Would the loss also apply to whitetails? Just because we hunt them every year dosnt mean I value them any less.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
If the R&W and SCI Record Books were about the animals, then why do we post the names of the shooters?
Rich

A few important distinctions can be made between RW and SCI's books.

First, RW is called Rowland Ward's records of big game. It does not list the hunter who took the trophy, only the "owner" who entered it with Rowland Ward.

Also, pick-up trophies can be entered.

My take is that RW is really about the animal, not the hunter.

Some will argue, but the other "record books" are really about the hunter and his "accomplishment".

Lets reverse the situation a bit. Whats your take on the hunter that arrives in Africa, or anywhere for that matter, and states that all he wants is to spend time in outdoors, have a good hunt and stalk and doesn't really care what size animal he knocks over as long as he has a good time and shoots something to eat?

sounds like an easy guy to hunt with.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
Lets reverse the situation a bit. Whats your take on the hunter that arrives in Africa, or anywhere for that matter, and states that all he wants is to spend time in outdoors, have a good hunt and stalk and doesn't really care what size animal he knocks over as long as he has a good time and shoots something to eat?

It also sounds like he knows how to enjoy a hunt.

465H&H

Who am I to question the ethics of people I don't know or don't hunt with? Besides, how do we universally define such an intensely personal word like ethics amongst a bunch of guys who freely admit we hunt for sport and not need? Would an indigeneous local hunter in AK or the Congo say I am an "ethical" hunter because I pass up perfectly edible game in pursuit of a mature example of a species? Would a Southern whitetail hunter in the US say I am an ethical sportsman because I harvest the tenderest and tastiest, which also happens to be the youngest?
Does ethical = legal? Not necessarily.
I have abandoned the idea that a legal hunter is an ethical hunter because what is illegal in one area is quite legal in another, often in neighboring areas. No, obeying the laws simply makes you a legal hunter and nothing else.
Besides, when game laws are built around the precept of publicly owned, government protected game, those laws only promote ethical hunting to the extent that the public agrees on the definition of "ethical". And as we see everyday, personal ethics are liable to bend and stretch to suit wallets and waistlines when needed but the legalities change much more slowly. No luck there.

We could continue ad nauseum but the crux of the matter is this:
Regardless of whether the game is public or privately managed, it is the continued legal pursuit of commercially viable game that ensures I get to hunt again and nothing else.

Therefore, I don't worry too much about the personal ethics of folks I don't know or haven't hunted with. I'll leave them to work that out on their own. I am still learning too much about myself and my hunting ability to give them much thought. Instead, I owe all legal, paying hunters a tipped hat, not a curled lip or a raised nose, because it is their dollars that do what mine can't do by themselves - guarantee me another hunt. To do otherwise is to destroy the very thing I claim to love.

A question? How many of you can honestly say, I never said to myself "I hope I get a big one" while hunting.

Dave

quote:

Who am I to question the ethics of others? Besides, how do we universally define such an intensely personal word like ethics amongst a bunch of guys who freely admit we hunt for sport and not need? Would an indigeneous local hunter in AK or the Congo say I am an "ethical" hunter because I pass up perfectly edible game in pursuit of a mature example of a species? Would a Southern whitetail hunter in the US say I am an ethical sportsman because I harvest the tenderest and tastiest, which also happens to be the youngest?

That right there is the best damn answer to this whole POS thread.

Why in the bloody hell, do rational, intelligent people, feel like they have to ask ANYFUCKINGTHING about the ETHICS or another person???????

These are the kind of Bull Shit questuions that just stir the Shit Pot.

If a person can afford it, and it is legal, and it is not bothering them, What Is the Problem???????

Would it be ETHICAL, if I could live my dream and shoot Cape Buffalo until I got tired of it, whether that was one ane animal or 100?

If it is Legal, and I have the funds, then everyone else's personal idea of ETHICS means Shit.

We really need to lose the priveledge of being able to hunt because to damn many of us want to try and legislate ethics into the sport, regardless of the existing legalities.

If I could go to Africa every year and kill a Greater Kudu or two, I would damn well do it and other folks opinion of me and my actions would not change one damn thing.

Last time I checked, the ability to purchase a license and book a hunt was NOT based on a persons "ETHICS"!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
That right there is the best damn answer to this whole POS thread.

Why in the bloody hell, do rational, intelligent people, feel like they have to ask ANYFUCKINGTHING about the ETHICS or another person???????

These are the kind of Bull Shit questuions that just stir the Shit Pot.

If a person can afford it, and it is legal, and it is not bothering them, What Is the Problem???????

Would it be ETHICAL, if I could live my dream and shoot Cape Buffalo until I got tired of it, whether that was one ane animal or 100?

If it is Legal, and I have the funds, then everyone else's personal idea of ETHICS means Shit.

We really need to lose the priveledge of being able to hunt because to damn many of us want to try and legislate ethics into the sport, regardless of the existing legalities.

If I could go to Africa every year and kill a Greater Kudu or two, I would damn well do it and other folks opinion of me and my actions would not change one damn thing.

Last time I checked, the ability to purchase a license and book a hunt was NOT based on a persons "ETHICS"!

CHC I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on most everthing you write here on AR but why do you have a need for all the foul language? That doesn't get your point over as well as the post you quoted in your post! I'm not saying that you don't have the right to talk any way you choose, but it simply looks out of place in a thread concerning ETHICS! Man I can talk a some BLUE phrases myself, when face to face, but I simply see no need for it in a public forum that is read world wide by folks of all ages, and gender!

I guess I have lived too long and do not understand this younger generation's need for obsenity in their speech no matter where they express it or in front of anyone within earshot. Just my opinion, so hold your fire while I dig in!

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

I'd bet a dollar or two even, that if I substitute the word adulterer I'd get the same response from the vulgar and amoral two or three on this post that either do not have any personal ethics, or are still in the juvenile "I got to kill as many of everything I can, nothing else matters..." crowd here.

If you do not understand why I posted this, get a job at a slaughterhouse on the kill floor. You can kill a couple hundred cattle a day, and from two feet away. And, get a paycheck every two weeks for it.

Crazy Horse,

your casual use of inappropriate and vulgar language stopped impressing people about the time you got to the 8th grade. You did make it that far, didn't you?
Mark Twain once said that Profanity was a sign of a feeble intellect and lack of imagination.
You reinforce that observation.
One thing about how you speak/post is that if anyone was thinking about booking a hunt with you; they now know unequivocally what to expect from you and your operation.

Rich

I had not read this thread before I responded to the private topic you invited me to Rich, had I my response to you listed below would have been much different.

Making references about how I run my business, when you haver no knowledge of it show a large amount of juvenile behavior.

That is something else that has no place on a forum of any type, especially when the person making the comments has no actual/factual knowledge of how a person runs their business.

Making remarks like the ones you made above only show that you want folks to believe the way you do, and if they don't, then they are wrong and should not be allowed to have an opinion or state it.

As for your comments about my use of vulgarity in my responses from time to time, I have found during my almost 60 years on this planet, that some folks are simply to STOOOPID to understand any other kind of reasonable response.

If I am so juvenile and you feel that you know so much about my business and how I run it, why did you feel it neccessary to waste your valuable time inviting me into a private discussion?

quote:

If you don't have strongly developed sense of what is right and what is wrong by now...

quote:

I feel sorry from you. You must have a case of arrested development.

Now I know this is not a good way of doing this, but lets see how you like it, because the people that book with me, and a few AR members have, and to the best of my knowledge THEY have all been adult enough to know that the words typed into the responses made on a internet chatroom, ARE NOT a true measure of the character of a person.

You seem to be the one with some juvenile tendencies.

Here is the response I sent you in the private topic, lets let the other responders to this subject and everyone else who has looked at it be the judge in this little Kangaroo Court.

Rich, sorry I offended you.

I have no idea how old you are or how much hunting or life experience you have.

I believe in two things as far as ethics are concerned, Personal Ethics and Situational Ethics.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, my opinion, too many folks this day and time are worried about OTHER PEOPLES ETHICS.

There is nothing arrested about me in any way.

I just feel these constant discussions about OTHER PEOPLES ETHICS are useless and accomplish nothing what so ever in the Grand Scheme of things.

If you don't agree with what some one else does, that is your priveledge.

Sending me this message only shows me that you believe that your ethics are what everyone else should live by, and if someone, in this case me, does not agree, then something isd wrong with me.

How many of the other responders to the thread did you invite to a discussion? Any others?

Rich, I normally find your posts and responses informative and reasonable.

This is just a topic I will take anyone to task about, ethics can not be legislated and made to apply to everyone, when they are, they become the laws and statutes that we have to live by and operate under.

Are you proposing that everyone should be limited to killing only a set number of Kudu or any other game in a life time?

Hunting has enough enemies as it is, having you, me or anyone else that remotely claims to be a hunter, start wanting to see LEGAL hunting situations/practices, become governed by an "Unwritten Code" of highly variable and personal codes and beliefs is to me Bull Shit.

Sorry that is not up to your standards, but from what I saw the last time I looked at the thread, plenty of other folks did not agree with your assessment of the situation.

Hey guys, can we get back to the thread, because it is very interesting ? The bottom line for me is that if someone is hunting legally and taking whatever animal he is hunting in an "ethical" i.e. fair chase manner,the "motivation" of why he is taking or not taking an animal is of no concern to anyone but the participant. What floats my boat, may not float yours and visa versa. And that's ok.
I like to hunt for the experience and the chase. I'm less concerned about the "tape" than the rush you feel when you see "the one" you know is "the one". Jack O'Conner was right, the big ones look big and when you see him and know you want him, that's for me what's it all about.
At the same time, that doesn't always mean the same thing for all animals or species for me. I've hunted elk and mule deer my whole life and will hunt them every year I can until I can't anymore, but I know I will kill very few of them from here on out. I know that because I haven't killed a mule deer or an elk in 5 years and have seen probably 500 legal bucks and at least 6 dozen legal elk during that time. That's not because I don't want to kill another elk or mulie, but because I have not seen that "one" in those years.
When I do, he may or may not be bigger or better than the many very fines ones I have taken in the past, and I won't really care, because in the moment given where I was in my life, with my capabilities at the time, he was "the one."
Then there is buffalo. I've killed my share and will kill more so long as they are good old mature bulls because (and this is maybe a contradiction) I really love those critters. If I could I would hunt them every hour of every day I could. It really doesn't matter whether they are "book" or not, because each experience is so unique and so fullfilling for me, each one of them is the "one" for me
Then there are sheep. I'm now getting a bit long in the tooth for that type of hunting and have been fortunate to have killed four sheep, but only 2 prongs of the slam (three were Dalls and one big horn), but for them, any freaking full curl ram is the "one", especially after 10 or 11 days and 10% of your body mass. I hunted them, not to collect them, not to get a "slam" but because I loved the country they live in and for the challenge to myself in perserving in the quest. So I think we, as hunters, may have different motivations even relating to ourselves (different boats to float) even within the game we hunt. At the end of the day, we have only ourselves and our own motivations and if we are satisfied, again given the conditions of legality and fair chase, that's all that matters.

Mac, don't know how old you are, I was born in 1950.

One thing I have learned about the younger generation and some older folks, they have a hard time with subtleties and niceties.

To me, and yes I am wrong in being so to the point and in a manner anyone can understand, but I have noticed people do get the message without further explanation or interpretation.

Talking about what is wrong with other peoples ETHICS is a Dead Horse issue to me, on this forum or any other forum I am on, or in real life.

Ethics are personal, and in many cases are Situational.

As I said in my Private Topic reply to Idaho Sharpshooter, who or why should any of us really care or try to limit how many of anything anyone kills in their lifetime or in one season as long as all of the kills are legal.

I just state my opinions as does everyone else on here, admittedly, I do not have a tendency to use a lot of diplomacy or nice manners, and tend to state my points in terms anyone can understand.

To have people equate my responses to my actual personality, is unfair to me or anyone else that is done that way, afterall, as the song says, "We Are All So Much Cooler On Line".

The majority of us, meeting in a hunting camp, without any knowledge of "Screen Personas", would probably get along just fine, the internet is too impersonal, it is too easy for people to hide behind the key board.

Add to that, people trying to equate on-line responses to subjects such as this with how they run a business or interact with people in face to face situations is one of those areas where I throw the bull shit flag.

I don't me to flame you or anyone else, I just think some of the topics that get brought up over and over again, such as ETHICS, need to be killed off as soon as possible.

I do not see any purpose that the topic serves, other than to stir up arguements.

That I don't respond or comment in a Gentlemanly manner, has nothing to do with my age, either chronologically or mentally, it has to do with plain old fashioned Texas intentions of getting a point across that anyone can understand.

Mark,

As you advertise Rich has only shot one buffalo and well maybe that one experience was good enough for him, or maybe he simply cannot afford to do it again? It is hardly cricket for you to determine his qualities or experience as a hunter. I have never shot an elephant but does that mean you or your clients would not hunt with me in the Luangwa where there are many?

Crazyhorse

Ethics, code of conduct, call it what you want, fairchase is dictated by such rules and regulations? These words would not exist in hunting if they were not important. For example to gut shoot a Lion (The Appentice Hunter) in order to secure the trophy is for me unethical, and although my client was legal (rather within the law) I seriously considered beating him that day. However this would have been unethical?

Fairgame, I feel that you are missing the point all the way around.

If Idaho Shooter felt or feels that For Him, shooting One of something in his lifetime is good ethical hunting, then so be it.

If someone else is Legally shooting game, and is bringing it to bag/making it dead as quickly and cleanly as possible, and they want to shoot said critters every chance they can get, and live with that decision, That Is Their Business, Not Yours-Mine Or Anyone Else's Period.

Too many folks want to extoll their concept of ethics on to others, with little or no regard for the fact that those folks have their own concept of ethics.

You say you considered beating him, why didn't You, as his PH make sure you had him lined on on what to do and not to do when it came time for the shot?

Was the lion lost or killed and recovered?

How much experience did this "Apprentice Hunter" have in shooting lions or anything else for that matter?

All any of us has had to go on, or base our opinions on was Idaho Sharpshooters original post about the collector shooting too many Kudu, in Idaho Sharpshooters, OPINION.

I do not recall it stating anywhere in that post, where this "Collector" was from, but my bets are that he was having to use a Guide/PH/Outfitter, to do these hunts.

I also see no place where he was wounding animals or leaving dead animals laying all over the place to go to waste, did you read that some where in the original post?

Also, if he was doing that, and in the presence of a Guide/Outfitter/PH and possibly a Goverment Game scout, then wouldn't those people also be ethically and legally wrong?

This issue has, as it always does anytime I have seen it discussed, became a circular arguement, with people sniping at each other over Personal Beliefs and Values, down to the point that you are trying to equate the gut shooting of an animal purposely to collect a trophy, being on the same level as the evidently fair and responsible taking/killing/shooting of a certain species of animal on every safari a particular person goes on, in the quest for a trophy.

They are not the same thing, this is like that thread recently about "Who Had Hunted With Mark Sullivan", one peron is doing something they enjoy, and it is being done legally, and another person did something whether personally unethical or not at least delved into the realm of total stupidity.

I do however have enough hunting experience to know, that "Ethics" has only became a buzzword in the sport over the past 20 years or so.

Maybe that is because too many folks are going out hunting that did not work their way up thru the ranks of hunting or life to learn the real difference between right and wrong/fair or foul.

Ethics discussions are like religious discussions, both deal with one person or group trying to change/force their concepts onto another person, and THAT IS WRONG.

quote:

Originally posted by
Ethics discussions are like religious discussions, both deal with one person or group trying to change/force their concepts onto another person, and THAT IS WRONG.

I agree with you analogy, but I disagree that "it is wrong". These discussions force us to question our own beliefs. That is good.

The problem with "ethics" in hunting is that what we are really talking about is not ethics, but rather aesthetics.

Why do some say that it is unethical to use dogs to hunt leopard, but that it is acceptable to trick them into a tree using bait?

These same people would say that using dogs to flush birds is fine, but spreading bird feed on the ground and ambushing them is unacceptable.

Why is it OK to use dogs to hunt bushpigs, but ambushing them at a waterhole is unacceptable?

The truth is that all of this is BS. We as hunters have come up with an artificial system that attempts to find a balance that keeps hunting challenging, while still allowing us to ultimately achieve our goal.

But that is the method side of hunting. I believe Rich has a problem with the hunter's motivation rather than his methods.

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with a hunter taking a bunch of kudu. It is not like there is any shortage.

But I do really have a problem understanding how or why anyone would find themselves motivated by the need to get their name in the "record book". And, like Rich, I always feel uneasy when I read about a hunter and his "quest" to take an animal the goes X number of inches.

Why would anyone allow a quarter of an inch to determine the success or failure of a hunt?

Hunting begins to lose its charm when you place artificial benchmarks on the game.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
If I took a sixty-plus inch Greater Kudu, who else cares, in the long run; except other record book shooters who now feel somewhat diminished because mine knocks theirs down a spot in that book?
If I take a big, make that BIG, make that B-I-G, Kudu in Ellisras next month, one that would make the Top Ten, it says I got lucky in a good area for Kudu and made a good shot.

I've probably looked over SCI's book maybe twice in my life. I've never seen where it said anything about the shooter making a good shot. It doesn't say whether it was shot off the bakke, or gutshot and trailed for days until the trackers pried it out of some hyena's mouth. Or shot in a a high-fenced pen.

Unlike the International Game Fish Association's requirements where even having another person touching your fishing pole disqualifies your catch, and the terminal tackle must be sent in for testing.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Fairgame, I feel that you are missing the point all the way around.

If Idaho Shooter felt or feels that For Him, shooting One of something in his lifetime is good ethical hunting, then so be it.

If someone else is Legally shooting game, and is bringing it to bag/making it dead as quickly and cleanly as possible, and they want to shoot said critters every chance they can get, and live with that decision, That Is Their Business, Not Yours-Mine Or Anyone Else's Period.

Too many folks want to extoll their concept of ethics on to others, with little or no regard for the fact that those folks have their own concept of ethics.

You say you considered beating him, why didn't You, as his PH make sure you had him lined on on what to do and not to do when it came time for the shot?

Was the lion lost or killed and recovered?

How much experience did this "Apprentice Hunter" have in shooting lions or anything else for that matter?

All any of us has had to go on, or base our opinions on was Idaho Sharpshooters original post about the collector shooting too many Kudu, in Idaho Sharpshooters, OPINION.

I do not recall it stating anywhere in that post, where this "Collector" was from, but my bets are that he was having to use a Guide/PH/Outfitter, to do these hunts.

I also see no place where he was wounding animals or leaving dead animals laying all over the place to go to waste, did you read that some where in the original post?

Also, if he was doing that, and in the presence of a Guide/Outfitter/PH and possibly a Goverment Game scout, then wouldn't those people also be ethically and legally wrong?

This issue has, as it always does anytime I have seen it discussed, became a circular arguement, with people sniping at each other over Personal Beliefs and Values, down to the point that you are trying to equate the gut shooting of an animal purposely to collect a trophy, being on the same level as the evidently fair and responsible taking/killing/shooting of a certain species of animal on every safari a particular person goes on, in the quest for a trophy.

They are not the same thing, this is like that thread recently about "Who Had Hunted With Mark Sullivan", one peron is doing something they enjoy, and it is being done legally, and another person did something whether personally unethical or not at least delved into the realm of total stupidity.

I do however have enough hunting experience to know, that "Ethics" has only became a buzzword in the sport over the past 20 years or so.

Maybe that is because too many folks are going out hunting that did not work their way up thru the ranks of hunting or life to learn the real difference between right and wrong/fair or foul.

Ethics discussions are like religious discussions, both deal with one person or group trying to change/force their concepts onto another person, and THAT IS WRONG.

Crazyhorse,

I hear you and agreed these threads do have a tendancy to wander all over the place, bit like a crazy horse.

Cheers

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Mac, don't know how old you are, I was born in 1950.

.

Horse you were only six years old when my oldest kid was born in the second year of marrage! I'm in my mid seventies, and as I said I don't understand why it came about that foul language has now become fashionable amoung the YOUNG, in public, regardless of who is listening, or reading! That is not the Texas I grew up in!

I have no disagreement with your take on this so-called discussion, that is your privilege, just the words you seem to think are needed to give that opinion weight! As I said in my post to you, I'm not saying you don't have the right to speak or write any way you choose, but simply that it takes away from your credibility to speak/write that way to get people to consider your thinking. Most folks will zero in on the five or six words that seem out of place, and disregard the message! Nobody is required by the rules here to read your posts, and I assure you most will simply quit reading when they come to the foul language, which is usually in the first sentence!

Still, be my guest write/speak any way you like, but please consider my opinion being valid as well!

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
We as hunters have come up with an artificial system that attempts to find a balance that keeps hunting challenging, while still allowing us to ultimately achieve our goal.....Hunting begins to lose its charm when you place artificial benchmarks on the game.

Yes! Hammer meet nail! Perfect Jason!

Only recently has "successful hunter" been defined as something other simply "one who kills a bunch of 'em". If that ancient definition still held, we'd spend more time talking about sure fire snares as opposed to firearms and where all the good cliffs are for driving game over.
Conversely, killing the biggest/longest/fluffiest whatever is a contrived replacement for killing the most, which fit the old definition.

Once we ensure that we have preserved the game at self replenishing levels, I am not sure there is a universal goal in hunting other than to simply have a good time.

To each his own Mac.

I just don't see much sense in beating around the bush when it comes to expressing my opinion on things.

I freely admit, that my choice of verbage does put some people off.

Just as peoples choice of being politically correct and mealy-mouthing around on a subject put me off.

I have a problem with the concept that people, especially people on internet forums/chatrooms, place so much weight/importance on a persons choice of words, as a window to the persons character.

If folks would spend less time worrying about the words being used and more time concentrating on the thought or message being presented, they might not be so offened.

Also, over the years, I have noticed, that in real life, people have a tendency to use words and phrases, that they would not type in their answers/responses on the internet, when trying to get a point across or express their feelings on a particular subject.

All that aside, no matter how it is stated, or by whom, the point remains, and as others have stated it much more acceptably than myself, trying to force another persons "Ethics" on to others is wrong, and such actions really have no place in the hunting field, especially, when the actions that are in question are perfectly legal and accepted by the Game department in the location where the actions are taking place.

I fall squarely in the camp of "If it's legal, it's legal." Any talk of "ethics" is misplaced and doing so finds us all shooting each other in the foot. If we want to continue to hunt we have to stop criticizing others for hunting legally no matter their personal methods or motivations. Not your cup of tea, so be it. So long if it is legal keep your opinion to yourself. If a person does something illegal while hunting, a hunter he is not - and he should not be referred to as such. (Topic for a different day is fighting legislation that would make otherwise "ethical" hunting practices unlawful).