from a lifetime in the country. I think every potential international tourist/hunter should be refered to this site as part of his basic planning.

We local South African hunters are also not immune to ilicit business practices by our ranchers, but in real terms, our knocks are few enough and cheap enough so in the end after a season or two, our "bad" experiences just add flavour to our hunting story repetoir

Here typically we would be suspect of guys with high day fees but low game prices. Probably low game population, and he's selling accomodation.

Another trick I just heard about: The tracker has a pin hidden (The boss often puts trackers on a bonus per animal killed, or wounded seeing as hunter still pays full price) Now the tracker can prick himself and show a drop of blood to an otherwise unsuccessful hunter who took a clean miss....

Our local gun rags carry letters from both hunters & farmers at the end of season crying fowl of one another, but I do believe that it's a tiny percentage of the sport, and mostly a result of poor initial communication.

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
Louis Theroux would only ever ave done this documentary with the type of outfitter that used heavily stocked ranches or the type that could show you a photo of the animal with horn measurements on your e-mail before you booked the hunt. It is a shame that as hunters we have tis to contend with in the world of tabloidism, but it is unfortunately the case that a balanced argement doesn't sell papers, or attract viewers.

Rgds,
FB

EXACTLY!!

I also noticed BBC had not found it necessary to publish the comments we submitted to the article on the website - surprise, surprise...

- mike

Mike,

I did think the article was a bit more balanced than the programme itself, but only slightly. The general consensus amongst non hunters I have spoken with about it is that lt came accross very badly. His "inability" to shoot the wartie was poor acting on his part, when in reality he had no intention of shooting it as the BBC would not ever have allowed it.

The other thing that most people have pointed out is that they didn't feel that the blind hunting was true hunting. I'm not taking a view on the comment, just that indeed it would have taken some doing to get a PH, hunter and whole film crew out stalking in the bush succesfully. In fact it probably would have been a good way to enforce the BBC's agenda!!

As far as the blind hunting was concerned the programe was edited to make it look like the animals turned up as soon as the people got into the blnd and shots were indiscriminate. The fact that it took 6 days in a blind to get a Gemsbok for one guy didn't feature in the programme and was only mentioned in the web article.

As we all know there are shades of grey but I do think that from the reaction of most of the non hunters that I have spoken to about this he has lost a lot of credibility oas a reporter over this.

Rgds,
FB

FB,

I did not actually see the TV program, I managed to get pissed off by simply reading the article...

In the article he attempts to hold up a thin veil of "impartiality", by hinting at the fact hunting does actually have a positive effect on game populations. But that brief comment, which he in no way explored, got totally lost in a sea of sensationalist writings about how horrible hunters were, how unspoting it all was, how much the various trophy fees would come to (the ultimate argument!), and how poorly the animals were shot etc etc.

All in all, I thought it was a piss-poor effort at objective journalism, but it probably scored pretty well in terms of selling the article/TV program. After all sensationalism sells better than objective reporting.

When we started this discussion, I did not actually remember who Theroux was - sorry, I'm not *that* familiar with the BBC reporters. But I caught him the other night on TV, and now I do remember having seen some of his stuff in the past. He normally seems to make it his style, that he befriends the people he portrays and interviews. That gives his stories quite an intimate feel. If he did this to the people he encountered in SA, and then served them up as complete idiots, I wonder what that makes them feel like??

- mike

Who expects fair treatment from the press where hunting is concerned? Not me.

That's why the recent positive article published in National Geographic was so surprising, and gratifying.

More usual is this sort of thing, which as you say is selective and unbalanced, but nonetheless accurate as far as it goes.

As long as we fail to police ourselves in a vigorous way, as long as we fail to draw distinctions between whatever this kind of shooting is and true hunting, we are asking for it, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
Louis Theroux would only ever ave done this documentary with the type of outfitter that used heavily stocked ranches or the type that could show you a photo of the animal with horn measurements on your e-mail before you booked the hunt. It is a shame that as hunters we have tis to contend with in the world of tabloidism, but it is unfortunately the case that a balanced argement doesn't sell papers, or attract viewers.

Rgds,
FB

EXACTLY!!

I also noticed BBC had not found it necessary to publish the comments we submitted to the article on the website - surprise, surprise...

- mike

Sadly, the media tends to "edit" message they do not like, and in the process change their meaning.

On a number of occasions, I have answer questions related to hunting on some of the news papers.

Every single one of my posts have been edited, some to the extent that the whole meaning was changed!

And despite all my efforts to get some answer why they are doing this, no reply was ever offered!

I have a long standing rule NEVER to trust or have ANYTHING to do with the media. As far as I'm concerned they're all vermin of the very worst and lowest kind and they ALL deserve to be tied to trees for Leopard bait.

I got caught once by them many years ago and it caused me to spend the next 6 months checking under my and my families cars, having my post redirected for security x raying and all my incoming and outgoing calls recorded etc........

It'll never happen again because I avoid the bastards like the plague.

I saw some of this documentary the other day, only saw the last half hour of it, but it did irritate me somewhat, as the guy was a total greenie, and that was very evident. As usual, it is amazing how things are always focused on the negativity of hunting and not the positive aspects.

I think that some outfitters do get a bit lazy with allowing people to shoot off bakkies, etc. It all depends on ethics I suppose. I would never consider shooting off a bakkie as hunting, but that is me. Shooting sticks are ok, but a bakkie should not be considered as a rifle-rest in hunting. I know that it has become common practise now for bowhunters to shoot from blinds, right over waterholes, often with salt-licks, etc. For many people who do not have the time to walk and stalk this is now the norm, as successful walk and stalk bowhunting can involve a lot of time, money and effort.

If you are on a weekend hunt it makes sense, but I would always prefer the challenge of a walk and stalk hunt. This brings me back to why you hunt. For me it would be about the challenge. I would prefer to track and stalk the animals by myself too if preferable. I know that these days you are almost always appointed with a paid tracker without question for most hunts, and a PH for dangerous game for obvious reasons, but I and am sure others who are lucky enough to be able to do their own hunts (with plainsgame) on say their own property etc, would probably agree with me. I think that tracking and stalking are skills and joys that would be lost to people who shoot from a bakkie or from a blind.

Stephen,

Sorry not to respond earlier, but I missed your posts until now..

The program showed what was essentially "put and take" shooting on relatively small (by RSA standards) gamefarms...I didn't see any "hunting" as such at all..

I think actions of the shooters shown and the general concept portrayed, is not really representative of hunting as a whole and was why
Louis Theroux focused on this set up.

And considering the bigger picture in RSA, the tourist hunting industry relies very heavily on man-made high fenced game ranches, which is a different approach to most other places/countries. I'm not saying they are all bad by that by any means, just that its "different"..I know many people who can't understand "farming" big game animals for trophy hunting and Theroux was simply capitalizing on that..

BTW, I have hunted in RSA and very much enjoyed myself and I know there good operations out there..

Regards,

Pete

Pete


We are actually quite a lucky bunch here in SA, having all manner of hunting/shooting/culling available pretty much whenever we want and quite reasonably priced. It certainly was not like that 20 odd years back though; there has been a huge swing from other types of farming towards game.

Many people started out thinking they would focus on "camera" safaris. People who were not themselves hunters, and thought owning a game farm would be re-creating "The Garden of Eden". They soon catch a wake up when over-population starts leading to either feeding costs or starvation. Catch & sell is no easy breadwinner, especially with more common species. Suddenly the (paying) hunter is king!

Works for me.......

Pete,

I can't help thinking you are being too harsh on hunting in South Africa. Yes, there are fenced properties hunted, but SA is a HUGE success in terms of making habitat available for species, which had by and large been replaced by livestock just a few decades ago. Fenced properties play a significant role in this development.

Every country has its own set of circumstances, and should be judged fairly by its own merit. In particular, it would be unfair to look only at a part of the picture, and judge the whole country or industry based on that. If we adopted that approach, we could rightfully claim the UK waged an active war on its game populations - based on controversial culling programs for red deer in the Scottish Highlands.

I think a balanced view indicates a knowledgable approach to issues such as hunting. We can expect that from a guy who knows and loves hunting. We probably can't expect it from a journalist out to sell his sensationalist product.

- mike

I think that it is a great idea that a lot of South African farmers have moved away from stock farming to game farming. It is not only seems more profitable, it is also less damaging to the veld if properly managed, and it also encourages better habitat for biodiversity. With the demand for hunts and the breeding of animals especially for hunts, this has become an industry. I do not find this a problem really, as long as it well managed and ethical, it is just a business like any other farm. I just think that because of the demand and the money involved, some people are keen to get their animals as quickly as possible, which is why you see in the video of people shooting from in the seat of the car. That is fine if you enjoy it, but it gives other hunters a bad name, especially when the media focuses on this, and the outside world sees this as what hunting is all about.

If the hunter is willing to shoot from the car, then maybe he should be allowed to do so, as he/she is after all the paying customer, but they should think of it being more along the lines of culling, not hunting. Ethics are important in my mind and it becomes ammo in the hands of the wrong people, when videos like this get out. I do think that some PH's should be more strict with setting ground rules, so that we don't see this kind of thing happening, otherwise people start to think it is the norm to go around hunting/shooting from a vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by mho:
Pete,

Yes, there are fenced properties hunted, but SA is a HUGE success in terms of making habitat available for species, which had by and large been replaced by livestock just a few decades ago. Fenced properties play a significant role in this development.
- mike

And that is what I meant by "paradox" Undoubtedly certain species as White Rhino would probably be extinct if it wasn't for the game industry..

I would love to see the footage that was edited out of this particular prgram; it maybe that a number of fair chase hunts on foot were filmed, but never made it to the final cut.

Also, I wonder what the PH's and gamefarmers featured think of the final program? They after all agreed to be filmed, so must have been motivated by something...

Regards,

Pete

You can watch the hour long video here.

link

Thanks Roscoe !

I have just watched the whole show and frankly, I'M VERY IMPRESSED

I expected much more one sided approach from Theroux himself, but that was because my impression of the show was formed by the mindless and very one sided responses that BBC chose to publish on the forum section of the magazine web site. My responses above were specifically in response to those forum posts.

I believe that this full length version in fact shows quite a true aspect of a SEGMENT of the South African scenario.

I believe that Theroux may have in fact been inclined to take a shot if he had been on a proper "walk & stalk" hunt as against a "blind shoot". He specifically mentioned that he felt it was too easy, and it was!

One thing that has often set back particularly the Afrikaner has been his relative inability to eloquently put accross his argument in a easy to understand language (this is a generalisation as there are also many who are as eloquent as a person could possibly be) . In this show I again recognise this trait amongst some of the people interviewed. Their passion does come through, but unless you are listening well to the exact words, and have some background to both the facts and the culture, the message is easily corrupted.

We as hunters should not need to explain the desire to hunt. The world has changed and brought about this demand upon us. It is really quite simple:

I hunt because I am HUMAN. My hunting is an expression of my HUMANITY.

Anyone who has become so lost in the modern "civilised" world that they cannot understand this is to be pitied, but not trusted. Such people have the notion that they should interfere and francly I think it's because of the deep loss of their own humanity and sense of being that such people become such zealots.

Fact is, they should have no more rights to tell us not to hunt than we should have the right to insist they DO hunt.

The whole world is off-canter right now. Imagine if we hunters, the true and ultimate conservationists, started a campaign against ALL motorsports because it burns fossil fuels, contributes to global warming, creates noise and air pollution and is inheritantly unsafe!