I hear on social media that a well known Texan oil man and his son are on the 50 something day of a safari. People are mentioning 30 odd buff each and a lot of elephant too. 10?12?
They do come out every year from what I understand.

Not quite sure where I stand on this. A tad jealous for sure, but it seems a bit excessive.

Good for them.

The animals are on quota, and are going to be hunted.

By 20 people or just two.

What difference does it make?

Sick media idiots will always find something to complain about, regardless what people do!

Tell them all to FO!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Tell them all to FO!

Hey, I resemble that remark!

quote:

Originally posted by Snav:
I hear on social media that a well known Texan oil man and his son are on the 50 something day of a safari. People are mentioning 30 odd buff each and a lot of elephant too. 10?12?
They do come out every year from what I understand.

Not quite sure where I stand on this. A tad jealous for sure, but it seems a bit excessive.

As Saeed says, they’re on quota.

It does not matter how many hunters are involved in doing the hunting.

In my book, logic trumps emotion every time.

Which is one of many reasons I don’t belong to PETA.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Good for them.

The animals are on quota, and are going to be hunted.

By 20 people or just two.

What difference does it make?

Sick media idiots will always find something to complain about, regardless what people do!

Tell them all to FO!

Wholesale is far better than retail.

All,
I think the question goes deeper than what we are thinking.
How much killing is just killing vs hunting?
I see photos of guys that go to Mexico and kill 50 or ducks in a day. I see the same in Argentina where you see 1000 or more doves killed every outing.

How much is enough? Is it a game of numbers or is there an ethic in place here?

We criticize Colquesteu of Romania for shooting hundreds of baited bears. To what end was he doing this?

In talking to PH's who have been in on several hundred ele's or buff or others - they do this a living but they also do it for the "chase", not the shot. I have spoken to several that don't hunt for themselves any longer as it has lost it's lustre.

A case in point for me. I went on a "European" pheasant shoot in Kansas where birds are launched into the air to fly off a hill into the shooters. After about 10 minutes, this got really old and I quit shooting. What was the point? Live target practice???

This does not compare to hunting many "whatevers" because they are on quota. However, how many buffalo or wildebeest can a person shoot and truly enjoy what they are doing???

It is not unlike going to an all you can eat buffet - legal to do, legal to bloat yourself on food, and legal to do it regularly - but what does it do the person???

Not being critical of those that hunt legally, but just question my own motives/choices.

I suspect others do as well.

There we go again.

ETHICS!

Hunt as much as you can enjoy it.

Ethics only applies to an individual himself!

And whatever you do, do NOT listen to anyone else.

You pay your money, you spend your time, no one's business.

Every time I go to Africa I shoot as much as I can afford because I enjoy it. If I could afford more I would shoot more. Wish I could afford me to increase my level of enjoyment.

I can agree that just shooting for shooting’s sake could get old.

However, to me it’s not an ethical issue. More personal. I suppose if I had unlimited funds and was at a game farm, Buffalo would get boring quickly. Ditto with culling elephant, lion, or whatever.

How many? I don’t know. I have never been in that situation. I have shot pigeons to help a friend where it became “live target practice” to me, although my dairy farming friend was thankful as I saved him from having to do it (and pay for the shells) but it became work after 1 box, and I would have walked away from it if there wasn’t a purpose behind it.

It’s not going to be the same number for me vs anyone else. I would think being on safari for 2 months would be great fun and the fact that you took what the hunt offered you would be the way you didn’t get bored… but with elephant, I think I’d be looking for a big bull instead of shooting 10 lesser bulls, as just getting in shooting range is a charge for me, although I have shot multiple nontrophy bulls (but that was during the US government mandated no importation period)- just what I personally enjoy. I’d make a lousy professional ivory hunter.

I hunt for experience and old animals and I figured with those numbers, it would not do for me
Times when I get skunked, I’m so much looking forward to next season that if I dint get skunked I would not enjoy it as much and looking forward to it as much
Too much success breeds contempt….well, you guys get the drift
Ethics? Partly yes as well
Ultimately if you overdo something, it becomes job and then it looses lustr and pure enjoyment
Anyhow…

I don’t have a real issue with these hunters or others that might be in their party shooting 65+ Buffalo on a hunting trip. I’ve culled Impala, kudu and springbok in SA and fallow and red deer in New Zealand, quite a few, in fact. In my opinion, the issue arises when those that shoot huge numbers of anything post photos on FB or other social media. THAT gives the anti’s something to sensationalize and raise money off of. One hunter recently bragged on social media of huge numbers killed, same guy did the same a few years ago, posted photos of him sitting in a folding chair surrounded by over 100 skulls.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat: I see the same in Argentina where you see 1000 or more doves killed every outing.

How much is enough? Is it a game of numbers or is there an ethic in place here?

I will never go back to hunt doves in Argentina again. After day one I saw what was really going on and I did not like what I saw. The bird boys picked up the doves they could EASILY find, the rest well they just stayed on the ground.When we got back the birds went in a dumpster. The outfitter tells us that they lose 50% of their grain crop every year to the doves, what grain crops, all I saw was alfalfa for cattle. The you find out the doves roosting areas are all fenced, with predator control and supplemental feeding, kinda makes you wonder what so called "problem" they are truly dealing with. Don't get me wrong the wingshooting is really fun, that type of hunting justs goes against the ethics I was taught. I guess Saeed is right, it comes down to "personal ethics".

Ethics may be the wrong word. For instance, if you had $200,000 that was pure excess and you like hunting elk. Would you go to an elk area, let’s say Texas, where there are no limits. You pay for what you shoot. And you could shoot 15 400” bulls ina few day, would you?
What is the point?

Quota is quota, as Saeed said, it doesn't matter if one hunter shoots 30 Buff or 30 hunters shoot 30 buff.

Sometimes I think we have some "Karens" in the hunting ranks.

If it's legal, it's legal. You run deer with dogs in PA someone will shoot your dogs. Do it in Georgia with the proper permit, it's accepted.

Not my place to judge either school of thought other than to say, if it's legal, then it's legal.

Your mileage may vary,
Jim

I get it. Legal is legal and quota is quota…
No laws are broken, no one gets judged…
But is it right? Is it morally “ok”?

I view the hunt for each animal as a different "hunt" so the fact that there are a lot of animals shot on a long safari isn't surprising or offensive at all to me. I would love to hunt buffalo for 50 days straight.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I get it. Legal is legal and quota is quota…
No laws are broken, no one gets judged…
But is it right? Is it morally “ok”?

Those are the right questions. Each person has to answer for himself. Personally I find this practice embarrassing. But this is the same fellow that shot dozens of kudu trying to shoot a 60” bull. His prerogative, just as it is my prerogative to say that I find his actions distasteful. I believe the fellow is also a DSC board member and president-elect of that organization . . . an organization which has the mission “to ensure the conservation of wildlife through public engagement, education and advocacy for well-regulated hunting and sustainable use.” There is a saying in business, just because you have the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I get it. Legal is legal and quota is quota…
No laws are broken, no one gets judged…
But is it right? Is it morally “ok”?

Bloody hell!

That takes the cake!

What business is it yours to judge others!

Now we do have KARENS in our hunting community!

Someone goes on a NORMAL hunting trip, and you want to find fault in it!

I am sure some idiot will come along and say one should not be allowed to hunt more than once now!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I get it. Legal is legal and quota is quota…
No laws are broken, no one gets judged…
But is it right? Is it morally “ok”?

Bloody hell!

That takes the cake!

What business is it yours to judge others!

Now we do have KARENS in our hunting community!

Someone goes on a NORMAL hunting trip, and you want to find fault in it!

I am sure some idiot will come along and say one should not be allowed to hunt more than once now!

everything is possible Saeed ... some even voted for trump go figure ... so karens among hunters indeed i will believe this ...

The biggest issue is why people think that they need to care/worry/judge what others do.

I dont believe this falls under ethics. And I am certainly not a Karen. I have hunted my entire life. It's just a personal issue. I know that if I had to walk up to the 3rd or 4th elephant, I wouldn't feel so great. For me there is no need to hunt that many on a trip. I would however love to hunt one a year. Buff? Maybe 2-3 a year.
No PH is ever going to voice their opinion about this out loud as the earn from this group must be significant, but the oil man and his son do not garner as much respect as they believe they do from their " numbers". I have heard it described as "gross"

Sorry, as mentioned, this will be different for all hunters and thats fine. Saeed, I know you guys hunt a fair amount of buff each year, but I believe your love of the chase , is very evident. It's not a case of more is better.

.

Some years ago I went to a feedlot in RSA and over the course of the day I shot exactly 500 dove and pigeon. That was my target and I hit it. All the birds were picked and after photos the kids from the township near the lot scrambled to fill their pockets and hands with the birds. They plucked them there and then and roasted them on sticks at the fire I had lit for my lunch break BBQ.

I wrote an article on the shoot for the AHG, and later the president of SA Wingshooters wrote to the magazine saying that my shoot was unethical and unchristian! I got to reply and said that if he spent more time promoting wingshooting in RSA rather than writing about ethics, morals and whether unchristian or not, then maybe more shotgunners would go to RSA to shoot pigeon and dove and not all to Argentina for big bags.

It was a memorable shoot for me and I totally enjoyed the day.

Earlier this year we took a group of friends to the Northern Cape and shot 60 springbok over 3 days. A driven springbok shoot. Again memorable and fun and a big number of bucks shot.

Almost every time you pull the trigger it is "killing". I have yet to be in the situation where I question "is that too many?"

I would say, if it is legal and you are ok with it then go for it. If it`s not your thing then you don`t do it. Simple.

Shooting 30 or 40 buff over 20 - 30 days sounds like hard work to me!

.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Good for them.

The animals are on quota, and are going to be hunted.

By 20 people or just two.

What difference does it make?

Sick media idiots will always find something to complain about, regardless what people do!

Tell them all to FO!

Definitely a personal decision. The motivation behind the action is where a discussion of ethics could come in but one can only speculate the motives of another. At the end of the day, it is not my job to judge. I know of only one Judge that we all will answer to one day.

Personally, it is not my thing to shoot so much of the same species. However, if the hunt is done in a manner which abides by the law, serves the overall conversation practice in a positive way for the area, and the meat is utilized then who am I to judge?

If the game quota is made available to be hunted/killed/culled (whichever suits) it means the numbers have to be dispensed with for whatever reasons (vermin/over-population, etc.)

Whether one person or more performs that duty is irrelevant as long as the ultimate goal is achieved, morals notwithstanding as those are personal opinions.

One also needs to remember that the outfitter will end up doing the needful if he doesn't find any willing participants.

I wonder how the opinions brigade would react if these cull hunts/shoots were advertised free of charge other than airfare and hospitality?

As I have tried to say - I am not judging. I have no standing to judge and intentionally am not judging.

I used the word "ethics". Which some interpret as judging or a moral decisions. Again, my intent and my use of English to convey a deeper meaning than "moral" or "ethical" is lost in the words. What I am responding to - in the original post - what makes enough "enough"? I don't care one whit if someone wants to shoot 20 buffalo legally, on quota and in a manner that society deems "ok". I don't care and don't think that way.

What I am trying to say is - from the soul, from the very essence that makes you think and decide right/wrong or for me/not for me - how much is enough? And the bigger questions is WHY do we do what we do...

I get it that we do what we do "because we can"... However, if we don't ask WHY or at least question our motives/desires/moral compass do we become that same as the Nazis killing Jews, Poles, Gypsies or whatever just "because we can" and "it is legal in our country".
Yes, I know that analogy is extreme but then you ask - who decides right/wrong, good/bad, legal/illegal and on what basis???

So, if you hold that there is a God, then there is an ulitimate authority to which we are accountable.

If you hold there is no God, then where does that accountability lie? With men? Not a good option as men are fickle, corrupt and subjective in right/wrong making decisions based on "culture" or on "whim" or on "logic". Where has that led the world to date??? Many cultures have little logic other than - "I can do that because I want to do that". No moral basis. No accountability. Again, that leads us to the Nazis or corrupted Greeks in 160 BC with Antiochus Ephiphanes or Ghengis Khan or Mao or "pick your villian".

If you hunt just to "whack and stack" and you see that as "fun". I really do not believe you know why you do what you do. "Fun" is not a good reason. Having enough money and time to do that is not a good reason. To win some prize (Weatherby award or whatever) is not a valid, soul enriching reason either.

So, the deeper question is "why?". What good comes from it? What benefit comes from it? Does this activity truly uplift you? Or do you kill just to kill and collect horns or whatever....

I am not judging. I am asking "why".

Why do we need a lecture on life?

Some of us hunt because we like it.

The more the better!

Due to time constraints, I can only go hunting once a year.

If that was not the case, I would be hunting several times a year.

Anyone doesn’t like it?

They can bloody well stick it!

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
As I have tried to say - I am not judging. I have no standing to judge and intentionally am not judging .



If you hunt just to "whack and stack" and you see that as "fun". I really do not believe you know why you do what you do."Fun" is not a good reason. Having enough money and time to do that is not a good reason. To win some prize (Weatherby award or whatever) is not a valid, soul enriching reason either.

The second bold appears to be exactly what you say you aren't doing in the first bold. Just sayin'

Jim

Saeed, you are missing my point.

The question is NOT if someone likes it or not. We all know you don't care. Most of us do not care either.

Ok, you hunt because you like it... I get that... Fine...

"The more the better"

Fine... But why is" more the better" better?

Usually, there is a limit, self imposed, that maximizes the enjoyment...

So, are you saying that without time constraints, you would hunt buffalo or whatever every day for unlimited days??? Is that what "more the better" is?

Why do we need a lecture on life? You don't. This is not a lecture. This is a question that deserves more than "some of us hunt because we like it" or "the more the better".

Is that all??? I like pizza, but don't eat it every day. I like a lot of activities... but I don't do them continuously as in "the more the better".

There is a "why" component to this that I may not be communicating....

Let me broaden this discussion a bit...

What cultures/people groups/societies spend a lot of effort on asking "why"?

If you have read "Guns Germs and Steel", you get a partial answer. To summarize, when a society/people group are numerous enough and have the skills to grow food for more than their immediate families, then that society gets to a place where one farmer can feed 10 other groups. Those 10 other groups then have time/energy to develop communities, armies, schools, or what we westerners call civilization.

This occurred in the fertile crescent many centuries ago. The benefit of domesticated animals doing work and cultivated crops led to people having time, nutrition and safety needed to think beyond just surviving.

Fast forward to Greek and Roman times - philosophy was stated and debated. The question of "why" was more involved then. People started asking "why are we here" and why do we do what we do with the thinkers of the day responding and debating.

This happened in several cultures - Chinese, Japanese, pre Islam Middle East. People and these practices migrated to Europe and hence to North America/South America. The Europeans seemed to "get it" faster and make larger strides in figuring out "why" we are here and what we are to do. The Dark Ages ended, the Renassaince began, picking up on many ideas from the Greeks and Romans. The closed societies of China and Japan did not, going in a different direction. The remaining Middle East cultures left the thinking of the Zorastrians, Persians, Egyptians and Hebrews for Islam.

The "why" question was championed in Western cultures but not most of the others. Why was that? Risk and reward - to ask "why" in the west was rewarded whereas the oppostie was true in the Middle East and Far East.

A broad brush says that this led to critical thinking - analytical thinking - self introspection thinking. Much of this comes from Christian and Hebrew writings and beliefs. Read the writings of Solomon, David, Paul in the Bible, Plato, Aristotle and others leads to self introspection and the "why" of life and about life.

So, if you have read this far, please hear me - not judging but using a question to decide what is important, what is not and why....

To each their own.

For me personally (and I mean for me only), hunting is hunting only as long as it represents a challenge at the edge — or even beyond the edge — of my abilities. Once it falls within the range of my abilities and it doesn't serve a certain cause, it turns into plain shooting, plain killing...went both ways many times - but the latter faded over time.

What others do doesn’t concern me as long as it isn't my business.

ethics is a personal mater - as for me, i tend to be a trophy hunter 1 good one is enough

For me, this discussion is like a "tempest in a teapot". We should have a discussion on "when is a lot of sex, too much sex?". We could fold a bunch of moral and ethical issues into it and have great time.

Wealthy people do a lot of things that I can't do. So what!

I'll bet the locals love the meat that come out of his hunting and all the jobs and money that is generated.

Would you all be happier if he was at home in Texas collecting all his tax breaks that Trump gave him? Give it a rest.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Saeed, you are missing my point.

The question is NOT if someone likes it or not. We all know you don't care. Most of us do not care either.

Ok, you hunt because you like it... I get that... Fine...

"The more the better"

Fine... But why is" more the better" better?

Usually, there is a limit, self imposed, that maximizes the enjoyment...

So, are you saying that without time constraints, you would hunt buffalo or whatever every day for unlimited days??? Is that what "more the better" is?

Why do we need a lecture on life? You don't. This is not a lecture. This is a question that deserves more than "some of us hunt because we like it" or "the more the better".

Is that all??? I like pizza, but don't eat it every day. I like a lot of activities... but I don't do them continuously as in "the more the better".

There is a "why" component to this that I may not be communicating....

No I am not.

You are trying to tell other hunters what to do.

Which is not just plain WRONG.

But UTTERLY stupid!

I think the person asking the initial question is wondering why someone needs to have such a big appetite! And at the end of the day is he doing it for the sake of doing it v/s really enjoying it.

There is no right or wrong justification, its what he wants to do and obviously he has the means to do it.

The same question can be asked of someone who has a collection of a 1,000 rifles or 50 luxury cars and I know two such people as well!

Obviously I am wasting my breath (electrons).

I strayed into the shallow end of the pool, again.

Especially when some go to name calling as their logic...

The divide is too great...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I get it. Legal is legal and quota is quota…
No laws are broken, no one gets judged…
But is it right? Is it morally “ok”?

Those are the right questions. Each person has to answer for himself. Personally I find this practice embarrassing. But this is the same fellow that shot dozens of kudu trying to shoot a 60” bull. His prerogative, just as it is my prerogative to say that I find his actions distasteful. I believe the fellow is also a DSC board member and president-elect of that organization . . . an organization which has the mission “to ensure the conservation of wildlife through public engagement, education and advocacy for well-regulated hunting and sustainable use.” There is a saying in business, just because you have the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

I hunted kudu at the same place… I actually shot 8 (4 of which were one horned cull animals) and saw dozens of bulls a day. I told the outfitter that seemed crazy but he said this guy had been there and shot 50!!!!!
He wasn’t just hoping for a 60” Bull…. He shot everything he saw basically
I was stunned. I was feeling a bit “greedy” for shooting 4 trophy bulls (and all very very nice bulls)

For me, it’s a challenge and enjoyment.

I did get to the point where it was no longer a challenge and fun the one time killing pigeons. Essentially the same shot over and over, trying to eliminate agricultural pests.

Because of that, ie it was a job, for lack of a better term, I kept at it and ended up killing over 100. I’ve shot pigeons before and since and enjoyed it… so what made it “killing” was the totality of the circumstances. It was no longer an enjoyable experience.

The challenge of making the shot, of outwitting the game, the enjoyment of nature, of succeeding in what you set out to do, the feeling of fulfilling your place in nature all play in to the experience.

Ethics - is this right or wrong - isn’t my issue; it’s am I enjoying what I am doing?

Some days I love what I do for a living… but many days I’d rather do something else… that’s the difference between a hobby and a job. If I don’t enjoy a hunting trip, I stop doing whatever.

If I felt killing an animal was unethical, I wouldn’t hunt.

People kill all the time. More and more by proxy, which is how the antis can live while claiming moral superiority.

If you want an argument about why someone shouldn’t shoot a large number of animals, my only ethical argument is not very realistic but runs along the line of the rich guy shooting large numbers is depriving the people of more modest means the opportunity to participate by buying up the quota and thus raising the cost to participate.

That’s an ethical argument that has the flaw that what keeps game around is the value the market gives it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
The biggest issue is why people think that they need to care/worry/judge what others do.

I've been hunting more than four decades now and i was taught or led to follow quite a few fairly strict ethics. Respect for game, respect for the sport and my fellow sportsmen.

No "skyscraping ", no risky shooting at running or far away game. No waisting game meat, no taking over limit. Don't hunt to close to other hunters, no trespassing,....etc, etc. I'll never forget my first lesson in sharing game meat with all those in the party, equal divisions and no prejudice regarding quality of cuts.

I believe ethics in outdoor sports is something I should hold privately and personally but also expect from my fellow sportsmen whether or not they were taught similarly. No i don't believe its for me to correct everyone everywhere, but I certainly can dictate ethics to those hunting at my invitation and choose to not pal around with those who don't hold standards similar to mine.

I'm not sure i can pick any segment of life that shouldn't bare ethics and standards in or with a code of conduct. If the only standards are "the law", then I wonder if not getting caught breaking the law by the government, "getting away with it," makes it acceptable practice.