I continue to be blown away by hunt reports and recollections of hunts in which hunters who are seemingly fit and healthy and very capable of walking are seemingly unconcerned with ethics.

It is amazing the number of people that will post a hunt report and freely let all and sundry know that they sat with a rifle at a waterhole for 80% of their hunt and blasted away at game. Another talks of hunting common species of antelope at night with a spotlight and says "we worked so hard" and even more are totally unashamed of doing "battleship" safaris - cruising around shooting their game from a vehicle.

Hunting is exactly that and involves pursuing you quarry and applying your or your PH's skill in order to be succesful. There are unfortunately many unscupulous operators that lead clients to believe that what they are doing is perfectly normal and ethical. For those that are unsure, the following activites are frowned upon and are ethically questionable when it comes to trophy hunting - PAC/culls is a whole different ballgame

1) Shooting from a vehicle
2) Sitting in a blind at a waterhole with a rifle
3) Using a spotlight for antelope, Buffalo, Elephant
4)Shooting animals in small camps
5) Dont even get me started on canned Lions!!

I realise that around the world everyone has different ideas but certain issues are becoming so diluted that just now anything, anywhere will be ok and ethics will be merely a relic from our past.

It appears that for many it has become about collecting and killing instead of hunting.

This is going to be interesting. Very interesting!



In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Main Entry: hunt·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈhən-tiŋ\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1: the act of one that hunts; specifically : the pursuit of game
2: the process of hunting

I suggest you hunt your way and let other's hunt their way. As long as it's legal, then your opinions about how someone else should conduct themselves are just that. I don't know what part of Africa you're in, but many would suggest that ANY hunting done behind high fences in South Africa is not fair chase. I don't agree but if you can't see the slippery slope of applying YOUR set of ethics to other's hunting choices, then there is no basis for discussion.

I tried canned lion once, tasted terrible. BTW, how do you get the animals to make small camps?

People's idea of what is ethical depends on a number of factors, not least on what happens to be legal in your country of residence, say. That in turn varies from country to country, based on tradition, terrain, vegetation etc.

E.g. in some countries it is legal to bait for predators, in other countries it is not. In some countries it is legal to hunt from a blind at a water hole, in others it is not. In some countries dogs can be used to track animals (wounded or not), in others the use of dogs is forbidden (even to recover wounded game).

I happen to come from a hunting culture where stand hunting is prevalent. No, it is not my favourite kind of hunting, but it is a fact of life up here. Most stand hunting is done over food sources. I fail to see the difference between stand hunting over a food source as opposed to a water source.

Like I said, notions of ethics may vary, but don't overlook that your local hunting rules may have influenced your opinion of what is ethical and what is not.

- mike

I think what you really mean is "sporting".

Interesting subject this.

I once hunted with an individual who installed himself on such a high horse, he could not see the ground below him!

Sadly, he was the mosy UNETHICAL individual I have ever had the misfortune to meet.

On the Internet, however, he was a different individual!

Hunt anyway you want. As Gatogordo has stated. As long as it is legal in that country, it is no ones business to complain.

I have shot off the back of a truck and I have shot animals at waterholes.

If anyone else doesn't like to do that, the choice is his.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott450:
I continue to be blown away by hunt reports and recollections of hunts in which hunters who are seemingly fit and healthy and very capable of walking are seemingly unconcerned with ethics.

It is amazing the number of people that will post a hunt report and freely let all and sundry know that they sat with a rifle at a waterhole for 80% of their hunt and blasted away at game. Another talks of hunting common species of antelope at night with a spotlight and says "we worked so hard" and even more are totally unashamed of doing "battleship" safaris - cruising around shooting their game from a vehicle.

Hunting is exactly that and involves pursuing you quarry and applying your or your PH's skill in order to be succesful. There are unfortunately many unscupulous operators that lead clients to believe that what they are doing is perfectly normal and ethical. For those that are unsure, the following activites are frowned upon and are ethically questionable when it comes to trophy hunting - PAC/culls is a whole different ballgame

1) Shooting from a vehicle
2) Sitting in a blind at a waterhole with a rifle
3) Using a spotlight for antelope, Buffalo, Elephant
4)Shooting animals in small camps
5) Dont even get me started on canned Lions!!

I realise that around the world everyone has different ideas but certain issues are becoming so diluted that just now anything, anywhere will be ok and ethics will be merely a relic from our past.

It appears that for many it has become about collecting and killing instead of hunting.

Scott450, your list is mostly my opinion as well, but as Gatogordo said, that is your and my opinion, nothing more! The days of kings are past, and one doesn't dictate to others on their ethics. As long as they follow the law, they apply their own ethics. Those laws were designed to insure the continued existance of a renewable resourse, and preserve habatat,not ethics, and in the end, what you are ethiclly obligated to do is,IMO, give the animal as quick, and painless death,as posible, noting more, as long as it is within the law.

I also agree that PAC/culling, and I would add bait animals, and camp meat, is a different story, and is done the most effecient way posible! Those four activities have little to do with sport hunting, and are simply maintenance, not hunting!

Still, all in all, Gatogordo's suggestion is worth a thought! You know, when in Rome........

..............

Silly me, here I was under the impression that so long as one follows the law of the land hunted then the style of hunting is up to the hunter. BTW trying to dictate ethics to a man paying thousands of dollars for a hunt, well it just may cut down on how many hunters are willing to spend that kind of money.

Many hunting practices are legal that are nonetheless repugnant to a true sportsman.

Standards have fallen as far in hunting as they have in many other endeavors and that is unfortunate.

True sportsmen are few and far between these days.

Go visit the NZ and OZ board for this. The string is now about 4 pages. One mans junk is another mans antique. some day I will learn not to read posts headed Ethics it is just a pot to be stired .

Here in South Africa our hunting associations can't wait for our government to legislate some more "ethics" for our sport....

You see, our government cannot enforce any of it's laws so it passes the buck.....in this instance to hunting associations.
This is how it was with our new gun law, and I fear, this is how it shall be with our soon to be promulgated "DEAT" laws. The ONLY sporting dicipline that asks the state to write the rule book!

Result is that now you don't have the "freedom to associate" you have the "obligation to associate" and instead of our associations spreading the word of conservation through utilisation it's "Thou Shalt do it our way!"

I find it strange that these threads always receive comments along the lines of "well if it is legal" or "who am I to judge". Really both are just cop outs.

The law says I can't walk around naked. Walking around in just your underwear is not socially exceptable and shows very poor taste but "it's legal".

The point is that life is full of unwritten rules of class, taste, and grace and the poster is asking why so many seem to choose to sink to the lowest "legal" standard instead of setting some moral or personal standard above the minimum.

I guess I just don't live in a world where getting a "D" is fine because hey, it's a passing grade so why should I try any harder?

holly crap, haven't we been here before?
this is one silly slippery slope ending in quicksand.
you can argue ethics all flippin day --what is ethical depends on what you preceive as ethical and it surely will very greatly from one person to the next.

Here we go again, people with their ideas if you don't hunt my way then you are not a hunter.

quote:

Originally posted by quickshot:
you can argue ethics all flippin day --what is ethical depends on what you preceive as ethical and it surely will very greatly from one person to the next.

I agree!

Right now, I ONLY considder "walk & stalk" animals for making mounts or entering in RW. But I still CAN walk. Perhaps one day when I need a vehicle and a nurse to change my cathetre I will considder just being able to pull the shot off as a full blown hunt.

I DO cull, harvest, "manage hunt" by any and all other "legal" means as well. Just call it what it is...........

(BTW My best hunting buddy, whom I introduced to the sport, loves a "bakkie hunt" and his joy and pleasure spills over to all, including myself when he shoots something. Different "ethics" and ideas, same shared hunting pleasures)

Someone enlighten me - what is the hang up on sitting at a water hole?

Actually, for the other items in your list I kind of feel the same way, but I don't get how stand hunting gets in the same category.

quote:

Originally posted by JVinAK:
Someone enlighten me - what is the hang up on sitting at a water hole?

Actually, for the other items in your list I kind of feel the same way, but I don't get how stand hunting gets in the same category.

Just more proof how one man's view can differ from another's. Each person can draw their own list and each will be a reflection of the many things that have occured to form that unique individual's opinion.

I still trust the old method: "If it's something you won't tell people you did it's probably unethical"

JVinAK

Who knows? How is sitting at a waterhole for big game different from shooting ducks over decoys?

This ethics thing hurts my head. As long as it is legal I don't care what anyone else does. I don't hunt big game at night nor do I shoot from the truck but that is my choice.

Mark

If you really want to hunt don't do it at a water hole or by a corn field because you know the game will show up. You need to hunt Buffalo in downtown Chicago now then you will really hunt, probably won't fine any but you can hunt to your hearts content.

quote:

Standards have fallen as far in hunting as they have in many other endeavors and that is unfortunate.

Is this true? I reckon that ethics have improved over the years. I doubt this debate would even have surfaced in time gone bye. (Depends on how far you go back, but look at the terrible ethics of explorers like Gordon-Cummings.)
No need not to continue improving, of course.
Perhaps Scott's point is that it is poor taste to hunt in the manner he described and then boast about the hard work.

I have a friend who says that it is only ethical to hunt with your own muscle power. To him compound bows and guns are entirely unethical.



Opinions are like erections, you really don't care about anyone else's unless they stick it into your business.

(I may save that one, it's pretty original)

Fjold,

You know there are opinions and OPINIONS!



Andrew

"Hunting ethics" is frequently local custom. In Florida we think nothing of hunting deer with dogs because the terain is so dense and rough. In other places it is not done.
Circumstances frequently vary cases.
I don't like to shoot off a truck but in New Mexico that is the way many pronghorn are shot because the environmental restrictions prohibit getting off the track with the vehicle.
Cammo used to be frowned on in South Africa but no it is commonplace

Let me elaborate on my water hole question.

I have a 2 year old son. When he gets old enough, I suspect that his first Africa hunt will be a plains game hunt in RSA or Namibia. I also think that for the first day, I will sit his butt down in a blind near a waterhole and we will wait for his first big game animal. He'll have a nice solid rest, probably be reasonably close - i.e. he'll be set up for a successful first big game animal kill. After that, who knows, but I prefer spot and stalk so I'm sure some of that will happen.

Ethical?

I've heard the water hole is not ethical idea before, but I confess it would have never even occurred to me.

Heck, I shot my brown bear sitting next to a salmon stream. For 3 days in the rain, 3 miles from the forest service cabin and then lugged the thing back through a swamp. Comparable to shooting from a truck? Just doesn't seem the same to me.

I have plenty of my own views I feel rather strongly about but it seems like in the long run we're just helping the anti-hunters divide us to make us easier to conquer.

We can take a page from the history of estabilished religion - that the more similar we are the more we tend to fight.

In the big picture some of these fights get really stupid. Down to how many barrels our guns have, how the bolt feeds a round, what shape the pulley is on a bow, the tiniest differences in the shape of the front of the bullet, etc. Meanwhile in the real world anti's are deciding if ANY of this stuff should be allowed.

How about we forgive a few of these differences so we can band together to save the common thread of hunting?

Either that or to keep everyone happy I'll have to declare myself a NECROTARIAN - one who only consumes plants and animals that have died peacefully of natural causes.

...Okay, I made that up this weekend while vacationing with my family in San Francisco..., but it can't be far away.

Kyler

quote:

Originally posted by Kyler Hamann:
I have plenty of my own views I feel rather strongly about but it seems like in the long run we're just helping the anti-hunters divide us to make us easier to conquer.

We can take a page from the history of estabilished religion - that the more similar we are the more we tend to fight.

In the big picture some of these fights get really stupid. Down to how many barrels our guns have, how the bolt feeds a round, what shape the pulley is on a bow, the tiniest differences in the shape of the front of the bullet, etc. Meanwhile in the real world anti's are deciding if ANY of this stuff should be allowed.

How about we forgive a few of these differences so we can band together to save the common thread of hunting?

Either that or to keep everyone happy I'll have to declare myself a NECROTARIAN - one who only consumes plants and animals that have died peacefully of natural causes.

...Okay, I made that up this weekend while vacationing with my family in San Francisco..., but it can't be far away.

Kyler

Agreed Kyler, too many forces at work against hunting as it is to go against our own just because we take issue with their methods.

quote:

Opinions are like erections, yours may matter to you but you really don't care about anyone else's unless they stick it into your business.

Fjold,

That's frikin' beautiful!

May I have you permission to use that? I promise I will not use it more than once per month.

Bull1

Ethical hunter is one who RESPECTS the game he hunts and who contiously acts in a manner which assures the species existance and reduces suffering.

mrlexma & Geoffm24 +1

Going to a gay strip club is legal in the US, but I don't think I'll be indulging! Not my taste or level of class for that matter! Just because something is legal doesn't mean it speaks of class, ethics, or moral integrity. I admire those who set a higher standard. That doesn't mean that those that don't aren't a real hunter or acceptable. I just think there's a point where things may be legal, but ridiculous at best. Shooting a lion off the back of a truck in a put and take pen may be legal somewhere, but who the hell would want to tell anyone they did it or be proud of it for that matter!

Brett

I wouldn't think that political boundaries direct your ethics. Ethics are part of "who" you are and what standards for behavour you have accepted to live by. This is not a "what is legal" issue, but an issue of fairness, properness, bacic decency.

For instance - take cigarette smoking. In many places in the US, it is illegal to smoke in public places. The ethics aspect of this is - we know know second hand smoke causes cancer or at least creates a health risk. So, whether legal or not, smoking around someone else without the consent of the non-smoker is not right to do. Your actions endanger another person.

In hunting, there are standards of fair chase and fair acquiring of the animal. There is a difference between subsistance hunting and sport hunting. The ethics are different as well.

Ethics are a "learned" standard. Something you decide is right or wrong for yourself. In sport hunting, the subject has been discussed in most of the cultures on the planet and a general set of ethics or proper practices are usually in place. It is not hard to settle on those ethics. Usually, you can watch someone else and learn what to do.

As to specific examples noted in other posts - each of us must live with our own "soul" on what is right and wrong.

I will make an ethical statement - it is never acceptable or right to cheat on your wife. Now, we can discuss all types of excuses and reasons to cheat on your wife, but ethics dictate that it is never correct behavour. This is regardless of whether she ever finds out or not.

Let the fun begin....

OK so here is the set up. You are on safari, on a 500,000+ hectacre(sp for your purists)area and you are in a tent set up. There is no water, ground cover, river or anything else to hold animals on this area. Just what do you do? At the first post I guess you would just start out every morning on foot and walk all day long until it became time to head back, on foot of course, or camp out on the ground. and to continue on until your 14, or 21 day hunt is over with. Then get in the truck, which has been sitting there all the time, but you are too proud to use it, and go back to the airport and come home. Or do you use whatever is there to spot and stalk,build blinds, hunt over water or what ever else that there is there to use, and is legal in that particular place, and take some game.
Like has been said before on other threads, you hunt the way you want to and I will do as I please. I will not criticize what you do and I would expect the same from you.
Just how would anyone hunt say Crock, Hippo if it was not over or near water? How about the use of trackers, would this be an unfair advantage? Just how far are you or anyone willing to take the absurd? Go hunting, obey the local laws and hunt within them. If you don't want to use all of them don't, but don't tell anyone else how to hunt within the established leagal system.

quote:

Originally posted by bull1:

quote:

Opinions are like erections, yours may matter to you but you really don't care about anyone else's unless they stick it into your business.

Fjold,

That's frikin' beautiful!

May I have you permission to use that? I promise I will not use it more than once per month.

Bull1

Feel free. I edited it but use it in any version that you like.

mike338

The watering hole taboo started with the EAPHA. Quite a while ago they met to create hunting ethic which there professional hunter would be required to adhere to. It was a combination of creating ethics for sport hunting and abolishing "unfair" hunting practices that create unsustainable killing. They outlawed hunting lions with dogs or on horse back, shooting from or in close proximity to a vehicle, shooting within a certain distance of a watering hole, and many others which I don't currently remember. The idea behind the watering hole taboo was to give water dependant terrestrial animals a respite from hunting pressure at their weakest point. Crocs and hippos are a different matter. Water isn't the problem as much as it is hunting animals over water in an area where they have little or no choice, but to come to you. In the Okavango who cares hunt by water, but in the Kalahari that watering hole may be the only one for tens of miles. The idea is to make you go out and hunt on foot by spotting and stalking or tracking as sport hunters have been doing in Africa for over a 100 years.

Yes there is nothing wrong with vehicles. With some hunting areas running up to 5,000+ km sq it makes sense to use vehicles to cover ground, look for tracks, and find animals. Just get your butt out of the car and hunt them. (Disabled excluded) If you can live with shooting from a car or what ever it may be fine. Just don't expect everyone else to like or respect it!

I'm sure there have always been those who have broken these taboos. But today as safari duration shortens sport hunting ethics go out the window in favor of more trophies or not going home skunked.

As I said before I admire those who set the bar higher. Man excels in any pursuit by setting the bar higher than the minimum. I pity any man who willfully goes through life at the minimum required of him!

Brett

I read the title and understand the post is regarding ethical hunting in Africa.

In Alaska, salmon are commonly caught in shallow narrow streams where they intend to breed, not out in the open oceans.

Pheasants are commonly hunted in the United States on or around feeding areas, mostly planted grain crops, in some cases, crops specifically planted to attract pheasants. The same can be said for hunting deer, waterfowl, bears, feral pigs, turkeys, really, most North American game.

If I understand correctly, in Europe and Asia, game animals are commonly "driven," "flighted," "baited," and other would you say manufactured? methods of placing hunters or sportsmen in target range of game animals.

I have been told that it is common for African hunting companies to host guest hunters that are so physically unsound that the only option is to hunt and shoot from the vehicle. These "disabled" hunters should be denied the passion of a safari because of their infirmity despite their obvious contribution of financial and moral support to the industry of African hunting?

In my opinion, following the law and ones personal moral compass as it applies to the situation they find themselves in should make an African hunt ethical.

"...I have been told that it is common for African hunting companies to host guest hunters that are so physically unsound that the only option is to hunt and shoot from the vehicle. These "disabled" hunters should be denied the passion of a safari because of their infirmity despite their obvious contribution of financial and moral support to the industry of African hunting?..."

Good point.

I have hunted with two very good friends of mine, both have had heart problems, but enjoy hunting just like the rest of us.

On occasions, they shot from the vehicle, and sat by waterholes and killed some animals.

Who has the right to tell them not to do that?

How far are we going to go into this "ethics" business?

Come to think of it, if we carry this a bit further, why use any weapon at all?

Just chase the animal on foor and strangle it with your own bare hands.

quote:

Perhaps Scott's point is that it is poor taste to hunt in the manner he described and then boast about the hard work.

"The watering hole taboo started with the EAPHA. Quite a while ago they met to create hunting ethic which there professional hunter would be required to adhere to. It was a combination of creating ethics for sport hunting and abolishing "unfair" hunting practices that create unsustainable killing. They outlawed hunting lions with dogs or on horse back, shooting from or in close proximity to a vehicle, shooting within a certain distance of a watering hole, and many others which I don't currently remember. The idea behind the watering hole taboo was to give water dependant terrestrial animals a respite from hunting pressure at their weakest point. Crocs and hippos are a different matter. Water isn't the problem as much as it is hunting animals over water in an area where they have little or no choice, but to come to you. In the Okavango who cares hunt by water, but in the Kalahari that watering hole may be the only one for tens of miles. The idea is to make you go out and hunt on foot by spotting and stalking or tracking as sport hunters have been doing in Africa for over a 100 years.

Yes there is nothing wrong with vehicles. With some hunting areas running up to 5,000+ km sq it makes sense to use vehicles to cover ground, look for tracks, and find animals. Just get your ass out of the car and hunt them. (Disabled excluded) If you can live with shooting from a car or what ever it may be fine. Just don't expect everyone else to like or respect it!

I'm sure there have always been those who have broken these taboos. But today as safari duration shortens sport hunting ethics go out the window in favor of more trophies or not going home skunked.

As I said before I admire those who set the bar higher. Man excels in any pursuit by setting the bar higher than the minimum. I pity any man who willfully goes through life at the minimum required of him!"


The posts above,mrlexma and Geoffm24 have expanded and summed up my point perfectly. Also my discussion is in no way aimed at any one with a disability - be that an obvious one or something like having had a triple bypass.

Also my post is specific to Africa; ethics, cultures and religions differ all over our planet and when we start pointing fingers in that manner things generally lead to war! The point i am trying to make is that Africa has/had its own honourable set of ethics for Safari hunting (exclude the early commercial hunters) borne out of the East African industry. Sure there will be developments and changes but somewhere a line needs to be drawn by hunters for hunters. We cannot rely on the lawmakers of a country to dictate the nitty gritty of what we can and cannot do and nor can we stand undivided just to put on a show against the anti's. Healthy debate is positive and we need to educate and inform fellow hunters to ensure that ours remains a fair and noble past time/hobby/sport - what ever you call it.

The fact that it generates money is a poor argument, not everything that makes money is right,just fair or otherwise.

The laws in many African countries are still from the colonial days and i doubt that there is any mention of hunting from Helicopters. Now wouldnt it be fun to fire up the chopper and go and look for a really big tusker. the quota for the area ensures that you may not over shoot the population, the outfitter and the pilot will make good money and having the birds eye view means that wounding and losing the animal will be almost impossible. An Elephant shot in the back of the head will almost certainly mean a quick clean kill.

There we go, quick clean kill, good money, no laws broken and some good "hard" hunting.Stupid example? Sometimes we need to speak up and draw the line.......

Amen to that.

Excellet post Scott.