In South Africa it is unethical to shoot an animal at a waterhole/drinking trough.

I have hunted in other Southern African countries as well, and although shooting not far from water or even near water, never an animal at the waters edge.

I have experienced in a great drought, that when shooting at waterholes are done to cull animals, some of them will die of thirst, but not come in to drink.

Is this not a bit contrary to the spirit of fair chase hunting?

I'm not talking Bow hunting, but rifles from blinds or tree stands at waterholes.

Your comments on this are appreciated.

Why are hunting ethics related to bow hunting different from rifles?

Bow hunting is supposed to be harder but if it is OK to bend the 'rules' to make it a little easier .....

I somewhat agree and also disagree with not shooting at waterholes. With so many of these dinky little fenced farms in South Africa only having a couple of drinking holes (surely not cattle troughs ! ) and no chance to go elsewhere then I agree it is not on. However if one hunts a true hunting concession with truly wild game with rivers, pools, waterholes, then why not?! After it is what the true predators do.

(edited to add) I have hunted in very thick bush (not in Africa) where about the only successful method is to sit over a small waterhole and wait for hog deer stags to come in. Definitely still very sporting.

What is considered ethical from one country to the next is often dictated by laws, rules and regulations. Another issue is what conditions prevail, and which hunting methods offer hope for success. Over time, people come to believe the particular way they hunt is also the ethical way. Nothing wrong with that, in particular if you keep an open mind about what is considered "ethical" in other places.

Consider the use of bait?? Is it "ethical" to sit over bait?? It is certainly considered ethical in the places where this is a traditional type of hunting. Yet, in other places it is illegal, and thus often not considered ethical either.

Is it ethical to hunt game with hounds?? Again, it is considered ethical where this is tradition. In other places, it may be quite the opposite.

Here in Central Europe, stand hunting is the main hunting form during much of the year. We place our stands where animals can traditionally be expected to show up - food sources, game trails or even bait.

Hunting a water source does not appear to be much different. If there is a shortage of water, and the animals are forced to come to one source only, one could decide to cut them some slack and not hunt them over the water.

- mike

Maybe I should have left the word ethics for a bit later and started the thread like this:

What do you guys think about shooting animals at waterholes?

I'm no big bow hunter, but when bow hunters say they only make a little sound from a blind, and we rifle hunters a Big Bang, that scares away not only mammals but also the Birds, I think they might have a point, don't you think?

It is interesting comments. I do not think you can classify a "high seat" in a forest clearing or on the edge of a field, in the same category as a waterhole in Africa. Am I right or wrong that there is a lot of field water in Europe, and that animals are not confined to a few waterholes in their territories?

My definition of unethical is to hunt a fenced animal that has no chance of escape. If the animal has plenty of room to roam and multiple food/water sources, then waiting at a water hole is no more unethical than sitting in a tree stand for whitetail deer over a salt block, etc.

Better yet, if you really want to be ethical and take the animal on it's own terms, use nothing but rocks and your bare hands and maybe a knife or spear.

I think this pretty much reflects some previous comments but it would seem to me that shooting at a waterhole in RSA with any type of weapon is no different than setting up your treestand on the edge of a field where deer routinely come to feed. You know the animals will come eventually in either case and you are well set up to make a clean kill. I do think as Charl has implied that continual shooting at a sole watering point would be detrimental to the game but done sparingly on properties with multiple water sources seems quite reasonable to me.

Mark

I say to each their own. But I do consider it along the same lines as sitting in a deer stand and waiting for the game, nothing wrong with it.

I say the multiple water sources statement Mark H. Young makes is quite valid.

If the wind is bad the animals just don't come to that water source. If you're winded and there is another source they simply go there instead. Not all the Plains Game are very water dependent. I believe eland, zebra and gemsbok are not extremely dependent on a watersource. Also high hunting pressure on a watersource or any naturally attractive area simply causes the animals to go nocturnal.

The "Tied to a stake" mentality of hunting waterholes IMO is greatly exaggerated.

I think about the most ballanced post in this string is that of NitroX.

If the habitat is open to unrestricted travel by game with multiple water, and food sources, then an ambush set up on routes to a water holes is what I would say is smart hunting. By unrestricted travel, I mean plenty of cover that is a jump or two away, in any dirrection, and even if fenced, the area is larger than their normal range, and there are many sources of water available! Simply because we are human rather than lion, isn't a reason to not hunt the most productive area.

Anyone who has ever watched game come to drink, even on camera game preserves, knows that the animals are the most wary, here, than any other place you see them. There is a reason for that, and it doesn't matter which water hole it is, if there are water sources every 500 yds, and in any dirrection with multiple escape routes. This attitude by the game is because they know this is where they are naturally most hunted by everything, lion, leopard! Why should man be different!

As someone said, in many places,there are laws that dictate where and hoew you can hunt, like New Mexico, where there is a law against shooting over man made cattle watering hole,(stock tank) , but it has nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with cattle. Some, even in New Mexico, missinterpit this law to be rule of ethical hunting , and it isn't. In that same state you can shoot game over natural water holes!

For me personally I will not shoot at a water hole when water is scarce, and it is some distance between water sources. I see nothing wrong with hunting the area surrounding water, as long as game can come to it from many dirrections.

Hunting over water can be ethical, or unethical, but it can't be simply stated that it is always one way or the other.

Ethics? Who's, your's or mine????????? because they are never only one way in all places!

To me, "ethics" in hunting can be defined as practices deemed acceptable or unacceptable by the majority of hunters in a given area.

Bill Quimby

I remembered that in 2004 I tried to take a hartebeest that kept eluding us in South Africa by trying to ambush it at a waterhole. Guess what? Even though we were at the favourite water hole and nearest to the usual location of the herd it drank somewhere else. Three days later we still hadn't even got the scope on one and went home empty handed.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
I remembered that in 2004 I tried to take a hartebeest that kept eluding us in South Africa by trying to ambush it at a waterhole. Guess what? Even though we were at the favourite water hole and nearest to the usual location of the herd it drank somewhere else. Three days later we still hadn't even got the scope on one and went home empty handed.

There is no place in the hunting field where real old trophies are more wary than at a water hole! That is because that is one of a lions favorite places to set up an ambush! IMO, you have a far better chance of getting a real trophy away from common watering places! However if it is that only place to water, He may circle the hole several to pick up scent before coming in to water, and then he may water at night, or just before dawn, in darkness! In any event, I believe he is harder to bag at a water source!

We hunted in Namibia on a 22,000 acre farm. The kids hunted at a waterhole and I felt a little funny about it but I am glad they hunted there because the game of this farm were very wild. It was also pretty windy and the game was very skittish even at the waterhole. It probably was their best chance to shoot because everything was so spooked everywhere. The grownups wouldn't shoot from the hide and had quite the hunt just getting close enough to the game to shoot.

My son (9) did shoot a small warthog (the PH gave it to him as an icebreaker) and a nice hartebeest and my daughter (11) shot a wildebeest. They each only needed one shot. (Photos here http://tinyurl.com/glpcd http://tinyurl.com/jl834)

I was hunting whitetails in Texas that would come to the feeder. No buck showed up but I caught sight of one way off to the east passing through the property and shot him from the blind. When I dragged him the 1/2 mile to the truck, I interrupted the deer feeding at the feeder, which were north of the blind. The shot had not greatly interrupted their feeding, in fact they had not even left, even though they were 80 yards closer to the blind than the buck I shot. When I hunted Tanzania for cape buffalo, we always started at the waterhole and checked for tracks and followed. No luck. To get an earlier start, we camped out in the bush about 1/4-1/3 mile from the waterhole. When we went to the waterhole to check, the buffalo were still there drinking and I took a nice one from the small herd. Should we have waited until they left to follow them in the bush to make it a fairer chase or take a good open shot at 120 yards across the waterhole? I do not think the shot was unethical, although it was easier than trekking 5-10 miles a day through the bush as we had done for the prior 4-5 days. An occasional shot is unlikely to cause all game to abandon the waterhole completely and forever. This was an offhand shot, not taken from a stand or a blind.

It was always treated as a last resort if spot and stalk hunting was unsuccessful. No ethical problem for me unless you simply set up shop at the waterhole for the whole safari and never try other methods.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

... IMO, you have a far better chance of getting a real trophy away from common watering places! .... In any event, I believe he is harder to bag at a water source!

The circumstances were a couple days of stalking them, we tracked them all morning of that day, they kept going till they hit a fence then turned and circled around us to return to their "home" patch. It was highly likely they would have a drink during the middle of the day, and they did except at another watering place nearby. We then hunted for three more days, sighting them several times.

The property was high fenced and too small with too much shooting pressure over the year. Hunting at the end of the season was not good as most of the "trophy" animals had been shot and the rest were very skittish.

If an outfitter can number on a hand and he knows exactly how many "trophies" he still has out there (ie before the next year's auctions ), then I would prefer to hunt somewhere else. I am not at all impressed with this sort of "game farm" and hopefully will not have to experience them again.

However this is off-topic as this topic is about "hunting at water-holes".

Sound is if you had a baddie Nitrox! It would have been nice if we all could hunt the Selous or Dande or one of those open concessions, but not all can...

It sounds if you had a bad experience on a game farm. I really do hope it does not happen again, and I promise you, that is not the norm on a big, well managed game reserve/ranch/farm.

I am very interested in the comments. I do not shoot over waterholes. It is something that I was taught in the bush by my dad and him by his dad, and so forth. This is also the tradition of most South African Hunters. I'm not talking meat collectors. There is something "sacred" about an African waterhole, and anyone sitting at one late evening or early morning will know what I am talking about. The sound of a gun just spoils all of that, and I really do not think that we can call this “fair chase huntingâ€. But hey that’s just me and my personal believes and views. I know that a lot of SA PH’s and hunters would agree with me.

Before some big headed brute wants to chew me up again, I'm not talking rivers and lakes, or even big waterholes when hunting Hippo and crocs. I'm talking waterholes in dry areas, and specific relating to my post, waterholes on Game Farms in South Africa.
No one would shoot them out of a “bakkieâ€, no,… that is not fair chase hunting, but is very much all right if I shoot the animal when(not if) he comes to the waterhole.

Just a couple of days ago I came across a paper on this very subject. I think its quite well thought out, though I'm biased since it reflects my views on the issue.

Ethics paper

I shot a warthog by watching over a waterhole in Namibia this year.

I couldn't see any problem with this, since there were several other waterholes on the property. (Also, you can't hunt the waterholes 24 hours a day, so the animals can always drink some time.)

I shot my warthog as he was testing the wind about 100 yards from the hole. It was actually the second time he'd come to that spot--the first time he got a whiff of us and took off.

Infinoto, may I please quote your words and endorse them, each and every one? You can count me as one of the RSA Hunters and PH�s who wholeheartedly agree with you!

I do not shoot over waterholes. It is something that I was taught in the bush by my dad and him by his dad, and so forth. This is also the tradition of most South African Hunters. I'm not talking meat collectors. There is something "sacred" about an African waterhole, and anyone sitting at one late evening or early morning will know what I am talking about. The sound of a gun just spoils all of that, and I really do not think that we can call this �fair chase hunting�. But hey that�s just me and my personal believes and views. I know that a lot of SA PH�s and hunters would agree with me.

billrquimby, may I disagree with your statement that: �To me, "ethics" in hunting can be defined as practices deemed acceptable or unacceptable by the majority of hunters in a given area.�? I, for one, would never consider shooting at game from a hide near or next to a waterhole, be it with a rifle, bow or thrown spear, as �ethical�. Why not? Simply because my father taught me that a �true hunter� does not do it. As a boy I never questioned his authority [well, not on these matters] or wisdom. Today I know very well that through the millennia the waterhole has always been the place of death. Lion, and all other hunters hunt there, why not man? Simply because my father said so! It was good enough for me as a boy; it is good enough for me as a grown man, a father and grandfather about to start teaching the grandsons to hunt. So, even if I move to an area where the majority of, or even a vast majority or all other, hunters hold the view that shooting from a hide at a waterhole is OK, my own personal ethics will dictate otherwise. Mind you, I will never call another mans� view of what is ethical �wrong�, I will simply not agree with him, or adopt his ethics in a hurry. I will think about it, as I do now about Bill�s statement. And even after thinking about it I still do not agree with it. Sorry Bill, I�m sure not trying to pick a fight, I just don�t agree with you. Until you become a client of Andrew McLaren Safaris, because then the golden rule that: �The client is always right!� takes precedence over all other!

But there is another reason also for me not shooting from a hide at a waterhole: I�m more of a meat collector than a trophy hunter. At the waterhole the animals are very skittish and alert, and thus full of adrenalin. And they taste awful if shot in such an alert state. Mind you, they taste a bit better than a wounded animal, but still good enough only as a gift for my previous mother-in-law! Me, I much prefer to stalk a group of grazers during their midday siesta while they are chewing the cud and lie or stand around in complete relaxation in the shade. Make a DRT shot on such a relaxed animal and, man, that meat a man can really eat!

kevin davies, IMHO there was absolutely nothing unethical about your shooting a buffalo at the water hole under the conditions described. You

quote:

we went to the waterhole to check, the buffalo were still there

and this is very different from sitting in a hide and waiting in ambush. You, I assume, with due caution and stealth, approached and surprized the herd where they were, quite incidentally at the waterhole at that particular time. Nothing wrong with that! Others may disagree, but let no one say that I�m wrong!

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew McLaren:

kevin davies, IMHO there was absolutely nothing unethical about your shooting a buffalo at the water hole under the conditions described. You

quote:

we went to the waterhole to check, the buffalo were still there

and this is very different from sitting in a hide and waiting in ambush. You, I assume, with due caution and stealth, approached and surprized the herd where they were, quite incidentally at the waterhole at that particular time. Nothing wrong with that! Others may disagree, but let no one say that I�m wrong!

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

I agree with Andrew completely!

For me how I do the hunt is so much more important that what I shoot that there is no comparison. I have passed up a couple of 2 1/2 ton truck loads of animals because they were seen within shooting range of the cruiser and I simply won't shoot from the road or next to the vehicle. I have no problem stalking an animal seen from the cruiser as long as we stalk for 1/2 mile or more. That gives the animal enough time to sort out the danger that we represent. I have passed up at least two 42" plus buff, a tuskless cow that walked out with in 15 yds. of the cruiser, a 43 1/2" sable and only god knows how many more animals. Obviously this really frustrates some of the PHs but I figure I'm paying, it is my animal and I am the one that has to live with the memory. The more I work for a trophy animal the more it means to me. The easy ones are soon forgotten. When hunting PAC elephants I am not so particular as we are out to solve a wildlife depredation problem and the quicker and most effecient way to get it done is the way a professional would do it.

As to water hole hunting, not my cup of tea any more than shooting over an artificial feeding station. "Sorry, just not done old boy!" Even to this there are some exceptions such as waterfowl or sand grouse, culling an over populated area, or if I should ever become disabled. Besides, I am one of those that can't sit in one place for an hour without going nuts the last 30 minutes.

Now these are my standards for what I consider ethical hunting. Does that mean that I insist that you follow them. Absolutley not!

465H&H