Mark Young bought up an interesting question regarding fences and a reference to the Save conservancy, this was on Scottyboy’s recent and somewhat disjointed thread regarding hunting the Eastern Cape.

Some claim they would never hunt in Africa behind a fence and yet as Mark pointed out the Save is a staggering 850,000 acre concession. I presume private? I am also presuming that the fence it to keep people out rather the game in, and the intention of the fence would be to demarcate the property as such? I am guessing and do not know much about the Save and maybe Mark could enlighten me here. And is the Save advertised as fenced? Are trophies that are taken here recorded as taken from a game farm?

I personally have no problem at all with hunting large 10,000 acre plus fenced games and there are many who come to Africa to hunt game farms and these locations are usually private and offer first class hospitality and some very fine hunting indeed, and some excellent wing shooting. Being private there is the pride of ownership and I find the owners tend to go that extra mile for the international hunter. Also some fence jumpers such as Kudu and Eland can come and go as they please and are therefore hunted as free ranging species. Fenced areas in Zambia are generally to keep people out.

Agreed you will not hear the grunt of a Lion around the campfire but for some they have been there done that and are looking for a different experience. It is a much safer playground for kids, tsetse free etc. The advantages are many.

The question therefore is what are the acceptable parameters to hunt in a fenced property, and is a property like the Save an exception to the rule for those who claim to never hunt behind a fence?

I understand that the perimeter fence was installed when the conservancy was created. It was likely just as important for keeping game in as it was for keeping cattle and neighbors out. It is now, by report, in poor condition having been largely dismantled in areas to make snares. Also, as the conservancy consists of 20-odd properties, you may be hunting a property that is fenced on one side or one that does not touch a fence on any side. I was there for 16 days, driving 100+kms per day and I never saw a fence.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Mark Young bought up an interesting question regarding fences and a reference to the Save conservancy, this was on Scottyboy’s recent and somewhat disjointed thread regarding hunting the Eastern Cape.

Some claim they would never hunt in Africa behind a fence and yet as Mark pointed out the Save is a staggering 850,000 acre concession. I presume private? I am also presuming that the fence it to keep people out rather the game in, and the intention of the fence would be to demarcate the property as such? I am guessing and do not know much about the Save and maybe Mark could enlighten me here. And is the Save advertised as fenced? Are trophies that are taken here recorded as taken from a game farm?

850,000 acre concession?? Hell there are islands that are much smaller that 850,000 acres that hold dangerous game like Coastal Brown bear, and the same guy who claims hunting behind a fence is not hunting but shooting, will pay $12K to hunt a brown bear on an island that is much smaller. I say the ocean is a far more restrictive barier than the damn fence to large animals!

Gentelmen, is is simply a matter of the game's ability to avoid a hunter, and that can be done by simply stepping behind a bush, or termite mound. As long as the animal has what he needs to remain healthy, with many places to get water and food, and cover, to hide, what is the problem! The Save is a perfect example of the hypocrecy of most hollier than thou claims. Most of the decentors think nothing of hunting the Save, or an island that is half the size of the Save. This crap will go on as long as opinions very about what OTHERS should or shouldn't do!

............. .................

Andrew,

The Save is private property. The fence was initially as I understand it to keep game seperated from the local's domestic stock. They feared game would spread disease to the local cows and goats. Of course when some "War Vets" knocked down part of the fence and occupied some of the land they brought their stock with them and they seem to be doing fine. Of course the fence does keep out some people and keeps in some animals but as you've pointed out certain species can jump the fence and several others just go under it.

It is hard for me to imagine that hunting is not fair chase on the Save that supports 1,400 elephant, about 2,300 buffalo, good populations of white and black rhino, 80-100 lion and loads of leopard and plainsgame. It is just a superb hunting destiation.

I don't know that anyone arriving for a hunt on the Save thinks it is unfenced but I guess it is possible. I make sure my clients are aware of it. Most already know it has an exterior fence and are not bothered by that. I've only had one client refuse to hunt there because of the fence and he admitted it was his personal prejudice only.

The Save is tetse free but otherwise as wild as anyother great hunting area. It just offers a unique experience as the Luangwa and Masailand are unique unto themselves.

Mark

As an old school game fence phobe, I have no issue with Save and would hunt there myself. Having a large enough area for the animals to move freely is vital for me, but so is a self sustaining population of game. That is a much harder requirement to meet for a commercial operation. Simply put, put and take game ranching strikes me as a pale immitation of hunting. I don't have enough money to spend on a venture like that when the real thing is available.

Blesbok, bontebok, black wildebeeste, cape mountain zebra and black and white rhinos come to mind off the top of my head as animals that have been saved by game ranching. I'd like to hunt some of these (actually all of them, but can't afford the rhinos). I'd like to support the people who saved these animals. The problem is, I don't think I can reliably identify put and take operations and so religiously avoid game fenced areas.

Dean

This fence vs. non-fence issue has been beaten to death so many times here on AR that it's ridiculous. I believe that we can all certainly agree that no one really gives a damn as to whether or not someone else agrees or disagrees with you in your personal decision whether to hunt or not to hunt a fenced area, be it anywhere in the world, or of any size and/or magnitude. The definition of fair chase is in the sole discretion of each hunter; and it does not belong to a committee of peers, or to a bunch of armchair critics. The idea of natural barriers as restrictions, the idea of modern weapons, modern ammo, modern hunting tools and devices, modern camo and scent controlling clothing, modern modes of travel and transport, etc etc. etc. all give the hunter a decided advantage over game, and we all think those things are great and are fair and reasonable. So let's all just agree to disagree in our opinions on fenced vs. unfenced hunting, and put this silly thing to bed.

I was there for a 21 day hunt last October. The only fences I saw were around houses and gardens at Hammond. These surely didn't fence more than 10 acres and was no hunting inside.

All the time we hear about the high fence bad, low fence not a proble. I can't remember which ones they were, but Boddington wrote an articel about many animals which couldn't jump a low sheep/cattle fence.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Andrew,

The Save is private property. The fence was initially as I understand it to keep game seperated from the local's domestic stock. They feared game would spread disease to the local cows and goats. Of course when some "War Vets" knocked down part of the fence and occupied some of the land they brought their stock with them and they seem to be doing fine. Of course the fence does keep out some people and keeps in some animals but as you've pointed out certain species can jump the fence and several others just go under it.

It is hard for me to imagine that hunting is not fair chase on the Save that supports 1,400 elephant, about 2,300 buffalo, good populations of white and black rhino, 80-100 lion and loads of leopard and plainsgame. It is just a superb hunting destiation.

I don't know that anyone arriving for a hunt on the Save thinks it is unfenced but I guess it is possible. I make sure my clients are aware of it. Most already know it has an exterior fence and are not bothered by that. I've only had one client refuse to hunt there because of the fence and he admitted it was his personal prejudice only.

The Save is tetse free but otherwise as wild as anyother great hunting area. It just offers a unique experience as the Luangwa and Masailand are unique unto themselves.

Mark

The portion of the fence bordering the Save that I saw was maybe 12' tall. Nothing is going to jump that. But with ~850k acres, who cares? Also, the fence was elephant resistant, inteded to keep the elephants in so they wouldn't raide the surrounding settlements' crops. I don't think any fence could really be elephant proof if the eles are given enough time to work on bringing it down.

Also, while I enjoy hunting the Save, it just isn't as wild as most all gov't concessions, which can be a plus or a minus depending on the situation and who is traveling with you. Remember, the concessions have only the rangers and game scouts as inhabitants, the Save has relatively many homes. The relatively well kept roads, homes, etc of the Save also makes CAMPFIR and tribal areas more "wild" too.

JPK

JPK

JPK,

I guess our definition of wild may not be the same. I think the folks that saw Peter Fick's tracker killed by an ele a couple of years ago on the Save thought it was plenty wild. I actually said to a client that he might find x,y,z more wild than the Save and he reminded me of my level of expereince and then went on to relate a story about an impala that was bearing down on their parked vehicle followed closely by a cheetah on the Save. The impala and the cheetah nearly ended up in the Land Cruiser. He and his family thought that was pretty wild. I think Safari-Lawyer has a story about a charging buffalo on the Save. I bet he thought it was pretty wild.

There are less inhabited areas with fewer roads and if that what you crave perhaps the Save is not for you but if a hunter wants a top flight expereince, nice camp with some excellent hunting it would be hard to not recommend the Save every time.


Mark

There is a small settlement a few hundred yards from the ARDA camp. Lions got a cow there one night during my hunt. Those people were terrified. I will bet they thought it was pretty wild as well.

As to game proof fences, I have seen elephants take down entire sections of "game proof" fencing around Kruger and little good did it do, as the eles came into the surrounding reserves at their pleasure.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
I think Safari-Lawyer has a story about a charging buffalo on the Save. I bet he thought it was pretty wild.

Oh yeah, really wild!

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
This fence vs. non-fence issue has been beaten to death so many times here on AR that it's ridiculous. I believe that we can all certainly agree that no one really gives a damn as to whether or not someone else agrees or disagrees with you in your personal decision whether to hunt or not to hunt a fenced area, be it anywhere in the world, or of any size and/or magnitude. The definition of fair chase is in the sole discretion of each hunter; and it does not belong to a committee of peers, or to a bunch of armchair critics. The idea of natural barriers as restrictions, the idea of modern weapons, modern ammo, modern hunting tools and devices, modern camo and scent controlling clothing, modern modes of travel and transport, etc etc. etc. all give the hunter a decided advantage over game, and we all think those things are great and are fair and reasonable. So let's all just agree to disagree in our opinions on fenced vs. unfenced hunting, and put this silly thing to bed.

UEG,

I did think that this topic had probably been raised before. However the question is rather of size of the fenced area and not the fence itself. If you agree with me that 10,000 acres plus is large enough to hunt proper then would you hunt there?

quote:

Originally posted by maki:
As an old school game fence phobe, I have no issue with Save and would hunt there myself. Having a large enough area for the animals to move freely is vital for me, but so is a self sustaining population of game. That is a much harder requirement to meet for a commercial operation. Simply put, put and take game ranching strikes me as a pale immitation of hunting. I don't have enough money to spend on a venture like that when the real thing is available.

Blesbok, bontebok, black wildebeeste, cape mountain zebra and black and white rhinos come to mind off the top of my head as animals that have been saved by game ranching. I'd like to hunt some of these (actually all of them, but can't afford the rhinos). I'd like to support the people who saved these animals. The problem is, I don't think I can reliably identify put and take operations and so religiously avoid game fenced areas.

Dean

Thanks Dean and that was the sort of response I was looking for. Your opinion and good reasoning.

Mark,

The Save is an exception to the rule as I know of no other private 850,000 acre property in Africa. Fenced or not. The game here would be free ranging and there is no fence that I know of that would restrict elephant. Most of the game here have probably not see the fence.

As an agent and you were trying to convince a client to hunt a fenced property, and you were being honest, then what acreage would you consider minimum to hunt? What size does it have to be where the game is 'free ranging' as such. Note most game here with the exception of Roan and Eland most are quite territorial and do not require that much space.

If the farms are large enough then I have found that the safari experience is much the same as elsewhere. My first ever charge occurred on Nkanga Conservancy in Zambia and I was not prepared for it. Subsequently I treat all game as dangerous fence or no fence.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
JPK,

I guess our definition of wild may not be the same. I think the folks that saw Peter Fick's tracker killed by an ele a couple of years ago on the Save thought it was plenty wild. I actually said to a client that he might find x,y,z more wild than the Save and he reminded me of my level of expereince and then went on to relate a story about an impala that was bearing down on their parked vehicle followed closely by a cheetah on the Save. The impala and the cheetah nearly ended up in the Land Cruiser. He and his family thought that was pretty wild. I think Safari-Lawyer has a story about a charging buffalo on the Save. I bet he thought it was pretty wild.

There are less inhabited areas with fewer roads and if that what you crave perhaps the Save is not for you but if a hunter wants a top flight expereince, nice camp with some excellent hunting it would be hard to not recommend the Save every time.


Mark

Mark,

I have been charged by elephants more times in the Save then in Parks' concessions or CAMPFIR areas combined, and I have spent alot more time in other areas than the Save. In fact, I have done more running from eles in the Save than anywhere else, been tracked by a herd of pissed off eles we weren't hunting twice, once for near a mile. I have had to shoot a charging cow elephant once, the PH nearly had to shoot a bull on another occasion. Dan McCarthy, formerly 500Grains, has had to kill two charging cows in the Save.

I was in camp when Thierry LaBatt needed to kill a charging cow buff. And Ann Whittall raised a calf of another cow buff that Thierry or Peter Wood needed to stop.

So, does that mean the Save is as wild as Park's concessions, or CAMPFIR areas? No, it just means that the eles have a more aggressive disposition. In fact, they are very aggressive. Roger Whittall attributes their aggressiveness to the fact that they are re-introduced from Ghonarezou, and their matriarchs and former matriarchs faced poaching and depredation at the hands of the rebels during the bush war. And it means that buff are buff, where ever they are found.

Yes, the Save has the big five; that is its saving grace. The conservancy's foresight in re-introducing elephants, re-introducing some buff to augment numbers some decades ago, removing fencing, allowing the game to thrive, converting former cattle ranches into what the conservancy is today is beyond comendable. But that does not and connot return the Save to the state in which CAMPFIR or, especially, Park's concessions remain.

Homes with car parks and garages, tidy yards and flower gardens, fenced in, irrigated citrus groves, schools with children walking to and fro, accomodations for the farm workers' families... The well water supplied, pumped "pans"... Even just the missing desolation of the inhabitted CAMPFIR and tribal areas. These features do not add up to wild under any reasonable definition, especially when they are all within that 850k acres, and when the conservancy is surrounded by settlements and towns.

Some areas within the conservancy are more developed than others, sure, and some large tracts have little or even no improvement but, in truth, it is hard to escape from the "civilization."

JPK

fairgame: Absolutely.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

So, does that mean the Save is as wild as Park's concessions, or CAMPFIR areas? No, it just means that the eles have a more aggressive disposition. In fact, they are very aggressive. Roger Whittall attributes their aggressiveness to the fact that they are re-introduced from Ghonarezou, and their matriarchs and former matriarchs faced poaching and depredation at the hands of the rebels during the bush war. And it means that buff are buff, where ever they are found.
JPK

It is my belief that an area where dangerous game comes in contact with humans hunting them more often, become very agressive! Far more than in areas where they rearly see people. Dangerous game are dangerous where ever you find them, but IMO, where they are harrased by hunters, lions or poachers a lot elephant and buffalo become meaner than a gut shot grizzly, and are far more prone to charges.

With that in mind, this type of property with large enough populations of buffalo, and ele is exciting hunting for Buffalo and ele IMO!

It has been a while since I hunted on the Save ... but personally I do not consider it to be 'wild' country as outlined by other folks a bit earlier ... not that you can't get lost or taken out by the wild animals .. too many people wandering around sort of takes a bit of the edge off ...

Andrew,

I can't answer the question based on acreage. I think the enviroment, species of animals present and number of hunts conducted are far more important in choosing a fair chase hunt.

BTW I'm always honest and I really don't try to convince anybody to hunt anywhere. I make recommendations based on th eclient's needs.

I hunted kudu once on a 5,000 acre property that was fenced but had never been hunted until the year I was there. The place was an absolute jungle wit hincredilbe thick cover and few roads. The kudu were native and had never been stocked. In this case I think the area was large enough. I've also hunted on 10,000 acres where they ran 2 groups each day and supplementally stocked the property as necessary with about every species imaginable. Not big enough in my opinion. I do have to add the caveat though that this operation made no secret of what they were offering and if you wanted to hunt specific or unique species in other areas with less traffic that could be arranged easily. Last year I hunted 100,000 acre enclosure for kudu and eland. Bot hspecies are self sustaining on the property and the hunting fantastic. This place was plenty large enough.

So I guess I can't answer your question as asked.

Mark

Thanks Mark and no worries as you have a fine reputation as a honest man. Little yellow smiley face rolling around.

"The Save is an exception to the rule as I know of no other private 850,000 acre property in Africa. Fenced or not. The game here would be free ranging and there is no fence that I know of that would restrict elephant. Most of the game here have probably not see the fence"

Andrew, the Bubye Valley Conservancy (Lemco), in the lowveld of Zim, is also privately owned and perimeter fenced. It covers over one million acres.

Bordering Lemco (Bubye Valley Conservancy) is the Bubiana Conservancy.. Fenced and huge as well.

All three are fairly close to each other and all are huge tracts of land in the lowvelt of southern Zim.

Good grief that's the size of a small country. I think Charles Davy was involved in Lemco and is now buying up large tracts of Zambia. He would certainly advocate that bigger is better.

isn't Davy the guy who left HHK in Zim under less than auspicious circumstances?

I bought this one up again as Greg is advertising a Lion in the Save but the hunt is limited to 95,000 acres? Yet the Save is always being advertised as one million acres?

Mark, you can help me out here. What is the structure of the Save and how is it subdivided? Are these internal game farms?

Not sure it is cricket to advertise the hunting grounds larger than then actually are?

The SAVE is made up of a number of smaller parcels with independent owners that collectively make up the conservancy.

Thanks Larry. Bit like the Timbavati. Any info on sizes of?

quote:

JPK,

I guess our definition of wild may not be the same.

Mark,

That is for sure. Regardless, SAVE seems to get their share of the safari pie so who cares? It is when the money bags start going elsewhere is the time to get worried I guess.

It would be a stretch to consider any part of Zim truly wild but there are some places a hell of a lot wilder than others.

I vote for the wild parts, assuming I still get a few creature comforts. I like wild as long as I don't suffer for it.

And there then are the only-pretend wild hunts.

Like the hunter that flies into camp, immediately sets up the satellite phone, get their laptop plugged in so they can show the folks back home all the wild natives and animals, links up to the office back home, adjusts the GPS, checks the stock market, and orders lunch in the kitchen with a text message.

Pleeeeeezzzzzzzzzz.

And worried by being wild?

Saeed accuses me of wishing I was born a hundred years earlier. I plead guilty.

One of the most disappointing times in my life was when I first encountered a wild elephant in the bush. It was just like watching the wildlife programs on TV. I wished I had never seen a TV.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
isn't Davy the guy who left HHK in Zim under less than auspicious circumstances?

Show me a Zim native that can spell auspicious without a teleprompter, much less what the word means.

Andrew,

The Save has no internal fencing. None of my clients arrive anticipating that they will hunt 850,000 acres. They all know the extent of the property they will hunt. The areas on the Save I have booked hunts for are 60,000, 90,000 and 150,000 acres. As you know only too well habitat is much more important than raw acreage.

Mark

I hunted 4 sections last year. ARDA, Hammond and 2 I can't spell. If I recall correctly, ARDA and Hammond are about 30,000 acres each. I forgot what the other 2 were. I do recall that one was significantly smaller perhaps 12,000. They were all contiguous with no fences between them. It was plenty of property to hunt and for the animals to roam.

While the area is huge, as I said earlier, it is made up of a number of independently owned parcels. The one thing that is a major pain in the ass about the SAVE is that each area has its own quota. You have to constantly remember where you are and keep the quota sheets with you to make sure you are not shooting where there is no remaining quota. There can literally be situations where an animal on the left side of the road is on quota but if it crossed to the right hand side, there is no quota. That can be frustrating.

On my first day in camp, after sighting the rifles, we took a drive. It wasn't long before we saw two MASSIVE old dagga boys just standing there at 20 yards away. While they were big, it was the first day and I didn't want to shoot a buff from the truck. The PH pointed out that they were going to have to move about 20 yards to be in an area where there was quota. I thought WTF?

Later in the hunt, we were headed down a road in mid day. I looked up and I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a serval standing there on the left side of the road. In 15 trips across the pond, this was only the second one I had seen and i wanted it. The f'ing cat walked across the road and stood there looking at us. At this point, I was advised that there was no quota on the right hand side of the road while there was a quota on the left side. I didn't shoot it. It further solidified my belief that all of the guys at Zambezi Hunters were do it by the book guys. I left with no serval.

The SAVE is a fantastic place. However, remember the quota issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

quote:

JPK,

I guess our definition of wild may not be the same.

Mark,

That is for sure. Regardless, SAVE seems to get their share of the safari pie so who cares? It is when the money bags start going elsewhere is the time to get worried I guess.

It would be a stretch to consider any part of Zim truly wild but there are some places a hell of a lot wilder than others.

I vote for the wild parts, assuming I still get a few creature comforts. I like wild as long as I don't suffer for it.

And there then are the only-pretend wild hunts.

Like the hunter that flies into camp, immediately sets up the satellite phone, get their laptop plugged in so they can show the folks back home all the wild natives and animals, links up to the office back home, adjusts the GPS, checks the stock market, and orders lunch in the kitchen with a text message.

Pleeeeeezzzzzzzzzz.

And worried by being wild?

Saeed accuses me of wishing I was born a hundred years earlier. I plead guilty.

One of the most disappointing times in my life was when I first encountered a wild elephant in the bush. It was just like watching the wildlife programs on TV. I wished I had never seen a TV.

Will,

Far enough back in Chewore, or even up toward the escarpment in Nyakasange or along the escarpment past the last roads in Makuti... these areas are wild country. Back in Chewore, there were mid 50's kudu which didn't recognize us as a threat...

But to get there you will pay the price with your feet, you need to go well past the last road, and leave all of the creature comforts at a permament camp.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Andrew,

The Save has no internal fencing. None of my clients arrive anticipating that they will hunt 850,000 acres. They all know the extent of the property they will hunt. The areas on the Save I have booked hunts for are 60,000, 90,000 and 150,000 acres. As you know only too well habitat is much more important than raw acreage.


Mark

Agreed and thanks for that. Huge blocks in their own right.

Quite right JPK. There is plenty of wild out there just not many roads. One of the Kafue blocks I hunt is the 13,000 sq km (2.5 million acres) Lunga Luswishi concession and only ten percent of it is open or utilised. It is quite an adventure to go into unexplored hinterlands.

You need to face the realization that all hunting concessions have borders. If you hunt near the border you will sooner or later experience a problem associated witrh the border. I have followed elephant tracks on several occasions at Charisa when they crossed into th Segwe Research Area. The same occured at Matetsi 1 when they crossed into Matetsi 2. In Omay south we followed a crop raiding bull that stopped just short of the Matusadona Park boundry but since we were within 400 meters of the park boundry we could not take it. We left a set of perfectly matched 65 lb per side tusks standing there. On another occasion we followed a set of buffalo tracks for several miles and spotted the herd in the open about 150 yards away. There was a very good 40" plus bull in the herd. The game scout informed us we couldn't go any further as we were standing in Zimbabwe but the buff were in Mozambique.

465H&H

465,

Thanks for the double tip earlier. It works a treat. I owe you a beer.

fairgame,

My pleasure.

465H&H