Buzz notes that elephants don't bleed much when heart/lung shot.

This has not been my experience when you get a pass through with a flat nose solid, though it might be a relatively long distance until blood hits the ground.

I suspect that two things assist in making the blood trail, one is the more defined hole cut by a flat nose solid, which seems less likely to plug so much as that made by a RN, and the other is the exit wound. The exit wounds seem to plug less than the entrance wound., To get and exit wound on a heart/lung shot reliably, especially in a bull, I think you need to use a FN solid in most elephant cartridges.

JPK

Hi JPK

So good to have you back John! Apologies I probably worded that wrong- what I meant is if an ele is NOT shot in the vitals there is very little bleeding. The reason been is the fatty tissue below the skin quickly closes up the wound. A good heart shot and there is lots of blood as with a double lung . If it is a single lung and especially a high single lung shot you will have a long long walk!!!

Hello Buzz,

Hope all is well.

I've had the marlin bug and have been doing quite a bit of marlin fishing. When I'm marlin fishing I don't have time for much else and marlin season runs concurrently with safari season and some. My boat is out of the water right now, having some work done. After this coming season I think I will turn my attention back to elephant hunting, and introduce my son to buff and eles and the safari experience. He is 14 now, and quite a fine deer and waterfowl hunter. I had a 9.3x62 set up for him. Should be fun!

Thanks for the clarification, I wouldn't think my experiences could be vastly different than yours.

As big as an elephant heart is and as big as the lungs, I have a hard time figuring out how a hunter could fail to make a good shot, especially as a first shot. It must happen or perhaps is more the result of the bullet not penetrating adequately or straight?

I have heard of the long walks after a single lunged elephant. Since the lungs won't/can't collapse the ele must be able to go forever.

JPK

I must agree with Buzz and others as to the reliability of all 4 classic shots on elephant. I have used them all effectively and never lost an elephant.

Frontal Brain - DRT
Side Brain - Knocked Out/Insurance
Heart/Lung - ran 100 yards DRT w/ copious blood from trunk
Shoulder - Down on first step/brained while down

Each shot selection was dictated by circumstances. The heart/lung will cause some anxiety as the elephant will always move off rapidly, but will collapse between 100-200 yards, with a tremendous loss of blood via the trunk. The shoulder shot breaks the joint and the ele will collapse under its' own weight upon the first weight bearing step and will be unable to rise again.

Just my experience, your mileage may vary.

Hey JPK -

I also extend my welcome back to you. John has some good experience with Ele hunting, and I always found him to be helpful. His comments on flat nosed solids are spot on, IMO, and my personal experience with the CEB BBW#13 on ele using different shots is second to none on positive results. I have used this bullet on three of the classic shots, in 3 different calibers, always resulting in dead elephants.

Awesome video and nothing to be ashamed of IMO.


One shot kills are the goal, but if your only 'fault' is not dropping an animal after one shot, you certainly haven't been unethical or criminal.



Plus toting an expensive rifle 1/2 way round the world to shoot it just once is such a waste.

I've just watched this video and it does you no credit whatsoever. For those of you who think it's harmless to post multi shot kills, think again! Videos like this are ammunition for all those who wish to stop hunting. Truthfully I was appalled by the whole thing, especially the length of time it took for the elephant to die, but lets face it I would be.
On the flip side of the coin I recognise that not every kill is one shot and that when it's not it's not going to be pretty. But trust me when I say videos like this do not look a hunt conducted well or ethically to those who do not hunt or abhor hunting!

And one last note, to those of you who tried to tell me ALL kills are one shot - BULLSHIT and you yourselves here in this thread have illustrated the lie.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:And one last note, to those of you who tried to tell me ALL kills are one shot - BULLSHIT and you yourselves here in this thread have illustrated the lie.

Who ever said that? That sounds like a comment made by someone with very limited experience hunting.

Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are.

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

What Saeed said!!

jolouburn you have no idea do you!!!

Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with with jolouburn on this one. Hard to see how posting that clip is harmless given the perceptions of antihunters and how it might be misused. I also stand by my view that this was posted to generate controversy, not an informed dialogue.

It's true that this video isn't pleasant to view, at least from the perspective of the length of time it took the elephant to die. Anyone who has hunted at all knows that not every kill will be a one-shot affair, despite our best efforts. Things go sideways once in a while, and this is the result. No, it wasn't that perfect, dead-right-there brain-shot kill for which one would hope. It is still a quicker, cleaner and less unpleasant demise than virtually any wild animal will ever experience in the wild, whether that demise is brought about by predators, disease or, in the elephant's case, eventual slow malnutrition and starvation.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
I've just watched this video and it does you no credit whatsoever. For those of you who think it's harmless to post multi shot kills, think again! Videos like this are ammunition for all those who wish to stop hunting. Truthfully I was appalled by the whole thing, especially the length of time it took for the elephant to die, but lets face it I would be.
On the flip side of the coin I recognise that not every kill is one shot and that when it's not it's not going to be pretty. But trust me when I say videos like this do not look a hunt conducted well or ethically to those who do not hunt or abhor hunting!

And one last note, to those of you who tried to tell me ALL kills are one shot - BULLSHIT and you yourselves here in this thread have illustrated the lie.

I have to at least partially agree. Things like this are not something that should be put on You Tube.

I have to disagree with most of the rest of what was said by our "friend".

I see no problem with the conduct of the hunt nor the ethics of it. Perhaps they should have rushed a little faster to end things. That is an opinion.

Regardless, this elephant had a whole lot less pain & suffering than one that dies of natural causes.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with with jolouburn on this one. Hard to see how posting that clip is harmless given the perceptions of antihunters and how it might be misused. I also stand by my view that this was posted to generate controversy, not an informed dialogue.

I agree with you on this. It was the first thing that entered my mind when I saw it posted here. I know it is an example of what any normal hunter would try their best to avoid and I also know that this video would easily push some non-hunters who are riding the fence off of it and into the dark side (anti's).

Rationalizing it amongst those who know is a complete waste of time, because we already know things occasionally do not go as planned…………… but it is a grave error to believe that non-hunters rationalize the occurrence in the same way. It is also a grave error to not care how it is perceived by the non-hunting public because they grossly outnumber us and in the end they will decide how many more years legal and ethical hunting continues.

In the end it is never all about legal or ethical, it can come down to the emotions it triggers in non-hunters. As hunter numbers slowly dwindle and then plummet as the boomers leave the hunting fraternity in droves due to death and infirmity…….. what do you think is going to happen if the sensibilities of the non-hunters are not taken into consideration?

This modern instant communication and overnight 'viral' videos could be the kiss of death if more people do not start to realize the damage it can/is causing.

Saeed,

quote:

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are

Strange that you would pick that post to claim my ignorance Saeed. The preceding one would have benefited you far more but hey ho. You yourself perfectly illustrate my 'defensive' reply opinion as every word you type to me is defensive. Your only form of attack has been defence *shrugs*

quote:

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Yes, nature is a wonderful but sometimes brutal thing.

quote:

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

Not at all sure what zoo's have to do with my comments but i'll humour you.

I have seen lots of negative articles about zoo's recently, some just, some not, but i have not seen anyone threatening the lives of anyone working in zoo's! Care to point me to these threats?

With regards to zoo's i'm in favour of them providing they are well managed, the animals are well cared for and they do some form of work for conservation.

quote:

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

If only a lions life was saved for every time i type this i'd have repopulated their numbers solo! I have nothing to to do with lion aid.
As for conservation you have your opinion on how to achieve it best and i have mine. We don't agree but i respect your opinion and perhaps it's about time you did the same.

I come here for constructive adult conversation which is something i have never ever got from you and that's your choice if you do not wish to converse in this manner. I'd say it's better for us not to converse at all since it is a waste of time with your repetitive defensive remarks.


Mike Taylor,

quote:

What Saeed said!!

jolouburn you have no idea do you!!!

Idea about what?
The way antis will and have responded to that video?
Or
The fact some here claim one shot kills on every hunt?

The answer to both is YES.

As many have said here the poster of the elephant kill video had every right to post it and if we take for granted their was nothing wrong with the hunt even more so. However what you fail to note is that people who do not hunt or are anti hunters see this kind of video and abhor it and everything it stands for. What really sticks in their gullet is things like the grin on the hunters face every shot for the camera whilst that elephant suffers. They despise the fact it took seven shots to kill the elephant and cannot comprehend what good shooting it in the hip did!

But most of all they despise the fact that an elephant was killed for a trophy at all and whether some of you like it or not they have every right to feel that way. Just as you have the right to feel that hunting is perfectly ok and a sport.

Truth be known more and more people are taking notice of these videos of hunts and more and more people are objecting. But hey if you want to create a bad impression of hunting carry on posting them and supporting hunters like melissa bachmann who the world hates right now. After all what harm can any of it do you?

quote:

Truth be known more and more people are taking notice of these videos of hunts and more and more people are objecting. But hey if you want to create a bad impression of hunting carry on posting them and supporting hunters like melissa bachmann who the world hates right now. After all what harm can any of it do you?

Unfortunately, it is the truth and posting these photos/clips is nothing more than providing documented evidence or canon fodder to those elements of society that abhor hunting in any form.

Continuing to publicize our hobby in this manner is doing us no favours and we have some clear examples that we are somehow on the losing side - that is a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Truth be known more and more people are taking notice of these videos of hunts and more and more people are objecting. But hey if you want to create a bad impression of hunting carry on posting them and supporting hunters like melissa bachmann who the world hates right now. After all what harm can any of it do you?

Unfortunately, it is the truth and posting these photos/clips is nothing more than providing documented evidence or canon fodder to those elements of society that abhor hunting in any form.

Continuing to publicize our hobby in this manner is doing us no favours and we have some clear examples that we are somehow on the losing side - that is a fact.

I couldn't agree more and at the risk of repeating myself, simply don't understand why people feel the need to post such things. Every time it happens, it just gives the antis tools to beat us over the head with when they feel the time is ripe.

You Tube will be the death of hunting.

quote:

As many have said here the poster of the elephant kill video had every right to post it...

While the HUNTER certainly would have had every right to post this video, it was explained early on in this thread that he did not do so, and that he would have preferred that it not be posted. Unfortunately, his freeloading "friend" decided to repay the generosity displayed by this hunter by smearing him in front of the world. Is that hunt perfect? Of course not, and I'm certain that hunter wishes it had gone more cleanly, but posting or not posting should have been the hunter's choice. For the "friend" to do so may not have been illegal, but it certainly wasn't ethical. Sounds more like a friend of yours, rather than the hunter's.

Finally, would you reference one instance of someone here on AR claiming that every hunt is a one-shot kill? I've read numerous threads and posts of yours and can't recall ever seeing that claim made, and I can't imagine who would make it. You have been told and have probably read many times that we strive for that ideal, not that the ideal is achieved every single time. Your stated goal...stated over and over...is intelligent discussion, yet you seem merely to want to incite angry comments. I think you have managed that nicely.

jwm,

My apologies, i myself read that it was not the hunter who had posted the video. However perhaps said hunter will think twice about allowing his hunts to be filmed and whom by!

I will do my upmost to reference where i was told every shot was a one shot kill but it may take me some time to find it as i have had many discussions on here.

Of course some of my comments are going to incite anger on here and that i fully accept and expect. What i don't accept or expect is the childish, repetitive avoidance of adult conversation that some here show.

Your comment sounds more like a friend of mine than a friend of the hunter is spot on and can be said of many, many hunters etc who post videos. Every single one of you knows the damage to your (generic) cause that videos like this one threaten but you still continue to post them and wonder why people don't like hunting and speak out against it!

As i have said many times you are your own worst enemies sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
jwm,

My apologies, i myself read that it was not the hunter who had posted the video. However perhaps said hunter will think twice about allowing his hunts to be filmed and whom by!

I will do my upmost to reference where i was told every shot was a one shot kill but it may take me some time to find it as i have had many discussions on here.

Of course some of my comments are going to incite anger on here and that i fully accept and expect. What i don't accept or expect is the childish, repetitive avoidance of adult conversation that some here show.

Your comment sounds more like a friend of mine than a friend of the hunter is spot on and can be said of many, many hunters etc who post videos. Every single one of you knows the damage to your (generic) cause that videos like this one threaten but you still continue to post them and wonder why people don't like hunting and speak out against it!

As i have said many times you are your own worst enemies sometimes.

We can make allowance for the enemies we have within.

It is the stupid idiots like you who can never see any sense that are the enemies of all wildlife.

Saeed,

Saeed grow up. I am no enemy of wildlife.
Making allowances for enemies within! Don't we know it!

Oh by the way, look forward to having drinks and dinner with you since you stated ALL are welcome to do so :-)

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Saeed,

Saeed grow up. I am no enemy of wildlife.
Making allowances for enemies within! Don't we know it!

Oh by the way, look forward to having drinks and dinner with you since you stated ALL are welcome to do so :-)

Do a search on google on what is happening to wildlife in Kenya.

It was your brainless lot who persuaded them to ban hunting, and just look what that has done to wildlife.

You lot should be locked up in a mental asylum.

There is not one brain cell between the lot of you.

I'm fully aware of the situation in Kenya Saeed.

So antis stopped the hunting in Kenya? If that were true they would have stopped hunting everywhere.

As for the rest of your post i won't lower myself to behave in the disrespectful, childish, arrogant way you do.

A quote from your good self from here :-

quote:

All we ask for is that members treat each other with respect, and no spamming.

Perhaps you should hold yourself to the same standards as you hold other members :-)

It really is no wonder AR's rep isn't that good outside of it's circles when it's main spokesperson behaves in the manner you do.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn: And one last note, to those of you who tried to tell me ALL kills are one shot - BULLSHIT and you yourselves here in this thread have illustrated the lie.

quote:

Who ever said that? That sounds like a comment made by someone with very limited experience hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn: Whitworth, When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

I can state for a fact that no one here has ever said that. Period. Case closed. End of story. Go away. ...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are.

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

I don't understand why anyone here on AR feels the need to attack jolouburn. She represents the opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner and refrains from name calling and such. Having the opposing viewpoint represented elevates the level of discourse here on AR.

The video in question does make elephant hunting look barbaric in the eyes of nonhunters and therefore hurts our cause. Once the client failed to hit the brain Buzz should have taken over(went all Mark Sullivan, if you will...) to dispatch the elephant, IMO. The kill was far from ideal and this video will be the one that sticks in the minds of nonhunters long after any one shot kills are forgotten.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are.

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

I don't understand why anyone here on AR feels the need to attack jolouburn. She represents the opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner and refrains from name calling and such. Having the opposing viewpoint represented elevates the level of discourse here on AR.

The video in question does make elephant hunting look barbaric in the eyes of nonhunters and therefore hurts our cause. Once the client failed to hit the brain Buzz should have taken over(went all Mark Sullivan, if you will...) to dispatch the elephant, IMO. The kill was far from ideal and this video will be the one that sticks in the minds of nonhunters long after any one shot kills are forgotten.

I agree. As Sun Tzu said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Seems more and more the sentiment on AR is that if you are not a yes man, you are confused and unenlightened and just need to be insulted and denigrated a little to see the error of your ways. At the same time we will allow someone to insult another man's wife in the most despicable way and cast a blind eye in the name of not wanting censorship. I think it is good to understand what the anti-hunters are thinking, how they perceive things, otherwise we might as well just be ostriches with our collective heads in the sand. And we cannot do so in a respectable way shame on us.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
I'm fully aware of the situation in Kenya Saeed.

So antis stopped the hunting in Kenya? If that were true they would have stopped hunting everywhere.

As for the rest of your post i won't lower myself to behave in the disrespectful, childish, arrogant way you do.

A quote from your good self from here :-

quote:

All we ask for is that members treat each other with respect, and no spamming.

Perhaps you should hold yourself to the same standards as you hold other members :-)

It really is no wonder AR's rep isn't that good outside of it's circles when it's main spokesperson behaves in the manner you do.

Yes, it was the anti's that stopped hunting in Kenya, which paved the way for both massive poaching and for massive invasion of habitat.

Once the land and the animals can't pay for itself/themselves via the very high rate safari hunters pay the incentive and the funds to protect and maintain the habitat and animals disappears.

Eco tourism doesn't produce the same revenue per visitor and net sufficient funds. It is not possible to cater to sufficient eco safari visitors and even if possible, the impact of too may visitors, enough to equal the net proceeds of safari hunting, is actually more intrusive to both habitat and animals. I wish I had the citations handy, but I don't. They are easy enough to find with Google though.

Anti hunting sentiments are not universal, and politics are local. The anti's in Kenya prevailed, and recently they have in Botswana, but there with a different angle - the hunting ban looks likely to be followed by extensive gas drilling, which may prove devastating to wildlife, worse even than rampant poaching (which you will recall is prevented by funds generated by safari hunting.) Just because anti's prevail in one jurisdiction means nothing in the next.

JPK

Here, this, from a far left US source:

Glen Martin of the Huffington Post writes:

Africa's wildlife is being loved to death. Kenya's much-praised ban on hunting, in fact, has had an impact opposite to its intent: wild animals are disappearing at an accelerating rate. "Charismatic megafauna" -- elephants, lions, rhinos, the larger antelopes -- are in a true death spiral.
When Kenya's hunting ban was passed in 1977 in response to the "Ivory Wars" that were ravaging the nation's elephants, it was hailed as a new and progressive paradigm for wildlife management. With the hunting pressure off, animal lovers opined, the game would bounce back. And it's true that elephants did recover modestly over the ensuring two decades.
But now the slaughter has begun anew, driven by an unrelenting demand from a prosperous Asia for ivory objets d'art. Meanwhile, everything else is going down the tubes, including carnivores and antelopes. By best estimates, Kenya's wildlife has declined by more than 70 percent over the past 20 years.
What happened? While the ban played well in the developed world, it was catastrophic for the people who lived in the rural hinterlands of Kenya -- the places where wildlife actually exists. Basically, folks out in the bush had the responsibility for maintaining wildlife on their lands, but they were deprived of any benefit from the animals. Such a situation is intolerable for subsistence pastoralists and farmers.
Subsequent to the ban, they could not respond -- legally -- when an elephant raided their maize and stomped their goats, or when a lion killed a cow. But laws made in Nairobi are seldom if ever applied with rigor in the Kenyan bush. Even as animal rights groups lionized Kenya's no-kill policy and urged its adoption across Africa, the killing has continued unabated. Carnivores are poisoned, antelope snared, elephants speared and shot: Crops can thus be raised and the livestock grazed in peace.
Michael Norton-Griffiths, who has served as the senior ecologist for Tanzania's Serengeti National Park and the manager of the Eastern Sahel Program for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, likened the situation to owning a goat.
Assume, says Norton-Griffiths, that you're a poor pastoralist in rural Kenya, and your assets consist of a goat. You can eat this goat, or milk it. You can sell it, gaining hard currency that you can use to buy necessities. Or you can breed it, increasing your asset base in the form of another goat.
But now imagine that a law is passed that forbids you to eat, sell, or breed that goat. In fact, the only thing you can do with it is allow tourists to take pictures of it. Even then, you obtain no benefit; the money derived from the tourists photographing the goat goes to the owner of the "eco-lodge" they are patronizing.
By substituting wildlife for the goat, says Norton-Griffiths, you have the situation that exists in Kenya today.
If African wildlife is to survive -- let alone thrive -- local people must value it. In other words, they must be allowed to gain both income and meat from it in a sustainable fashion. And repugnant as it may seem to most urbanized westerners, lion, buffalo and elephant hunting can be sustainable enterprises -- like most large African mammals, these species are fecund. Wealthy hunters will pay between $50,000 to $100,000 to take a trophy male lion or elephant bull, and up to $20,000 for a buffalo with big horns. If that money is returned to local communities -- along with the meat -- then tolerance for wildlife reflexively improves.
Similarly, the commercial cropping of certain species of plains game for hides and meat (Burchell's zebra most specifically) can build support for conservation among Africa's pastoral and agricultural communities.
This isn't to say hunting is a panacea for Africa's wildlife crisis. Kenya's wildlife stocks currently are too depleted to allow any kind of "consumptive" game policy. Tanzania has larger populations of wildlife than Kenya, and both trophy and subsistence hunting are allowed -- but the game is dwindling. Over-hunting due to poor enforcement of the quotas and general government corruption is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor.
But a template for a rational wildlife policy exists: in Namibia. By the late 1980s, wildlife was almost wholly extirpated from this vast southwestern African territory following decades of conflict between South Africa and the Southwest Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). Following Namibia's independence from South Africa in 1990, the leaders of the new nation established wildlife policies that invested tribal communities with control over the game, while simultaneously establishing firm quotas for individual species. Income from both hunting and cropping is rigorously tracked, and diligently returned to the communities.
Namibian wildlife, in short, was changed from a liability to an asset. Today, Namibia is burgeoning with wildlife, game and non-game species alike. The country has the world's largest population of cheetahs. Elephants are abundant -- in some places too abundant -- and lions are returning. Rare antelopes such as kudu and sable are anything but rare in Namibia; their meat, the yield of certified cropping programs, is easily found in supermarkets.
Obviously, this would not be possible without relatively good governance. In the 2011 corruption index for 182 countries released by Transparency International, Namibia ranked 57th and Kenya was close to the bottom at 154. If Kenya is to duplicate Namibia's success, it must address its rampant corruption as well as revamp its game laws.
Still, Namibia points to a better way than the blanket no-hunt policy that has become holy writ among some animal rights groups. And it's better because it's pragmatic: It addresses the needs of people as well as the rights of animals. Unlike Kenya's current wildlife policy, it actually works.

Whether or not the antis were directly responsible for the Kenya hunting ban is a moot point & really doesn't matter. What matters is that hunting was stopped in Kenya and that it caused a massive decline in game numbers.

The fact is that when Jomo Kenyatta came to power in 1963 or so, his first speech contained the words "Even the game must be free" and he then went on to announce an immediate ban on hunting in Kenya and that ban has resulted in the ever increasing human encroachment into the true wilderness areas and the subsequent devastating loss of game populations in that country which proves that non hunting doesn't work and hunting does work for the game populations.

Those same non hunting policies were enforced a few years later when a dreadful drought came along and the Kenyan Govt were advised to cull heavily so the remaining game populations would survive.

The Kenyan Govt decided to ignore that advice and as a result, the game populations suffered horribly and ALL wildlife populations from insects to birds to antelopes to predators to elephants and indeed the bush itself took many years to recover. (Many would argue it never properly recovered) The whole sad story is told in 'The End Of The Game' by Peter Beard.

I don't usually like to post other people's pics here but I'll make an exception in this case and here's a couple of images from that book that show the result of the failure to cull some so that others and the bush itself may survive.

Every little white speck that you see in the 1st pic is an elephant bone.

You stop the hunting, you kill ALL the game.





Jolouburn is however (IMO) right about one thing when he/she says hunters are their own worst enemies and that we're not doing ourselves any favours in the eyes of the general public by posting some of the You Tube vids etc that we do post. The current elephant hunting video currently being discusses is a good example.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are.

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

I don't understand why anyone here on AR feels the need to attack jolouburn. She represents the opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner and refrains from name calling and such. Having the opposing viewpoint represented elevates the level of discourse here on AR.

The video in question does make elephant hunting look barbaric in the eyes of nonhunters and therefore hurts our cause. Once the client failed to hit the brain Buzz should have taken over(went all Mark Sullivan, if you will...) to dispatch the elephant, IMO. The kill was far from ideal and this video will be the one that sticks in the minds of nonhunters long after any one shot kills are forgotten.

Jason,

They are the ultimate hypocrites!

Members from here went to their FB page, and posted factual, respectful answers.

They got deleted, and those members got banned.

I have no problem having an open discussion with the antis - but they should give us the same freedom to express our views.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

I agree. As Sun Tzu said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Seems more and more the sentiment on AR is that if you are not a yes man, you are confused and unenlightened and just need to be insulted and denigrated a little to see the error of your ways. At the same time we will allow someone to insult another man's wife in the most despicable way and cast a blind eye in the name of not wanting censorship. I think it is good to understand what the anti-hunters are thinking, how they perceive things, otherwise we might as well just be ostriches with our collective heads in the sand. And we cannot do so in a respectable way shame on us.

Oh the irony!

Is now a good time to point that the rabid SCI supporters were repeatedly doing that very thing to SCI criticisers in recent threads?

I wonder if the words pot, kettle, black ring any bells with anyone!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are.

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

I don't understand why anyone here on AR feels the need to attack jolouburn. She represents the opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner and refrains from name calling and such. Having the opposing viewpoint represented elevates the level of discourse here on AR.

The video in question does make elephant hunting look barbaric in the eyes of nonhunters and therefore hurts our cause. Once the client failed to hit the brain Buzz should have taken over(went all Mark Sullivan, if you will...) to dispatch the elephant, IMO. The kill was far from ideal and this video will be the one that sticks in the minds of nonhunters long after any one shot kills are forgotten.

Jason,

They are the ultimate hypocrites!

Members from here went to their FB page, and posted factual, respectful answers.

They got deleted, and those members got banned.

I have no problem having an open discussion with the antis - but they should give us the same freedom to express our views.

Saeed
They can't allow us equal time because they know that we have the facts on our side. It is that simple.

quote:

Whether or not the antis were directly responsible for the Kenya hunting ban is a moot point & really doesn't matter.

I would say that it does matter and my reasons for this will become clear.

quote:

Yes, it was the anti's that stopped hunting in Kenya, which paved the way for both massive poaching and for massive invasion of habitat.

How did the anti's stop hunting in Kenya? It is my understanding that before a ban on hunting is put in place anywhere there is a period of research, evidence presenting and campaigning from both sides.

quote:

The fact is that when Jomo Kenyatta came to power in 1963 or so, his first speech contained the words "Even the game must be free" and he then went on to announce an immediate ban on hunting in Kenya

So the anti's perhaps did not have as much to do with the ban on hunting in Kenya as some would lead people to believe!
Some hunters are very quick to throw blame at anti's but do not stop to look at themselves. Perhaps if you campaigned harder? Perhaps if you did more in public to support your cause instead of hiding away and burying your heads in the sand and blaming anyone but yourselves for your plight you would fair better!

When you look at the media and how they cover hunting it is very, very rare you will see an article that supports hunting or presents huntings good side. Recently the media in the UK has been full of the canned hunting industry, Melissa Bachmann and the royal family. Melissa Bachmann because she participated in canned hunting. Canned hunting because it is seen by the world as been wrong and barbaric. The royal family because they are now campaigning to save wildlife yet are hunters themselves.

The anti's use these media pieces to run campaigns off. Later this month 39 cities in 16 countries will march for the lions and to highlight the need to stop canned hunting.

What are the hunters doing to highlight their plight? A big fat nothing other than complaining about the bad rap they get!

Recently nat geo aired a program where Kevin Richardson went under cover to certain lion 'conservation' parks who it turned out were supplying the canned lion trade with lions. Were they open about this? No, they hid it like some dirty secret knowing that they would lose the publics support if the truth came out.

What are hunters doing to counteract this negative press? Nothing.

See a pattern emerging here?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whitworth,

When i first came to this site, many tried to tell me this but i already knew it was not the case. I think probably it was a 'defensive' lie as i am not a hunter and am against quite a bit of hunting and the practices.

Every time you open your mouth, you show how ignorant you and your lot are.

have you been in the bush and seen how animals kill to eat?

Have you been listing to all your friend the eco-terrorists who threaten the lives of those working in zoos?

You and your friends who run lionaid, and other idiots claiming to be "conservationists" don't even know what that word means.

I don't understand why anyone here on AR feels the need to attack jolouburn. She represents the opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner and refrains from name calling and such. Having the opposing viewpoint represented elevates the level of discourse here on AR.

The video in question does make elephant hunting look barbaric in the eyes of nonhunters and therefore hurts our cause. Once the client failed to hit the brain Buzz should have taken over(went all Mark Sullivan, if you will...) to dispatch the elephant, IMO. The kill was far from ideal and this video will be the one that sticks in the minds of nonhunters long after any one shot kills are forgotten.

Jason,

They are the ultimate hypocrites!

Members from here went to their FB page, and posted factual, respectful answers.

They got deleted, and those members got banned.

I have no problem having an open discussion with the antis - but they should give us the same freedom to express our views.

Who's they Saeed?
I am one single person.

Their FB page?
Noone has posted on my facebook page, i gave all the info to find me a long time ago but noone has conversed with me there.

Oh yeah of course, you're referring to Lion Aid who I have no connection with other than raising some money for about two years ago!

This old chestnut is getting rather tiresome for many and if it is your best path of discussion with me then I have highly over rated your intelligence.

Let's put this to bed Saeed, prove here that I am affiliated with or part of Lion Aid. Put your money where your mouth is and actually present some fact to back up your claims.

When you can't no need for an apology for making false accusations :-)

Just as an aside :-

Happy Wildlife Day to you all

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Whether or not the antis were directly responsible for the Kenya hunting ban is a moot point & really doesn't matter.

I would say that it does matter and my reasons for this will become clear.

quote:

Yes, it was the anti's that stopped hunting in Kenya, which paved the way for both massive poaching and for massive invasion of habitat.

How did the anti's stop hunting in Kenya? It is my understanding that before a ban on hunting is put in place anywhere there is a period of research, evidence presenting and campaigning from both sides.

quote:

The fact is that when Jomo Kenyatta came to power in 1963 or so, his first speech contained the words "Even the game must be free" and he then went on to announce an immediate ban on hunting in Kenya

So the anti's perhaps did not have as much to do with the ban on hunting in Kenya as some would lead people to believe!
Some hunters are very quick to throw blame at anti's but do not stop to look at themselves. Perhaps if you campaigned harder? Perhaps if you did more in public to support your cause instead of hiding away and burying your heads in the sand and blaming anyone but yourselves for your plight you would fair better!

When you look at the media and how they cover hunting it is very, very rare you will see an article that supports hunting or presents huntings good side. Recently the media in the UK has been full of the canned hunting industry, Melissa Bachmann and the royal family. Melissa Bachmann because she participated in canned hunting. Canned hunting because it is seen by the world as been wrong and barbaric. The royal family because they are now campaigning to save wildlife yet are hunters themselves.

The anti's use these media pieces to run campaigns off. Later this month 39 cities in 16 countries will march for the lions and to highlight the need to stop canned hunting.

What are the hunters doing to highlight their plight? A big fat nothing other than complaining about the bad rap they get!

Recently nat geo aired a program where Kevin Richardson went under cover to certain lion 'conservation' parks who it turned out were supplying the canned lion trade with lions. Were they open about this? No, they hid it like some dirty secret knowing that they would lose the publics support if the truth came out.

What are hunters doing to counteract this negative press? Nothing.

See a pattern emerging here?

My point was that when hunting is banned the game populations suffer immensely or put it another way, it's hunting that ensures healthy game populations because if the game has no value (as happened in Kenya) the game gets wiped out by the indigenous populations and another example of that can be found in Uganda. When hunting was allowed, the game thrived then Idi Amin came to power, hunting stopped and the game populations dwindled dramatically. Limited hunting and anti poaching policies have now resumed and game populations will increase if the hunting and anti poaching continues.

I've no idea whether the antis had any influence on Kenyatta when he banned hunting but the point is the antis policies/principles were what Kenyatta introduced when he banned hunting and it was those same policies/principles that caused the massive decline in game populations.

As for 'lion conservation parks', the canned lion trade and the undercover reporter.......... All I can say is: HEY GUYS....... I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!

I've said for years the canned shooting industry was unethical in the extreme and that if it wasn't banned, it was going to cause BIG problems for real hunting. It's no surprise to me this has now happened.

Big shock on the canned lion….. NOT……. oh but we are suppose to alls stick together and support it. In the end it could only hurt hunting as a whole.

As far as Kenya goes…….. seems to me way back when it closed it had more to do with the government officials who were involved in the ivory poaching cartels didn't want the hunting safaris in the bush to see what was going on. Those pesky legal hunters would have a negative effect on business.

Something tells me we may see that this has something to do with the closure in Botswana when the truth ultimately comes out.

Jolouburn a lot of closures in Africa are just bullshit politics and have almost nothing to do with real science. Usually money is crossing palms somewhere and the closure had more to do with bureaucrats putting money in their pockets by closing hunting as it is in the best interested of some other commercial interests, whether that be Asian poaching crews or oil and gas exploration. Sad but true.

It ain't the UK or Canada or the EU.

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:
Big shock on the canned lion….. NOT……. oh but we are suppose to alls stick together and support it. In the end it could only hurt hunting as a whole.

As far as Kenya goes…….. seems to me way back when it closed it had more to do with the government officials who were involved in the ivory poaching cartels didn't want the hunting safaris in the bush to see what was going on. Those pesky legal hunters would have a negative effect on business.

Something tells me we may see that this has something to do with the closure in Botswana when the truth ultimately comes out.

Jolouburn a lot of closures in Africa are just bullshit politics and have almost nothing to do with real science. Usually money is crossing palms somewhere and the closure had more to do with bureaucrats putting money in their pockets by closing hunting as it is in the best interested of some other commercial interests, whether that be Asian poaching crews or oil and gas exploration. Sad but true.

It ain't the UK or Canada or the EU.

It already has. Soon after the hunting companies moved out, it was discovered that fracking companies moved in.

Shakari

quote:

My point was that when hunting is banned the game populations suffer immensely or put it another way, it's hunting that ensures healthy game populations because if the game has no value (as happened in Kenya) the game gets wiped out by the indigenous populations and another example of that can be found in Uganda. When hunting was allowed, the game thrived then Idi Amin came to power, hunting stopped and the game populations dwindled dramatically. Limited hunting and anti poaching policies have now resumed and game populations will increase if the hunting and anti poaching continues.

I think to say the game has no value is a bit of a reach. Kenya still has a popular 'photo' safari revenue coming in. I'm not saying that the ban on hunting has not done harm to the wildlife population there just that there is still some income from the game.

I am not a rabid anti hunter as some here would have you believe. I believe you have every right to hunt. I am just concerned about species that have or will become unsustainable because of many factors, not just hunting.

You mentioned a proposed cull in your earlier post in Kenya which did not go ahead and resulted in devastating effect. I personally would have backed that cull taking what you posted at face value and not doing any research on it.

quote:

I've said for years the canned shooting industry was unethical in the extreme and that if it wasn't banned, it was going to cause real hunting problems. It's no surprise to me this has now happened

quote:

Big shock on the canned lion….. NOT……. oh but we are suppose to alls stick together and support it. In the end it could only hurt hunting as a whole.

You have seen for yourselves how some here tar me with the same brush as the antis who say they would rather see elephants etc extinct before see them hunted (just an example)?
Well that is what antis and the general public do when it comes to hunters and canned hunters. You are all tarred with the same brush. Few members of the public can or will differentiate between the two types of hunt.

Skyline

quote:

Jolouburn a lot of closures in Africa are just bullshit politics and have almost nothing to do with real science. Usually money is crossing palms somewhere and the closure had more to do with bureaucrats putting money in their pockets by closing hunting as it is in the best interested of some other commercial interests, whether that be Asian poaching crews or oil and gas exploration. Sad but true.

It ain't the UK or Canada or the EU.

I completely agree