I just had a chance to see these on the African Insight Magazine intro page. I was wondering what those with experience might have to say about some or all of these items.
Thanks in advance,

THE LIST OF ETHICS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS ASSOCIATION.
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION ON JANUARY 11TH, 2001. top of the page

* No shooting from in or near a vehicle, aircraft, or helicopter.
* No chasing of animals with a mechanized vehicle.
* No hunting with dogs, except for bird hunting.
* No hunting during the hours of darkness.
* No use of artificial lights or night vision equipment.
* No use of radios to assist in the hunting of game.
* No hunting of “caged†animals.
* No hunting of drugged animals.
* No shooting of immature animals or pregnant females.
* No wastage of meat. (Baiting is acceptable where permitted.)
* To obey the Game Laws of the country concerned.
* No overshooting of the quotas set by the country, community or estate.
* To promote community involvement in safari hunting by the encouragement of village anti poaching activities and by direct monetary benefit earned from the proper legal use of wildlife.
* Long term respect for the environment, habitat and wildlife.
* Every effort must be made to track up and follow wounded animals irrespective of whether they are dangerous or not
* Wounded and lost animals to count on the license.
* Respect the boundaries of individual hunting areas, private land, game reserves, and National Parks.
* Use proper caliber’s for hunting big game. For dangerous game, except leopard,.375 magnum and above. For large big game and leopard .300 caliber and above. For medium game .275 caliber and above. For small game .243 caliber and above.
* Hunting Expectations. That the Safari Hunting Client’s expectations are reasonable and based on the concepts of ethical fair chase. That the client does not demand or expect guarantees from the Professional Hunter for obtaining specific trophies. Nor should the client encourage the Professional Hunter to adopt unsporting hunting methods.

I find this especially interesting.

* Similarly that the Professional Hunter will not make far fetched promises of obtaining specific trophies that inevitably will involve unfair methods of hunting. Nor will the Professional Hunter make suggestions to clients to hunt in an unsporting manner.

Frank, at the risk of losing the "hard-assed" reputation I seem to have developed lately around here , I'm going to say that I have a problem with the absolute nature of some of the proscriptions on that list.

1. No shooting from a vehicle. I don't believe it is unethical, under ANY AND ALL circumstances whatsoever, to shoot game from a stationary motor vehicle or near one. If the game is used to seeing trucks and not being shot from them, and if an unfair advantage is to be gained by rolling up on an animal under those circumstances and shooting it, that's one thing and shouldn't be done.

But what if the animal is seen from the truck at a distance, is not spooked, and is not accessible and is visible only from an elevation, but there is none to be found except the perch in the back of the truck? No problem with that in my eyes.

2. No hunting with dogs. I guess I will just have to disagree with this prohibition. I have never hunted with dogs, but would do so where it is legal and necessary or advisable or even customary, as for cougar in the Rockies, bongo in the rain forest, leopard in some jurisdictions, etc.

3. Hunting after dark. I've done this. The Europeans do it all the time. In fact, even where it's illegal, the rule is usually bent to a huge degree. Artificial lighting is another thing and I don't like it, even where legal. The light has a hypnotizing effect on the game animal and really does provide an unfair advantage.

I once sat in a leopard blind after dark when an immature tom leopard came to the bait. We could see him well enough through the binoculars to know he was too young. So, the PH shined his zillion candlepower light on the cat. He just froze and stared back at us for the longest time. Then, after the PH turned the light off, the leopard just calmly went back to gnawing on the reedbuck. Never spooked him a bit.

4. Caliber restrictions. To rule out the use of any caliber below .300 for large big game and leopard is just stupid. Many, many, sub-.300 caliber cartridges are perfectly suited for game such as greater kudu, hartebeest, waterbuck, etc., and leopard as well.

* * *

Otherwise, a good list and not arguable, IMHO.

Too often, rules and laws designed to govern human behavior are too broadly drafted and prohibit far more than is necessary.

It's easier for the draftsman, the administrator and the enforcer that way, but it's also quite often just plain lazy and unenlightened.

Frank,

In general I am agreement with all of them. However the following present some interesting gray areas.

"No shooting from in or near a vehicle, aircraft, or helicopter."

You're driving along...a nice kudu runs behind the vehicle as you pass down the road. The trackers yell stop stop stop. The PH stops...you dismount rack a round take two steps to head into the bush the kudu steps into the clearing and you hammer him.

Did I just do something unethical?


"No hunting during the hours of darkness.
No use of artificial lights or night vision equipment."

What about the whole leopard reo-stat light trick in Zim???

"No use of radios to assist in the hunting of game"


The PHs send the trackers off on the buffalo spoor in the morning while you hunt plains game. The trackers find buffalo an hour later and say..."hey, Bwana we are over by the big pond near where we saw the elephants yesterday."

You head over and smack one....was that unethical?

I must agree in most of the rules, but personally like using a 7x64 for Deer\Antelope size game, and feel 7mm should be minimum in lieu of the 300cal, and 9.3 in lieu of 375.
This is my opinion so thankfully Zimbabwe has rules that suit.
As with artificial light, from what I hear its almost impossible to get Hyena or big lowveldt Leopard without it ??

Yes indeed. I also felt some of the rules were a bit stringent and would make it impossible to certain species ie.
No dogs or shooting at night or with lights means leopard are a real challenge.

Otherwise these would be normal ethics practised by the majority of hunters I would hope.

It will be interesting to read more on the APHA in their magazine.
Frank

Ethics differ as to geographical locations, Ethics like rules are a personal thing, and what works for me may not work for you...For example I have shot a lot of game from the back of a truck in order to keep a camp in meat, when your feeding a staff it is required..

I have hunted cats at night from a blind, I have shot deer from a stand, I don't like this type of hunting as it bores the socks off me but I believe it to be ethical...

I have shot game with sub standard calibers, both dangerous game and plainsgame, and our local stuff, but I ammended my style of hunting in all cases, got close and placed the shot very carefully...

We have left game in the field on ocassion, such as Buffalo in very inacessable areas, all safari companies have done this and will tell you so if they are honest...Most Africans see little wrong with returning animals to Africa, Lions, jackels, Leopards, hyenas have to eat and a donation from time to time is acceptable, we are all part of the food chain you know. those who disagree feed their dogs out of cans that hold the remains of some cow or horse, not a lot of difference...It just depends on how you look at it...

I hear a lot of BS and denial but the facts are there is no way an army could consume the number of buffalo that are shot in a season of safari...much less the total of game...so "all meat is utilized" is a broad spectrum term and up for interpetation...What was it the man said, We can't handle the truth just may apply pretty well on this issue.. The preditors need help from time to time, you feed your dog and I'll feed the many creatures of Africa on ocassion, thats my donation to the survival of the species.

In the good book there are only one set of ethics you either follow them or you don't.

Frank, I think this list is miss named! I don't think this can be called a list of ethics, but is, however a general minimal list of the legal rules of the country where the rules were written. I other words the PH is expected to follow the law, nothing more!

I happen do disagree with a speed limit accross the long stretches of road between Midland, Texas, and El Paso, Texas, some 300 miles, with a tiny community every 40 to 50 miles, on the multi-laned I-10 where 200 mph could be done safely in a proper automobile. However, I must abide by this law that says I must stay below 75 mph. If I disobey, and am caught, it causes me pain in the pocket book! I don't think that law has anything to do with ethics, any more than most game laws of any country, but still you, and in this case, the PH, must abide none-the-less! Whether I agree with the law, or not, is immaterial, I still must abide by them. It seems today's society is under the misconception that they can pick the laws they want to abide by, and disreagrd the rest! I simply disagree!

Mrlexma is correct many of the rules of law were drafted from ignorance, and seem rediculous to me as well, but I think when you take all the rules as a ball of wax, they are designed to have wildlife hunting be continued as a renewable resource. like the speed laws, some in some places don't make sense, but when applied to the whole of traffic safety, they do! Game laws are sometimes the same, what is necessary in one place, may not be in another, and is why each country has it's own rules. IMO, these rules are not ethics motivated, as much as they are to conserve game for the future, how ever misguided the drafter happened to be, and we don't have to agrre, but we do have to abide, like it or not!

ETHICS:
A PH couldn't make me do something I considered unethical, or that I knew was illegal, that is what "I" call ETHICS, but you ( the generic YOU)are not bound by "MY" ethics, only the law!

quote:

A PH couldn't make me do something I considered unethical, or that I knew was illegal, that is what "I" call ETHICS, but you ( the generic YOU)are not bound by "MY" ethics, only the law! beer


....Mac >>>===(x)===> (DUGABOY1)

I think this really sums it up, and yes the rules are for those who may not have their own set of ethics working for them. I found it very interesting that an organization might create such a list for its general membership most of whom would be sportsmen intent upon sustaining their "Re-newable Resources".
Frank

I agree if you live within the confines of the USA, but as Americans we can be bloody self rightous and insist on enflicting our codes and mores onto others....

In some countries the game scout for instances can make it legal to shoot a female Zebra, shoot meat for is camp, and declare that you must shoot x number of animals on a concession etc, etc. He may allow you, or your wife or child to shoot an animal with an "illegal caliber", and by his word it becomes legal apparantly...

The term "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is a pretty good idea in most countries that I have done business with...Just something to consider,

I can't imagine a PH telling you to do something that you don't want to do or breaking a game law without permission, anyway that is your choice to do or refuse...He might ask you if you want to shoot a Kongoni for the game scout village, if you do not he will do it and let it go at that...

The point I'm trying to make is this is not a black and white issue, it has shades of grey and we should not judge the whole world by our laws and practices...

I have heard people complain about the "mordida" system of Mexico, sure bribery is a way of life in Mexico, but that does not mean it doesn't work for them, it actually does pretty well...A Mexican Federal officer once told me the only difference is their politicians took the gold on top of the table!! he may be right... I would find the same legal process horrible in the USA, it won't work here for sure...sooner or later the bad guys pay the piper...

The shooting from a vehicle question is of course the one that most visiting hunters are personally confronted with as a dilemma. While drinving around on a ranch in RSA looking for animals, py PH and I came accross another vehicle with a PH and a client in the passenger seat (rather than in the hunter's chair in the pick-up bed. The client had a rifle in his hands barrel sticking out of the window. The two PH's chatted for a minute and exchanged "where are the animals" info. They drove off and I couldn't help but comment on the client sitting in the passenger's seat with a rifle. My PH's reply: "He's a paraplegic and doing his once in a lifetime African safari." That was one exception to "rules" that I can live with, no problem. Perhaps some of you would say that the man has no business hunting if he's paraplegic. I would disagree.

I would agree with most of these rules, however, the vehicle one is probably the one most often ignored. I don't see a real problem with shooting bait or camp meat by jumping out of the truck and taking an impala or such, and I know more than one trophy has been taken by hunters from a vehicle. Also, the night hunting, I love to go out at night after a days hunting and look for all the little nocturnal animals that you just don't see during the day, genets, civets, honey badgers, etc. If it is legal, it is the hunter himself who must make the call.

Ahhh... one of my favorite items (I teach hunter safety in my home state in the US). While Ray's right about people in the US being among the most priggish about this, I doubt I qualify for that. I've been more interested in what ethics do for the hunter, and in trying to figure out what fair chase means in the first place. For the most part, I'm just offering some observations about the regional history of this place. I grew up in Western Penna, lived in a few other states, but only hunted in GA and PA besides NY State.

Ray's right: it varies from place to place. In the US, one doesn't bait deer, unless you live in Texas and some other SW states that allow the use of feed; you can use salt in some states in the upper midwest. Use of bait for black bears in the lower 48 is a live wire at the moment. Once upon a time, the Adirondacks served as a major opportunity for much of the Eastern US cities. Modes of hunting included hunting deer from boats at night using pitch soaked hemp impaled on a sort of spiky burner, and lit once one got close to the shore (sizzle-and-smoke). Another mode involved the use of dogs -- chasing deer to water, whereby they were pursued in guide boats and shot or snared (using a flexible branch bent into a noose -- called a wythe -- manipulated in your hands). Obviously those standards didn't survive. Dogs are used for deer in some SE states. One shoots birds in the air -- unless they're turkeys. Game are pursued in the day unless they are furbearers or racoons (in NY, you can pursue porcupines at any time, too). Fair chase rules vary in the US by region, by species, and have changed over time. They tend to force the hunter to learn how to encounter the animal closer to the animal's normal behavior (unmanipulated by bait, etc). I usually bring all of this up to point out to the kids that, as has happened to most of us, we will move around in our lives. One of the problems with hunter retention (this is why NY State's and other states' fair chase rules becomes important for Africa) is that we will encounter other standards when we move. We will either drop out if it feels unethical, or we will accept regional traditions that are different from the ones we grew up with... they all have their virtues. They all can teach us something.

That list of rules described above looks like US rules.

The no hunting at night seems to exclude standard modes of hunting leopards (I don't think I've ever read about leopard hunting in the daytime, except for a possible incidental chance encounter).

Vehicles? In most US states, it is illegal to hunt with a loaded firearm in a car (particularly it is illegal to even lean a loaded rifle against a vehical or ATV in NYS), though you can have a loaded pistol in the car if you're licensed to carry it (this is complicated by what are called "judicial restrictions," which I won't get into). Apart from that, it is illegal to hunt from or shoot across a right-of-way. I didn't have the sense there was much of that in Africa, but if the issue is spotting game from a land rover and getting out for a stalk, it satisfies the word of the ethic...

The radio thing worries me. There are all sorts of meaning in "assisting the hunt," such as signalling intent to come in (not to start a drive), or that there is an injuring requiring assistance. That could be "assisting the hunt."

NY has rules indicating one cannot shoot a female with cubs, nor shoot a cub in the southern zone (Catskills or Allegheny ranges); no such rules are enforced in the Adirondacks. No such rules exist for deer -- except that seasons are partly set to ensure survival of fawns.

The adoption of a code of ethics also has a long tradition in NY. A group of 19th century Adirondack guides in what was called Brown's tract (the area is still called that) adopted a similar code of ethics -- 19th century style. Other guide associations adopted similar rules in short order. Some folks who started by bragging in the sporting press of the day about their headcount ended up forming clubs like the Campfire club, the Boone and Crocket Club (Roosevelt was one of those), and other Adirondackers, as well. They pushed for outlawing the taking of game out of season, and lobbied NY City resteraunts to quit serving game out of season (used to be able to buy deer, and other game, dishes in places like Delmonico's). So the list that the African Professional Hunters' Assoc put out looks familiar to this region of the US, at least. Most hunters' associations (Safari Club, Boone and Crocket, etc) have articulated fair-chase standards akin to the APHA's.

Having rambled aimlessly through all of these things, one question I'd like to inject into this conversation is what do fair chase rules add to the experience of the hunt FOR the participants? How do hunters benefit from these crazy rules?

Dan

I don't see a problem with any of these rules!
The few that seem to bother most of you is the one referring to vehicles and hunting at night!

There is not a single hunting situation I can think of where firing from a vehicle presents the "only" option. I'm referring to firing the "first" shot. In a "wounded" animal situation, everything goes - especially on DG. The few examples stated by posters above are not IMO justifiable situations. It's not so much a question of ethics as it is one of "fair chase" and experiencing the "thrill of the chase". Hunting for camp meat is a different proposition and I believe the above list was made in reference to sport hunting.

The "No hunting during darkness" rule is there to support the "no use of artificial light" rule. You can't do one without the other There are many places where leopards are taken without artificial light. Sure the odds are higher, your chances of success lower but that's hunting!

As to the rule on caliber's, i am sure that the stated calibers are meant more as "guidelines".

IMO, these rules are meant to ensure a complete hunting experience to the hunter and in turn more gratification from the resulting trophies.

It seems that Bwanamich and I are going at it , but I believe that our exchange may serve to enlighten and inform many of those who visit here.

By-the-by, each country has its own set of hunting ethics. For example, Germans see nothing wrong with shooting from a hide next to a waterhole, most Africans have no problems "jack-lighting" game at night, and Spaniards will shoot everything that moves without regard to the numbers or quality. The hunting rules are established by the country administering the hunting, and serve a different purpose than ethics. Thus, the rules is the rules, but ethics is a self imposed discipline.

Bwanamich's view regarding the "rules" originally posted [and his views on buff quality ], are certainly legitimate, and reflect an old British view of hunting. However, if applied by the average Joe who goes to Africa, whether once or many times, it would prevent the average guy from taking many animals that he might otherwise have an opportunity to take. He would just run out of time and opportunities.

Take shooting leopard in the daylight, for example. If one waits long enough, you may see one at evening with sufficient light to make a kill. If that fails, you can slip into a hide at 3:00am and wait to see if the leopard will return and stay on the bait until the sunrises. The same holds for lion.

The hunter who followed me into one camp this year was on his fourth hunt for his leopard. If one can afford to take two or three trips to Tanzania for 21 days at $2000 per day, plus trophy fees, plus concession fees and VAT, one, by all means, ought to strictly follow the "rules."

By the way, the "rules" were set up by the same government that condones the monopolistic practices regarding daily rates, and collects the taxes, concession fees, and trophy fees. One wonders what improvements in game management, setting aside of habitat for wild animals, and conservation have been purchased with these funds, particularly in Tanzania where the Masai and his cattle are destroying the environment.

I would add that communications failures, quota limitations, and outfitter preferences will result in a diminishment of animals that you can hunt without any restrictions imposed by the rules or ethics. For example, if you want to hunt sitatunga, you had better let your agent and outfitter know so that special arrangements can be made. It is unrealistic to expect to take one without prior preparations in less than 7-10 days. The same is true with many animals that will appear on your license, but which will not be available or reasonably available in the area you hunt. These animals may be available "across the road," but that it is in another concession with another outfitter and you won't go there without special arrangements. This discussion doesn't include those animals on your contract, but not on your license, but you will probably not see the license, and never know why you did not shoot that one.

Having said all this, the fact is that there are too many trophies being harvested to maintain their quality. The Tanzanian government has set a seven-year limit on lions, but is this really enforceable? There is no such restriction on buff except the man behind the rifle. Every year the trophy quality of the animals we hunt is diminished. The dirty little secret is that everyone in the industry knows this, but there is little that they can do about it.

The cause is simple: over hunting. But is this because the official "quota" is too big, or because the actual numbers shot exceeds that official quota? The numbers taken could be limited by decreasing the quota, increasing the demand, with a resulting increase in the costs. This, of course, would make African hunting more of a class thing that it is already. What is worse is that the real danger to the herds and animals is the loss of habitat from overgrazing domestic animals, silting up of lakes and marshes, and changes in climate.

I agree with Bwanamich that the SCI standards encourage shooting younger buffs by discounting bosses and we should be taking a German approach looking for "character" animals, but in the long run none of these measures will stop the decline we see.

It is too much to expect those who derive their livelihoods from this industry to self-regulate themselves. And why would an outfitter seek to improve the quality of trophies, when the concession he is working with is subject to being taken away from him. The rules set forth above are not very useful in achieving the wildlife management ends in the face of the economic realities of the environment in which they are sought to be imposed. There must be true resource management by the countries involved which is supported, even demanded by, the international hunting community: that us, guys and gals.

Personally, looking at the state of African game management, I think the approaches we have used in the USA have merit: setting aside non-hunt resources, hunting resources, encouraging private landowners to sustain wildlife, imposing controls on overgrazing public lands, and demanding that the officials responsible be honest and that the money derived from licensing and taxation be put back into the management programs. This should be where SCI and similar organization should be working if we are to preserve Africa and its hunting resources. kudude

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kudude:
It seems that Bwanamich and I are going at it , but I believe that our exchange may serve to enlighten and inform many of those who visit here.

By-the-by, each country has its own set of hunting ethics. For example, Germans see nothing wrong with shooting from a hide next to a waterhole, most Africans have no problems "jack-lighting" game at night, and Spaniards will shoot everything that moves without regard to the numbers or quality. The hunting rules are established by the country administering the hunting, and serve a different purpose than ethics. Thus, the rules is the rules, but ethics is a self imposed discipline.

Bwanamich's view regarding the "rules" originally posted [and his views on buff quality ], are certainly legitimate, and reflect an old British view of hunting. However, if applied by the average Joe who goes to Africa, whether once or many times, it would prevent the average guy from taking many animals that he might otherwise have an opportunity to take. He would just run out of time and opportunities.

Take shooting leopard in the daylight, for example. If one waits long enough, you may see one at evening with sufficient light to make a kill. If that fails, you can slip into a hide at 3:00am and wait to see if the leopard will return and stay on the bait until the sunrises. The same holds for lion.

The hunter who followed me into one camp this year was on his fourth hunt for his leopard. If one can afford to take two or three trips to Tanzania for 21 days at $2000 per day, plus trophy fees, plus concession fees and VAT, one, by all means, ought to strictly follow the "rules."

By the way, the "rules" were set up by the same government that condones the monopolistic practices regarding daily rates, and collects the taxes, concession fees, and trophy fees. One wonders what improvements in game management, setting aside of habitat for wild animals, and conservation have been purchased with these funds, particularly in Tanzania where the Masai and his cattle are destroying the environment.

I would add that communications failures, quota limitations, and outfitter preferences will result in a diminishment of animals that you can hunt without any restrictions imposed by the rules or ethics. For example, if you want to hunt sitatunga, you had better let your agent and outfitter know so that special arrangements can be made. It is unrealistic to expect to take one without prior preparations in less than 7-10 days. The same is true with many animals that will appear on your license, but which will not be available or reasonably available in the area you hunt. These animals may be available "across the road," but that it is in another concession with another outfitter and you won't go there without special arrangements.

Having said all this, the fact is that there are too many trophies being harvested to maintain their quality. The Tanzanian government has set a seven-year age limit on lions, but is this really enforceable? There is no restriction on buff except the man behind the rifle. Every year the trophy quality of the animals we hunt is diminished. The dirty little secret is that everyone in the industry knows this, but there is little that they can do about it. The numbers taken could be limited by decreasing the quota, increasing the demand, with a resulting increase in the costs. This, of course, would make African hunting more of a class thing that it is already. What is worse is that limiting quotas will not impact loss of habitat from overgrazing domestic animals which impacts the overall numbers of animals and eventually trophy quality. But Lord, don't that Masai have a lot of scrawny cattle!

I agree with Bwanamich that the SCI standards encourage shooting younger buffs by discounting bosses and we should be taking a German approach looking for "character" animals, but in the long run none of these measures will stop the decline we see.

It is too much to expect those who derive their livelihoods from this industry to self-regulate themselves. And why would an outfitter seek to improve the quality of trophies, when the concession he is working with is subject to being taken away from him.

The rules set forth above are not very useful in achieving the wildlife management ends in the face of the economic realities of the environment in which they are sought to be imposed. There must be true resource management by the countries involved which is supported, even demanded by, the international hunting community: that us, guys and gals.

Personally, looking at the state of African game management, I think the approaches we have used in the USA have merit: setting aside non-hunt resources, hunting resources, encouraging private landowners to sustain wildlife, imposing controls on overgrazing public lands, and demanding that the officials responsible be honest and that the money derived from licensing and taxation be put back into the management programs. This should be where SCI and similar organization should be working if we are to preserve Africa and its hunting resources. kudude

Bwanamich, what you describe regarding night hunting is similar to the debate about hunting bears over bait in the US: it looks like we're moving in the direction of making it more of a trophy. But as Kudude points out, some/much of that trophy is going to be is as much one of $'s, time, and luck rather than the type of thing where Anyman could go out to the woods and look for years for a good whitetail trophy, where it is a matter simply of skill and patience. I suppose the ease with which I accept night hunting comes from the notion that predatory fur-bearers are commonly hunted at night in the US; NY State has actually relaxed their rules concerning implements with which such hunting could be pursued, while at the same time they have tightened up on how much/what kind of lures one might apply towards black bears (not more than 8 oz of fluid in your posession).

And then there's the politics (which in some places make fertile ground for the anti-hunting crowd -- don't know how important that is in most of Africa, though Kenya is a warning). Kukude made two other points that struck me -- first being the expectation of the hunters being strongly determined by their homeland's standards (Spaniards, Germans, British, etc). Second, some organizations, such as SCI, but even more of national policies, promote rules that may not really connect well with the values of conservation, but rather ensure income to those countries irrespective of environmental damage due to overgrazing etc. Some of the debate in recent years is that wildlife pays for itself in terms of income from hunters; but little in the way of encouraging the development of incentives to protect this goose laying golden eggs. Then there's Kenya's photo-safari businesses...

Part of the reason there is a US model came from conservationist-oriented organizations. SCI could be an example of that. Some of the ideals described by the African Professional Hunters Assoc heads in that direction. But there's always conflicts. The idea of giving security to PH's so they feel there's something worth investing in brings with it a sort of fiefdom/exclusive ownership, etc, which also risks raising costs and making hunting more and more unavailable (same problem and debate in the US these days). But I think the argument is likely to tilt -- at least in the US -- in a direction that grants concessions to private owners so long as there are also opportunities for public access. Yet this is not being universally welcomed with open arms by our hunting communities.

One thing that does worry me -- certainly given where I live -- is that I am very aware of the importance of fair chase and ethics (for all of the difficultly in defining a uniform standard of such) to the soul of hunting. Yet, it is this pivot point that makes a great target for anti-hunters to throw sand in the machine (or monkey wrenches, or whatever) to break down hunting altogether.

In the end, I think that any part of our efforts towards advocating better conservation, better rules of the chase tuned towards promoting healthier herds, etc, should bring greater satisfaction of the hunt -- 'of' in that this type of participation is a part of the hunt. But in the end, a part of the issue of hunting comes down to Jose de Ortega's comment that "we do not hunt to kill, we kill so that we may know we have hunted." Those other activities come to naught if we don't end up excercizing the opportunity to take game, and if they don't end up making such opportunities more available.

Dan

I agree with most of the posts and consider ethics are something we should all practice, mostly I feel if its legal then its acceptable and I won't sit in judgement of anyone...

If Pierre tells me we need some meat, I don't really care how I shoot it..A good rest from the back of the truck and a broken neck suit me fine, I'm not hunting, I,m killing for subsistence. the only red meat a safari camp has is what is shot... Has nothing to do with ethics or trophy quality, and I assure you a steady diet of Buffalo is very hard on the jaw, akin to a tire for the most part, depending on many things.....

When I am "hunting", I usually give the game all the perks that I can..I use iron sights sometimes, try my hunting skills as opposed to my shooting skills..I may use a sub standard caliber in order to force those hunting skills, and it has cost me some real trophies..Although I have hunted cats at night and deer from stands, its not my cup of tea, not that I'm self rightous, just that I can't stand to sit in a stand for any length of time...I like to hunt and stalk by preference as opposed to hoofing it..I have done more than my share of walking but as I age, it becomes less and less desirable to me..I enjoy driveing around looking at game and long talks with Pierre or Richard, then a two hour tracking job and success or not, whatever the case may be..I love to hunt with my kids, but I seldom shoot if they are around, rather watch them...I don't enjoy watching a hunter that I don't know very well shoot game and walking along behind him for 5 or 10 miles, used to but no more..guess thats why I never got my PH license, just not my thang!

The sad thing is I have shot so much game that it no longer has the same appeal to me, I take too much for granted and have lost a lot of appreation for the hunt, nor does the kill have much effect on me one way or another, I hate this, but nothing I can do about it..I didn't go this year for that reason, and have been really into my roping with the kids and grandkids, hopefully my instinct to hunt will return, but as it stands all I care about is shooting a big Buffalo now and then, the rest is just necessary or I need a Zebra skin for SCI or whatever, not because I want the hunt..too bad huh? This has been a come and go crises in my life for the last 10 years, but I may have reached my quitting point, guess we'll see and I doubt that I will ever completly quit hunting...but its OK now whichever way it goes. As the Judge said, I have climbed the mountain, seen the elephant...

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
The sad thing is I have shot so much game that it no longer has the same appeal to me, I take too much for granted and have lost a lot of appreation for the hunt, nor does the kill have much effect on me one way or another, I hate this, but nothing I can do about it..I didn't go this year for that reason, and have been really into my roping with the kids and grandkids, hopefully my instinct to hunt will return, but as it stands all I care about is shooting a big Buffalo now and then, the rest is just necessary or I need a Zebra skin for SCI or whatever, not because I want the hunt..too bad huh?

In think a lot (if not most) hunters, who have been at it long enough, start feeling the same way. As gung-ho as you may be at the beginning of your hunting career (or at the beginning of a hunting season), it seems like killing looses some of its attraction after a while. Sad? In a way, I guess. On the other hand, as long as it does not stop you from enjoying the outdoors...

- mike

In hunter safety classes, they had this thing called "5 stages of a hunter," based on some college research project that classified 5 different attitudes of hunters. 1) Shooter: success measured by a chance to see/shoot at game. 2) Limiting out stage: measured success by amount of game taken; 3) trophy: becomes selective about what game to take. 4) Method: uses different technologies (archery, handguns, muzzleloaders) to restrict opportunities. 5) Sportsman: this is a guy who sounds like he's bored with hunting -- happy to sit around camp, talk with kids, maybe gets out into the woods a bit.

My take on all of this was that the guy who is so excited about encountering game really gets the biggest thrill -- their first deer, or first big game animal. Limiting out is satisfying: you know you've learned how to find game consistently. But, with a bag limit of 6 squirrels a day, for 6 weeks, you get 252 squirrels... Used to be people would grow tomoatoes and zuccini, too much, and try to pass them off to each other -- they'd hide when they saw their neighbors comming with their paper bags full of veggies... that was before there were too many deer in the suburbs. But if you came with 252 little squirrels, they'd call the cops on you like some kind of sicko. Not too many years earlier, they'd take 'em with gratitude. It wouldn't take long before hunting squirrels got boring -- to make it more exciting, one may choose to take only the best squirrels, trophy squirrels -- the ones with the biggest antlers. Or how about taking them only by "barking" (hitting the tree next to them with your .50 muzzleloading ball, letting the concussion knock the squirrel down). After its all out of your system, it dawns on one that the folks having the most fun are those beginners -- the ones whose biggest thrill is a chance to see game -- where the flick of an ear draws ones eye to an animal that was invisible right in front of their eyes -- what magic!!!

This year, we don't talk about that anymore. The ethics section is much more focused on obeying the laws and presenting a good image.

Ray, I do understand what you're saying (or at least I humor myself that I see as through a glass, dimly). I suppose I'm looking to Africa to give me something new. Funny thing is, just a few years ago, I was so tied to the sense of freedom that came from the realization that the land I lived on could share its bounty and sustain me, that sense of the generosity of the land; I didn't get the point of going to some other strange land to look for oddly shaped game that obeyed different rules, used different habitat in different ways. I'm only now at the point of being interested in looking to Africa -- but I have sort of naive tastes, perhaps. Not too interested in plains game, though wildebeest are sort of interesting. I think I'm interested in buffalo. The comment they're tough as tires doesn't enthrall me... how does elephant taste?

Dan