quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

What I have a problem with is, and it's not with you personally, but rather the lack of a black and while distinction between how, what, and where hunting can take place absent an individual hunter's emotions labeling something as unethical after the fact when all the rules and regs were complied with 100%. That creates a trap that anyone can fall into at anytime depending on the "moral superiority" of the guy who has made the unethical proclamation.

I guess while everyone is asking questions, I have a couple. So it is your view that hunting ethics never need to enter into the equation so long as all the rules and regulations were complied with 100%? Someone wants to shoot an immature, adolescent elephant bull that is A-Okay so long as the rules and regulations permit someone to use their quota for such a bull? Just trying to understand when, if ever, hunting ethics ever come into play.

Likewise, would there be an "Ethical" number of elephants one hunts in a lifetime or would your personal ethics be just to shoot as many as you can pay for? What is your current number Mike, 17, 18? What about the tuskless cows you've killed? Hunting female elephants? With calves? Where do YOU, Mike Jines, draw the line? In Tanzania, they don't hunt tuskless females. They consider it unethical so they've outlawed it.

Rest assured, I have no problem with the number of eles you've shot Mike, just like I have no issue with the number of lions Aaron has taken. I'm sure some would take issue with the number I've shot, including tuskless cows. They were on quota, ie legal, so fair game, right? But that doesn't mean other's haven't questioned your hunting behavior, mine, or Aaron's. Of course, much of that is just jealousy.

The point being that what you, Mike Jines believe is acceptable or not acceptable and ethical, doesn't mean others don't think you've not crossed the "ethical" line yourself. Have you baited for leopard / lion? Of course you have. Many here find that abhorrent. I don't, unless it's done in an area where baiting is illegal.

It's all such a slippery slope isn't it when you use YOUR version of "ethics" as a judgement against other hunters. For me, I certainly have a grasp on what I consider acceptable or not, all within the confines of legalities. If a hunting activity would make me uncomfortable, I'll not do it. But that same activity may be perfectly acceptable to someone else. The difference is that I'm not going to shit on the other guy just because his idea of ethics is different from mine.

And while we're on the subject Mike, is there an "Ethical" issue with hunting Zim? Yea, I know, if we don't support the good guys operating there, the wildlife will suffer, regardless of how much of our money makes it into the Mugabe coffers. And I agree.

But's it's funny what we can justify as "ethical" to ourselves isn't it? I know A Lot of guys that take issue with hunting Zim as being ethical. Should we let their opinions on "Ethics" dictate whether or not we hunt Zim? After all, hunting Zim IS "Legal" is it not?

So I gather you are fine with the fellow that shoots the immature, adolescent bull . . . if he is okay with it, it is not your place to second guess him. In contrast I have no problem condemning the practice . . . regardless of whether it is legal or not. Being responsible sportsmen means that we have to be prepared to establish minimum standards of acceptable behavior. IMHO.

An interesting discussion from the past concerning "waxing eloquently about ethics" and the supposition that anyone with a legitimate chance to "whack" an real 100 lbs elephant would take the shot.


http://forums.accuratereloadin...661062881#4661062881

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So I gather you are fine with the fellow that shoots the immature, adolescent bull . . . if he is okay with it, it is not your place to second guess him. In contrast I have no problem condemning the practice . . . regardless of whether it is legal or not. Being responsible sportsmen means that we have to be prepared to establish minimum standards of acceptable behavior. IMHO.

Nice try. I like the way you avoid answering direct questions, but love to put words in other's mouth.

Go

BTW Mike, when did you become crowned king of the morally superior ethics committee here on AR?

We do have minimum stardards of acceptable hunting behavior Mike. Those minimum standards are usually referred to as Game Laws. Anything more restrictive than that is called personal ethics, a topic that is not defined by YOUR personal opinions. For yourself, sure, but I don't need your approval for anything I do, here or AR or anywhere else for that matter.

I had to put words in your mouth since you refused to answer either of the direct questions that I asked.

Again, I am perfectly comfortable condemning the shooting of immature animals or participating in other hunting activities that, while legal, do not meet minimum standards of ethical conduct. As Potter Stewart said, "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." Laws just define what is legal, not what is right.

Will you be so comfortable when other hunters condemn your ethics and choices in hunting?

Some hunters find elephant hunting abhorrent, they shun hunting female animals, they do not believe in the use of game feeders, etc., if those are their views, fine and they are free to express those views.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I had to put words in your mouth since you refused to answer either of the direct questions that I asked.

Again, I am perfectly comfortable condemning the shooting of immature animals or participating in other hunting activities that, while legal, do not meet minimum standards of ethical conduct. As Potter Stewart said, "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." Laws just define what is legal, not what is right.

Actually, I did answer your question, just not with the answer you wanted to hear. I stated that I have my own set of ethically acceptable actions, but I try not to judge others by my standards. If a hunter is OK with doing something that's within the law, that's his decision, not mine. Doesn't affect what I'm willing to do or not do. I don't feel the compelling need to control others in the way you do Mike. Remember, the lib anti's believe ANY and ALL hunting activities are unethical. Are they superior to even you Mike?

All that said, and yet, you STILL refuse to answer any of the direct questions I asked of you! I've asked several in this thread. I suspect you've refused to answer because doing so would require you to climb down off that moral high horse for a little while!

Nice debate tactic though. You can never be found at fault as long as you are on the attack and don't answer your critics, always relying on moral relativism without defining your position exactly.

But just to be fair, I'll ask you again,

1) What is the purpose of buffer zones (hunting areas) surrounding parks if not to off take surplus animals that wander out of the park?

2) If you are in favor of abolishing those hunting areas, what is your plan to protect those lands from going under the plow, expand the park boundaries?

3) If you are NOT in favor of abolishing those hunting areas surrounding the parks, by what methodology would Mike Jines dictate to the hunting public regarding not running afoul of his personal ethics in selecting which animals are off limits and which are fair game?

4) Is there an "ethical" number of elephants one could expect to shoot in a lifetime, or is it just based on the ability to purchase legal quota?

5) Is there an "ethical" line being crossed by the hunting of tuskless cow elephant with calves? Even though it's "LEGAL" in Zim but not deemed "ethical" in Tanzania?

6) Is it "ethical" to spend our dollars hunting Zim with Mugabe at the helm of that country, knowing what he's done with the white farmers there?

7) Where do we find that magical line between "ethical" and "unethical" within the law that Mike Jines has prescribed as acceptable so as to avoid the AR Kangaroo Court of his subjects?

Somehow, I don't think holding my breath for an honest answer to any of those questions is a good idea!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Ok Mike, please, let's do keep the emotion out of the discussion and stick to some facts, and some hard and fast rules and regs, OK? May I ask a question or two?

Do you propose a stop to hunting the buffer zones (hunting areas) surrounding national parks?

If Yes, what is the plan to preserve those current hunting lands from going under the plow at a net loss to the wildlife in that area? Seems like two options there ... either expand the boundaries of the park into the buffer zones or expand the farmers fields into the buffer zones. With either option, will this increase or decrease human / wildlife conflict and how will that affect overall wildlife populations? With the loss of hunter's dollars in these buffer zones, will anti poaching efforts in the same area now be affected? How will this affect conservation efforts for both the land and the animals ... positively or negatively, or not at all? You don't seem to believe hunting has a conservation benefit at all.

If your answer to the original question is No, what is your plan to designate which animals are "off limits" and which are fair game when they wander out of the park and into the hunting area? Off the top of my head, I'd say it's a pretty sound conservation plan to only off take the fully mature individuals, preferably those that are no longer breeding. If that's the method by which we choose, I'd say this old bull fits that bill 100%. If some other method, I'd like to hear it, bearing in mind that we need a solution that can be followed by everyone who ventures afield with rifle in hand, not some arbitrary, ambiguous selection process that fits one hunter's idea of "ethical" selection and not everyone's?

From your posting history, I'd say it's a fair assessment to say you are anti elephant hunting. Of course that's your prerogative and if you prefer to not hunt them, so be it. No one is going to find fault in that decision. What I have a problem with is, and it's not with you personally, but rather the lack of a black and while distinction between how, what, and where hunting can take place absent an individual hunter's emotions labeling something as unethical after the fact when all the rules and regs were complied with 100%. That creates a trap that anyone can fall into at anytime depending on the "moral superiority" of the guy who has made the unethical proclamation. The true antis just love to watch us tear our own apart over things like that.

I have given plenty of facts - see most of my statements are linked to an outside fact source. We can imagine stuff but that only gets us nowhere in there real world.

South Africa should and in time will prevent game from Krueger from going in to Zim and Moz - it will be expensive but Krueger is a national asset and there will be real international money behind it - even if it is anti hunters like Paul Allen.

For Zim I have little faith - it is a lawless country. The real laws - allocations of resources/property rights are just what they are made by those in power regardless of what is on the books. The allocation of quotas in Zim are far more a factor of political influence than anything else. All this old non breeding bull and all is irrelevant - in this case the outfitter hunting has no control over the herd or resources in his hunting area. They cross over from national park in another country. What comes over is the opportunity for the hunter - how do you set a quota on that. On a nationwide basis Zim might set some quota based on some criteria but how is that quota allocated to an area where most of the game resides in South Africa is based on political influence and ability.

Where operators have done surveys and spent millions of dollars to know their herd, property and optimal harvest - their quotas are reassigned on political basis - ask any operator in the save. Only place where they have counted elephants in Zim. There is basis in the USFW asking ZIM to figure out what its elephants are before the assigning quota. Might be perfectly legal in Zim but the US can and has simply stated we will not allow you to import trophies from Zim - that is also the law and far more relevant to us hunters.

I am not anti elephant hunting - I have zero interest personally in elephant hunting or hunting warthogs or lions or honey badgers. I have no problem with others killing elephants. I just would like most of my hunting to be done where it is sustainable and scientific harvesting - it Africa that become the big conservancies - Save and Bubye. This is my normative standard. Its more expensive than other places to hunt but it is done right. What do I mean by right - Save has from herd of 2000 only 1% or less of the elephants are hunted. More are culled but the culls are not sold - they are done by professionals and normally whole herds are taken down including calves.

Krueger and Botswana will eventually cull elephants - it will be done professionally (at least in Krueger's case). No one in their right mind would have culled the 40 100 pounders in Krueger because they are past their breeding age. There are 700K elephants in Africa - 100 pounders are less than 100. Most of the 100 pounders are icon elephants at National Parks - why killing them makes little sense for the case of sustainable hunting.

Mike

Please point out where I ever said there was an issue with this hunt.

Just because Mike and I are both named Mike does not mean we are fungible in terms of our views.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
The idea of waiting at or hanging around the boundaries of a park for a bull to cross turns me off somewhat.I have not shot an ele and would very much like to do so especially today while I still can but with this type of hunting I am not sure. There is a reason for a park.

There is also a reason for the Safari Areas (Hunting Zones) surrounding the parks acting as buffer zones between the parks and farmers fields. If we are now going to start calling these buffer zones "unethical" to conduct hunts in, what's the purpose of having them? The park boundary is the park boundary. Off limits. The safari area surrounding the park is fair game IMO.

Jines, taken out of context, tomahawker's comment would be pathetic, but in fact, do the parks not feed the hunting areas surrounding them with excess and therefore huntable animals, providing a buffer zone to the "developed" farmers' fields? Isn't that their purpose? If so, tomahawker's statement is spot on as the occasional spectacular specimen will wander into those areas in search of additional room to roam when the park becomes over inhabited.

Perhaps there could be a zone between hunting areas and parks where there could be no hunting or farming or cutting trees.

You mean like a buffer zone to the buffer zone. Then we'll add a buffer zone to the buffer zone to the buffer zone. And then ...

Where does that logic end?

That was great!!! I couldn't have expressed it better!!!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Please point out where I ever said there was an issue with this hunt.

Just because Mike and I are both named Mike does not mean we are fungible in terms of our views.

Yep, STILL not holding my breath expecting an answer to my questions. Go back and read the thread. It's obvious where I was referring to MJines.

Just continue to criticize others without offering a plan Jines. Just like you did with the Cecil the Lion response from DSC. You criticized and criticized, without offering a plan of your own.


Again, it's a sound debate tactic. Tip of the hat!

So man up and show me how it is done, answer the question, where did I condemn this hunt?

With regard to Cecil, candidly and bluntly you are talking out your ass. I have been engaged and offering solutions. Participating in private discussions with senior folks at SCI on the issue and what needs to be done prospectively. I will be in Washington in two weeks for three days of meetings with the NRA to discuss issues relative to Cecil and its aftermath. I would be happy to compare our relative contributions, then we can see who is content to kibbutz and who is actually doing something.

Crikey - Someone really should have warned that elephant that he was a Kruger Bull!!

quote:

In Tanzania, they don't hunt tuskless females. They consider it unethical so they've outlawed it.

In Tanzania they do not allow the killing of female elephants, be they WITH or without tusks (from a legal hunting perspective of course).

In addition to elephants, other species of game fall into this category; whether the decision is related to ethics or conservation reasons is unclear but it was "inherited" from the colonial game laws.

Buffer zones are areas considered off-limits to everyone, farmers, pastoralists and hunters alike; such zones are usually belts about 1 mile wide and are set for the purpose of defining the boundary.

If one gets caught in the buffer zone it would amount to a lesser penalty than actually having crossed the park boundary which is usually an undefined line drawn between beacons or GPS references (which have only been around since the birth GPS technology).

There is therefore quite a difference between hunting the actual park boundary which could be a hunting track or interrupted fence just hoping to catch your quarry as it comes out or preventing it from going back in.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So man up and show me how it is done, answer the question, where did I condemn this hunt?

With regard to Cecil, candidly and bluntly you are talking out your ass. I have been engaged and offering solutions. Participating in private discussions with senior folks at SCI on the issue and what needs to be done prospectively. I will be in Washington in two weeks for three days of meetings with the NRA to discuss issues relative to Cecil and its aftermath. I would be happy to compare our relative contributions, then we can see who is content to kibbutz and who is actually doing something.

Although I must admit, I like a good fight as much as the next guy, to prevent further escalation with someone I once respected, I'm moving my further participation on this matter to the realm of PMs.

Ethical hunting in my book is simply legal hunting, hunting hard and knowing you may go home empty handed.
Nixon is in the league of his own when it comes to knowing how to hunt, movement of the game. That being said, you can get skunked hunting with him.
It's hunting and that makes it challenging.
The reward can be 120+ lbs elephant for that matter.
Everyone of us should be happy for the hunter and applaud Nixon for job well done.
Shame on you jealous, envious, pathetic bunch of old women

Very interesting to see people's comments on this. Would anyone be commenting if it was a 50in buffalo or 65in kudu that wandered out the park into the hunting area and got shot..??

Quite a few of our hunting areas that border national parks like mahenya,tsholotsho,sengwe 1&2 etc rely on elephant movement from the parks,there are none if any "resident" animals living in these areas. And if you look at the hunting statistics animals hunted in these areas are mainly hunted at night,and or killed within a kilometer of the park boundaries.

Quotas for these areas are set based on the parks populations, and not what is in the area. Quick quota tally for example on areas that border or are within close proximity to gona re Zhou , shows they have around 30+ elephant bulls a year on the various campfire and government hunting concession. In our opinion way to high, and flies against the statement our parks department use when they say "quotas are set based on specific areas and populations"

It takes a lifetime for a bull to get to that size. Unfortunately he did wander out of the park, whether in search of food, following a cow heard or with another group of Bulls and was shot.

If he was hunted in the traditional manner, was tracked and found and hunted, what an experience for the German client. All too often these big Bulls are killed at night, and I say killed because hunting the park boundary after dark hoping to catch animals moving out the park is not hunting in the traditional sense. Campfire areas have different laws to state or government land, as does private land. So hunting at night is "legal" but is it ethical? I guess that falls on the hunter and professional hunters shoulders.

We have always maintained our elephant quotas are too high. But as it's the species that generates the most revenue per animal for councils and the game dept it's no wonder the quotas are high. A recent country wide survey on the Zimbabwe elephant populations has proved there has been a decline in the Zambezi valley of 40-45% of the population, and 75% in the sebungwe population. Do you think the quotas have been reduced...?? No they have not. So much for the game deptarments statement again on how area quotas are set.

This is where the trend is taking us - which is to ensure responsibility and thought behind conservation hunting.
Everyday now we are working with the Government officials and NGO's as the question of justifying hunting is on the agenda .
Below is a copy of an email from a very influencial conservationist based in South Africa who has the political connections and massive sway with the private sector - he is not against hunting but is very vocal that it needs to clean up the bad apples and its credibility.
I answered his email as to the Conservation value of hunting a big tusker . One point however not covered was the bull wandered out of a National Park - in South Africa when I was hunting in the greater Sabi Sand Game Reserve ( Mala Mala Londolozi Sabi Sabi complex ) we had a signed agreement with the Kruger Park that we would not shoot any of the magnificent 7 bulls that may wander out the park - so the question is = should known big elephant be protected esp from parks ?? , my opinion yes .

Emails below

Hi xxxx ,
I hear you 100% and I always recoil myself as to the loss of a magnificent tusker and then one wonders of the economics of the many photo opportunities versus the bullet .
My thoughts on this ( will send to others anom to get their more academic opinion as well)
To reach such weight the bull must be really old , so it has passed on all the necessary genetics ( one can also assume its parents did the same on more than a few occasions in their older age) so we can tick that box ( Conservation ) ( non emotional reaction) , if the hunt took place in a community area and a fair amount of income was returned to the community trust the death has served communities expected to tolerate /benefit / live with wildlife we can then tick that box (Community tangible benefits) , the government received a market related license fee , tax on the cost of the hunt ( Government Tax) tick , the PH was a local ( job creation training and empowerment ) tick , the hunter was an international (Foreign revenue ) tick , the country as a destination was marketed internationally (tick) , the hunter bought air tickets , curios , stayed at hotels and added on side trips to Vic Falls / Cape town ( ripple affect ) tick .
But concerns include :
• Was there a conservation tax ( elephant conservation levy includes anti poaching levy )
• Was there a wildlife game scout with at all times to ensure adherence to law
• Is there a management plan for the concession / region /country and does this death comply to the plan .
• Was the animal treated with dignity in the hunt and was the hunt humane .
• Was the meat from the hunt distributed to the local villages
• Was the time taken to educate the villages /locals on the benefits/ conservation from the death of this animal.

Now on the topic of its size - the debate is always on what are the upper and lower limits .
The general unemotional argument is that age is the most important criteria - only old animals should be hunted - however on elephant - it’s the old elephant that reach big tusks and thus receive more emotional attachment which detracts from the science of conservation , but one should not dismiss this valid concern.
My and I think a lot of conservationists thoughts are that there should be cut off upper limit on big tuskers say of 90 pounds. In rare cases maybe there should be a premium placed on bulls that biologists could recommend for being culled to alleviate death by starvation / disease. Again this requires professional management which sadly African conservation organizations lack - so maybe one would need to pass this on to a reputable NGO.

But xxxxx what this highlights is that there is a need for a forum for discussion amongst those that are pro use and those who are not for it - both sides have extremists which will never agree but it’s not agreement that is needed but for better sharing of information and views ?


Kind regards and thanks
Graeme



NB: Please note that our cell number has changed to (+267) 749 23752


GRAEME POLLOCK SAFARIS
&
SAFARIS BOTSWANA BOUND
Private Bag 20, Maun, Botswana
Tel: (+267) 686 3055
Fax: (+267) 686 4073
Cell (+267) 749 23752
E-mail: saf.bots@info.bw


From: xxxxxxxx@iafrica.com]
Sent: 12 October 2015 19:57
To: Graeme and Amber Pollock
Subject: 122 pounder / 8th October 2015


Hi Graeme

Please can you help me with this one...

How can shooting the second biggest tusker that has ever been shot south of the Zambezi be good for conservation? His tusks were 120lbs on one side and 122 on the other. The elephant was shot on the 8th Oct this year at a place called Malapati, close to Gonarezuou in Zimb. The PH was Nixon Dzingayi

Thanks
xxx

Two other issues :

1. The thought that the average tusk weight was increasing in Botswana .

2. Hunting bulls that come out of the Park

On the first point - Debbie Peak of Mochaba drew up an annual elephant hunting report for Botswana , what I recall was that the average from 1996 to 2013 remained within a limit of 50-54 pounds for the entire quota ( around 400 in 2013) , however there was a upward trend for the top 5% of bulls - in other words more very big elephant were being shot each year . In fact it was only in the last few years that elephant of over 100 pounds were shot - nearly 15 years after elephant hunting re-opened. So one can assume with an increasing population more elephant will reach the 40-55 year age group providing more heavy tusked bulls. One should remember the elephant range for Botswana was huge - from the Okavango swamps to the Chobe to the NPNP , bulls could go for years without encountering humans. It also becomes probable that more big bulls are being shot in Zim that have come out of Botswana , the same for Namibia and in the future Angola

2. Hunting Elephant / animals that come out of National Parks - I believe the conservation authorities need to become more active with identifying and legislating known animals for protection - this would also serve to increase the penalty for poaching of a protected specimen - any hunting of the known specimen would then make it a poaching incident - no grey area - maximum penalty .

Graeme we agree with you 100% that these iconic animals should have been identified by relevant authorities in the surrounding parks,and collared / identified, and hunting operations notified of such animals.

If like in the good old days,when these parks had resident aircraft and pilots doing a lot of flying in the parks like Piet Otto in the Kruger,mike and Kerry Fynn , graham hall,Charlie Mackie who flew in gona re Zhou,wankie,matusadona,chizarira national parks big Bulls like these were fairly well documented , and in quite a few cases were fitted with tracking collars to monitor their movements, it would be fairly easy to keep tabs on these old Bulls , even more so now days with technology advancing rapidly , by fitting gps tracking collars it is a lot easier and more cost effective than the old radio tracking collars that had to be tracked and located from aircraft.

Am interested to see if Hugo van dear westhuisen from Frankfurt Zoological society who have been operating in gona re Zhou now for a number of years has ever seen this bull in the park? Maybe he did cross over from Kruger? Speaking to some of the old timers from that park, Rangers and wardens who worked there over the years, some of the big Bulls they collared and monitored, had fairly confined home ranges,in some cases no more than a few square kilometers.

Maybe it's time to start collaring these old giants again.

https://www.facebook.com/game....6334/?type=3&theater


Photo of tusks.

quote:

1) What is the purpose of buffer zones (hunting areas) surrounding parks if not to off take surplus animals that wander out of the park?

Actually, I believe the main purpose of gazetting hunting blocks around National Parks was to increase the protected ecosystem ensuring no settlements occurred next to the parks as a means of reducing human wildlife conflict. In Tanzania at least, most of these "buffer areas" (Hunting blocks) had large and sustainable wildlife populations and did not rely on spill over of wildlife from Parks. They were and are part of the greater Park ecosystem. Hunting was introduced as a multiform use of wildlife.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

1) What is the purpose of buffer zones (hunting areas) surrounding parks if not to off take surplus animals that wander out of the park?

Actually, I believe the main purpose of gazetting hunting blocks around National Parks was to increase the protected ecosystem ensuring no settlements occurred next to the parks as a means of reducing human wildlife conflict. In Tanzania at least, most of these "buffer areas" (Hunting blocks) had large and sustainable wildlife populations and did not rely on spill over of wildlife from Parks. They were and are part of the greater Park ecosystem. Hunting was introduced as a multiform use of wildlife.

Yes Bwana, I probably worded that somewhat insufficiently. Obviously there would be existing populations within the buffer or hunting zones. The question was meant to point out that in any area with a demarkation line, animals will obviously wander back and forth across that line in search of food, water, procreation. That said, the park usually offers greater levels of protection than surrounding areas. As such, often, the parks have population densities that are unsustainable long term as is the case with the elephant population in Kruger. It's one of the factors that make parks suitable for shutter bugs in that they can expect to see an animal around every other bend in the road while one might travel for hours in a hunting area and not see a single animal. Therefore, animals in excess of the carrying capacity of the land within the park are going to migrate into the buffer or hunting zones from time to time. And if that's the case, by what method are we going to identify which animals are park animals and which are indigenous to the buffer lands? Are we going to make a distinction at all? Are we going to call some of the park animals that wander into the buffer lands "off limits" and others as "fair game"?

I think question 2) addressed a portion of the remainder of your comment. Here it is again:

"2) If you are in favor of abolishing those hunting areas, what is your plan to protect those lands from going under the plow, expand the park boundaries? "

And earlier in this thread, I made this statement regarding buffer zones and the human / wildlife conflict issue:

"If Yes, what is the plan to preserve those current hunting lands from going under the plow at a net loss to the wildlife in that area? Seems like two options there ... either expand the boundaries of the park into the buffer zones or expand the farmers fields into the buffer zones. With either option, will this increase or decrease human / wildlife conflict and how will that affect overall wildlife populations? With the loss of hunter's dollars in these buffer zones, will anti poaching efforts in the same area now be affected? How will this affect conservation efforts for both the land and the animals ... positively or negatively, or not at all? You don't seem to believe hunting has a conservation benefit at all."

I think you and I share the same concerns Bwana. Not only speaking on this issue but from reading your past contributions to the forum. Can't say I've disagreed with much of your commentary.

I sincerely hope that this hunt was not conducted at night over a waterhole adjacent to the Park. If that turns out to have been the case, I think we can expect, and perhaps deserve, a Cecil-like reaction. Graeme is exactly right, it is incumbent on every hunter to be responsible and consider the conservation implications of their efforts . . . if we do not do that, governments and regulators will do that for us and we will inevitably not like the result. If and when our hunting rights are taken away it will not be as a result of the actions of someone that was doing something illegal, it will be as a result of the actions of someone that was doing something unethical and unconscionable albeit legal.

True what Jines says.It is all about ethics.We need more "moraly superior' hunters.The only issue I have is that it seems OK to some if it is their buddy who breaks the ethic code but not when others do so.

Lot of discussion, good points, not so good points, experts with LOTS of elephant hunting experience, and some with none, or little that shared their views. All in all, a very interesting topic and discussion.Got heated for sure, and I am not wanting to throw gas on any fires already burning. My thoughts on the shooting this' miracle of nature' bull have jumped back and forth in my mind, which I found unusual as I am rarely a fence sitter on hunting topics...but this is a hard one.
1) I do think Parks are for NON hunting, and Hunting Concessions are FOR hunting. Most parks butt up against concessions, with mobil animals like lion and elephant coming in and out chasing prey, graze, water, or avoiding human pressure. If it comes into a hunting area, a quota is open, licenses are in order,and it is legal than the hunter and PH should be able to take it, if they choose, be it it baboon or ele bull.
2) personal ethics are just that. I do agree that many things in live that are Legal, are,in my opinion, not right. For me at least. Not shooting this bull is obviously that situation for many of the posters on this topic. And for me, no problem there. That this grand old bull lived the life, and carried the genetics to grow such ivory and be alive in 2015 is still hard to believe. I consider him a treasure of nature, to be respected in either life, or death. I am an elephant hunter, and want to hunt the oldest bull I can find, but I do confess that a bull like this would give me the greatest of pause looking down the barrel at him. I know his likes are soon to be a thing of the past, never to return. I will never have to make that decision, and strange as it sounds, I am glad for that.
3) Graeme and others make the point that a bull of this stature be collared, have painted ivory, a official NO HUNT status by government decree placed on it etc... I would have zero problem with that.A bull like this, IMHO has earned that right to live out his days. Maybe I'm getting soft, but thats how I feel. Slippery slope? Damn right. Governments could, and anti's would, push for similar status for, lets say, all black maned lions, or blond maned lions, or 45 inch sable and you get the point. But to give these old monarchs our protection, and their numbers are small indeed, I would happily live with that. BUT, this bull had no such status, and the fact that he was legally taken, in the end, I have no problem with that. As Todd pointed out, one mans ethics, may not be the same for the next guy. And I know Todd's ethical compass is always fully operational in the field.
4) Elephant are one of the only animals who could spark such debate among so many experienced African hands like many of those who have weighed in here. The reason, they, and especially a bull like this, clearly are seen as something beyond special. Few experienced elephant hunters do not truly love these great creatures. To take one,from this old man, to a tussles cow without a feeling of pause would not speak well of the man who sent the bullet. Like M Jines, I pray this bull was taken in daylight, after a proper hunt. To spotlight this old bull would be so beyond wrong I could not find the words.
Hunting is our passion, elephant in particular for many of us. The right, or wrong of this is a hard choice for me to be honest. Given the opportunity, with my double gun in hand and a tag paid for in my pocket, I truly do not know what I might do if the chance was thrust opon me. Today, on this matter I take a rare seat on a knife ridge of debate. I am glad that the decision was not mine to make.

I must have missed something here. Is there an accusation that this was an illegal hunt? If I am in my concession and not a park or boundry I would shoot that ele in a heartbeat. No problem here.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Lot of discussion, good points, not so good points, experts with LOTS of elephant hunting experience, and some with none, or little that shared their views. All in all, a very interesting topic and discussion.Got heated for sure, and I am not wanting to throw gas on any fires already burning. My thoughts on the shooting this' miracle of nature' bull have jumped back and forth in my mind, which I found unusual as I am rarely a fence sitter on hunting topics...but this is a hard one.
1) I do think Parks are for NON hunting, and Hunting Concessions are FOR hunting. Most parks butt up against concessions, with mobil animals like lion and elephant coming in and out chasing prey, graze, water, or avoiding human pressure. If it comes into a hunting area, a quota is open, licenses are in order,and it is legal than the hunter and PH should be able to take it, if they choose, be it it baboon or ele bull.
2) personal ethics are just that. I do agree that many things in live that are Legal, are,in my opinion, not right. For me at least. Not shooting this bull is obviously that situation for many of the posters on this topic. And for me, no problem there. That this grand old bull lived the life, and carried the genetics to grow such ivory and be alive in 2015 is still hard to believe. I consider him a treasure of nature, to be respected in either life, or death. I am an elephant hunter, and want to hunt the oldest bull I can find, but I do confess that a bull like this would give me the greatest of pause looking down the barrel at him. I know his likes are soon to be a thing of the past, never to return. I will never have to make that decision, and strange as it sounds, I am glad for that.
3) Graeme and others make the point that a bull of this stature be collared, have painted ivory, a official NO HUNT status by government decree placed on it etc... I would have zero problem with that.A bull like this, IMHO has earned that right to live out his days. Maybe I'm getting soft, but thats how I feel. Slippery slope? Damn right. Governments could, and anti's would, push for similar status for, lets say, all black maned lions, or blond maned lions, or 45 inch sable and you get the point. But to give these old monarchs our protection, and their numbers are small indeed, I would happily live with that. BUT, this bull had no such status, and the fact that he was legally taken, in the end, I have no problem with that. As Todd pointed out, one mans ethics, may not be the same for the next guy. And I know Todd's ethical compass is always fully operational in the field.
4) Elephant are one of the only animals who could spark such debate among so many experienced African hands like many of those who have weighed in here. The reason, they, and especially a bull like this, clearly are seen as something beyond special. Few experienced elephant hunters do not truly love these great creatures. To take one,from this old man, to a tussles cow without a feeling of pause would not speak well of the man who sent the bullet. Like M Jines, I pray this bull was taken in daylight, after a proper hunt. To spotlight this old bull would be so beyond wrong I could not find the words.
Hunting is our passion, elephant in particular for many of us. The right, or wrong of this is a hard choice for me to be honest. Given the opportunity, with my double gun in hand and a tag paid for in my pocket, I truly do not know what I might do if the chance was thrust opon me. Today, on this matter I take a rare seat on a knife ridge of debate. I am glad that the decision was not mine to make.

Very good post Dave...sums up my feelings exactly.

Good post Dave. We all need to hope and pray that this bull was taken in the daylight after a proper hunt and not at night over a waterhole. If it is the latter (and perhaps even the former, but certainly the latter), SCI and DSC are again going to be under the microscope because I suspect that the information will inevitably come out and when it does, on the heels of the Cecil melt down, we will be looking at another media and social media beating.

You will never get a straight answer.

Jeff

I guess I am a dirt bag cause I would have shot him in a heart beat. We know these old one starve to death after their last set of teeth are warn down. Maybe they lose some common sense as well and that is why the wonder out of the protected area, I firmly believe they know where is safe and where is not.

I would have shot him too. That a lot of respect has to go into killing of such a bull should be obvious. Nevertheless, I cannot help but thinking that we create problems among us hunters where there none. No wonder why the clever people do not post trophy pictures any more.

Look where the photo was taken. It's a Mopane forest, not a maize field.

If there was some area between park and hunting area that was half park and half hunting land donated to make a protected zone then any animal found on hunting land would not be a park animal and hunters would not be harassed.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If there was some area between park and hunting area that was half park and half hunting land donated to make a protected zone then any animal found on hunting land would not be a park animal and hunters would not be harassed.

Do you think so

Another point of view is that when you shoot the 45 to 50 pounders, they may not have reached their full potential as this jumbo did. Who knows what genes you destroyed with it's demise?

There we go again some of us.
Wondering if there was anything sinister going on. Really?
Agree with you, Pagosawingnut.
Sounds like plenty of us would gladly give up hunting just so the animals could live.
Half the time, this sounds like some PETA Convention

Not like this an area where elephant never get whacked at night over waterholes. I am not saying that is what happened here, in fact I sincerely hope that is not the case. But plenty of elephant in this area have been, that's a fact.