Anybody else watch this show on the high fenced hunting of Lion in SA? Steve gave a very good "argument", if that's the word, for the hunting in a high fenced, yet large area. I have not, nor probably will I, hunt lion high fenced or not....but I give Steve a LOT of credit for a "point-counter point" scenario to his hunt.

I'm not fishing...not my style, but would like to hear some other folks' thoughts if you saw the show.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

I just watched the show. I'm not convinced this is where I would hunt my lion when the time comes.

One of my questions would be how long had the lion been in the operators "large" area before he was hunted. Since he was a cub/young male? The lion he took didn't look to have the old warrior marks of a free ranging lion that has spent his life in the wild. Makes me wonder?

Steve did a good job with his presentation and I give him a credit for the tracking method of the hunt.


It wouldn't be my choice to hunt a lion this way. The tracking method, yes. South Africa in a "large" fenced area NO.

Hmmmm....who did he hunt with?

Brett

Brett.....Quagga Safaris.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

Steve has gotten a little too preachy for me. His voice seems to get a little too much to listen to. IMHO.

I saw the show and watched closely.

The "danger" element was missing as one section/scene with the hunters had the PH not even carrying his rifle.

The various lions were not particularly wary as these guys hunted them "spot and stalk" - no real tracking involved.

They were not baited nor did I see fences. The country was open but did not see any other game at all. What do those lions eat?

Anyway, I am not interested in this "bull in the pasture" hunt for dangerous game.

Usually commercial pet food.If you do the math on the lion eating a plains game species for the 4 or 6 years required the economic impossibility of a "natural" situation is quite clear. That argument and those facts were not presented in the show. Each to his own, but full disclosure would be nice.

quote:

If you do the math on the lion eating a plains game species for the 4 or 6 years required the economic impossibility of a "natural" situation is quite clear. That argument and those facts were not presented in the show. Each to his own, but full disclosure would be nice.

This is the part I was wondering myself.....each Impala/Warthog/Wildebeest, etc. represents a trophy or potential trophy and could get expensive. One part....albeit a BIG part...that I can't reconcile in my brain.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

This is one I will take a different tack on than most... I always agreed with ol' Ray Atkinson on this. If it is a lion hunt behind a high fence on a large property in South Africa and the hunter knows what the situation is ie. he is hunting a lion in a controlled environment. The hunter agrees to the hunt, the lion is famaliar with his surroundings and the operator is upfront about the "hunt"... then who am I to critcize? Is a pen-raised quail or pheasant hunt any different? High fenced whitetail?

What ol' Ray used to say that made the most sense to me is... think of the pressure this takes off the wild lion population by funneling people who are more interested in just shooting a lion to check a box than to spend dollars and take a chance on a wild lion hunt that may or may not be successful! This conserves lions and makes wild lion more affordable for you and me.

SO if you want to shoot a blow dried lion... have at it. I prefer you do so and save that old, big-bodied sparse maned, scarred wild lion for me!

Bwanamrm,
I agree 100% with you and with Ray ( ). I understand that about a 1000 lions were shot in RSA last year with about 50 to 60 in the rest of Africa. It takes pressure off wild lions for sure.

It is not for me, but I have no issue with it. I don't hunt pen raised "anything" anymore, but it fills a niche.

Sure, it takes the pressure off wild lions but...

A) It publicly makes ALL hunters look like lazy bastards

B) Sooner or later that "it takes the pressure off wild populations" argument is gonna bite you in the ass. Some greenie is going to say "well, why do people need to hunt the wild ones if there are so many 'controlled' hunts out there?"

C) Taking the pressure off wild populations decreases the price/market value of them. That is not a good thing if you really want habitat and the species conserved.

D) Ray, as per usual, was selling something.


JMHO

quote:

A) It publicly makes ALL hunters look like lazy bastards

B) Sooner or later that "it takes the pressure off wild populations" argument is gonna bite you in the ass. Some greenie is going to say "well, why do people need to hunt the wild ones if there are so many 'controlled' hunts out there?"

C) Taking the pressure off wild populations decreases the price/market value of them. That is not a good thing if you really want habitat and the species conserved.

I politely disagree with your arguements and these are just my opinions of course.

A. These lion hunts have been conducted for years so if the "lazy" adjective exists outside our circles it is there and will not change. People who don't like hunters and hunting will not change their minds suddenly because S.A. lion hunts go away. No doubt the stigma around these hunts has been magnified in the last few years but through policing and cleaning up the industry we could improve the image among SOME of the hunting community. Some folks will always be against them regardless... some always for them regardless... but the pragmatists among us might have a different view if these hunts were more closely regulated.

B. Lion hunting is under attack period. All lion hunting. And the greenies aren't going to change their stripes if we give up controlled lion hunting. It is another victory for them actually. Lion hunting in the R.S.A. is being reregulated right now but last year there was still a delegation that wanted to move forward a petition to stop wild lion hunting at the next CITIES convention. The greenies will stop at nothing less than a closure of ALL hunting... they just move forward a step at a time.

C. I disagree with this argument as well. A concession quota consists of many animals, buff, elephant, leopard, etc. The demand for those species will ensure that the concession habitat remains. The quota for lion is so small in most concessions it has little effect on the conservation of the habitat itself. I also disagree that pushing the price of lions up helps anyone but the concession holder or operator. An increase in demand, therefore an increase in price is usually enjoyed by the operator of said concession as the government charges it's lion license fee and doesn't share in the increase in the "trophy fee". The government and the operator both have a vested benefit in preserving habitat but if the government feels slighted, well, look at what happened in Tanzania a few years ago and Ethiopia just last year! Granted these Government fees could increase over time as well but this just pushes lion prices into a stratosphere few can afford. I prefer for lion hunting to remain as reasonable as possible. Otherwise many may never get the chance to participate.... and I truly want as much of wild Africa preserved as possible. So if that means controlled hunting for lions continues in the RSA or elsewhere, I don't have a problem with it.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
Sure, it takes the pressure off wild lions but...

D) Ray, as per usual, was selling something.


JMHO

Ray is always selling something. And BUYER BEWARE!

I don't understand how the RSA lion hunting takes the pressure off of wild lions. Lion total harvest is controlled by quotas set by the various game depts. If canned lion hunting is eliminated the quotas for wild lion will remain the same whether canned hunting goes on or not. What will increase is the demand for wild lion hunting and therefore the costs. Am I thinking wrong here?

465H&H

In reality I think they are probably two very separate markets. The guy who shoots a canned lion is probably not the risk taking type to throw down $50K+ on a "maybe" lion hunt. Similarly, the guy who will do the latter would probably never dream of hunting them in an enclosure. Still, I think the PR damage of the "zoo shooter" is significant. Sure, you will never change the minds of the radical hunters or the radical greenies but let's face it, it's the largely indifferent middle 90% that you are trying to win over. Shooting penned lions (or anything else for that matter) won't get that job done. Saying that "people's minds are made up" is a major cop out argument to make IMO. Now, I am pretty independent minded guy but I damned sure care what that middle 90% thinks because it might severely impact my ability to hunt in the future if enough of them turn against me.

If canned lions do take pressure off wild populations though, I am not at all sure it is a good thing. Do we really want to keep lions "affordable" via this artificial mechanism or do we want lions to bring maximum revenue to governments,operators, and locals alike such that their true value is realized? Anything short of "real" value being paid will yield a suboptimal allocation, no? Do we believe in market capitalism or don't we? Think of this market influence in the context of a product impacted by fake designer labels. The exclusivity of Rolex is diminished by the presence of good fakes and this puts downward pressure on their price as the image is debased. Think about how Burberry is freaked out by the "chav" culture in the UK expropriating their logos and style. The "brand" suffers as a result of the "wrong people" wearing an image or "faking" a brand. If we think of lions and hunters as a "brand", it is in their and our interest that we not have "fakes" debasing their (our?) value.

When outfitters and booking agents push these hunts, I can't help but get the feeling that they are more than willing to throw the rest of us (and the species) under the bus for the sake of a quick buck.

JMHO

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
What will increase is the demand for wild lion hunting and therefore the costs. Am I thinking wrong here?

In theory, that's the point....wild lions aren't generating the revenue that they probably should given the existence of an "alternative". Think about cheetahs in Namibia. We all bitch that they should be importable to the US so they "have a greater value" and will be conserved to a greater degree. At the same time people will praise canned lions for decreasing the price of wild lions? If someone can justify this apparent paradox, I am all ears.

One thing is for certain: the anti's want all hunting stopped: in any shape, form or fashion. They love controversy, and when we argue, it gives them a Rocky Mountain high. I don't hunt Raccoons with dogs. If you do, I'm happy for you. I know you love your sport as much as I love spanking ducks and geese with a load of #1's. I hunt Leopard from a blind. I love it. You hunt with hounds...I think that's great. We're both happy. From the time I was a child, I dreamed of Africa. As my focus became more about hunting big game, cats especially, I wanted a big Lion with a BIG mane. For many years I was a professional Taxidermist. The only Lion's that got my blood stirring were the big maned Lion's that my clients brought to my studio. It was just MY thing. I went to North-West RSA and Charl and I hunted my Lion on 65,000 acres. He wasn't drugged. In fact I spotted him the first time trotting across an opening in tall grass. I put the glasses on him and said "yes, that's a Lion I would be happy to take." Once we caught up to him (on foot) he turned and laid flat in the grass, growling very loud and menacing. Within 10 seconds he came up and charged. I shot him in the chest at 35 yards. It took two more fatal shots to kill him. Think anything you want, I'd do it again and have no reservations about that hunt. I wouldn't trade that Lion for any other Lion. But I take nothing away from my many friends and clients who choose to hunt in ANY wild area, in any country. I'm happy for them and love to hear there experiences. One of my all time favorite Lion encounters was told to me by our good friend Judge G. He didn't shoot one, he only had to point his rifle out of protection while hunting Buffalo. Talk about an adrenalin rush! For the record, I'm 100% against hunting any animal that has no possible chance of escape or defense, be it confined to small quarters, drugged, intentionally injured, bound, tethered or otherwise shot from unsporting methods. We are sometimes too quick to judge others, even before the facts are known. I think if we are to protect our sport, we must continue to police ourselves but refrain from publicly fighting amongst each other. Good hunting to all, LDK

If we don't police ourselves, someone else will.