In this second posting on an aspect of hunting that I make in response to Gerhard Damm plea to do something about Put & Take killing. I again start by defining the subject. I am using someone else definition so that if attacked about the definition I have a strong and powerful ally on my side. There are numerous hunting organisations in South Africa, almost all of which have a published Code of Conduct for their members to adhere to. Many, if not all, of these hunting clubs of associations are members of the South African Council of Hunting Associations of South Africa, or CHASA the overarching body for all hunters in South Africa. I will use the CHASA definition of what is fair chase hunting as I consider it to be a very good point from which to depart when discussing what Gerhard Damm called Put & Take Shooting? The definition is quoted from here: http://www.chasa.co.za/web/doc..._norms_standards.pdf

Define fair chase as the pursuit of a free ranging animal or enclosed ranging animal possessed of the natural and behavioural inclination to escape from the hunter and be fully free to do so. A recreationally hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual of a wild sustainable population, located in an area that meets both the spatial (territory and home range) and temporal (food, breeding and basic needs) requirements of the population of which that individual is a member.


Let us dig into a few possible meanings of words or phrases from the CHASA definition of Fair Chase Hunting.

What may be meant by naturally interacting? Intuitively every hunter will understand what is meant by the term. There should be absolutely no need to even give examples. If the animal being hunted is only showing itç—´ natural interaction with everything in the environment and all the other requirements of the CHASA definition are also met, then the hunting can be regarded as fair chase]/i]. I can live with that very well!

But we are not trying to define [i]fair chase here; we are in fact trying to establish what is not fair chase[i]. So, I argue that we must ask ourselves what then would the opposite of the term [i]naturally interacting be, as then the requirement in the CHASA definition is not met, and hence the hunt is not fair chase ? What if there is any indication of un-natural interacting of the hunted animal? Well, then the hunting for that animal can not be fair chase in terms of the CHASA definition. I can live very well with that too!

This means that I will accept being branded as, and publicly called an unethical or non-fair chase hunter if an animal that I知 hunting shows even the least bit of any ..un-natural interaction?/i]! OK? Can you live with the premise that even the tiniest little bit of [i]unnatural interacting results in your hunt being defined as not in fair chase ? Only if there is no, nothing, 0, zero, zilch, absolutely none whatsoever un-natural interacting can the hunt be declared as an in fair chase hunt.

Or are we going to allow some rule bending? Should we not, for reasons of economy and pragmatism and to allow the Antis some toe-in-the-door - allow at least a bit of un-natural interacting ? Zero un-natural interaction is OK. How much rule bending do you propose is acceptable? Is it acceptable if just 1% of all the interacting with its environment is un-natural? If then a small 1% of un-natural interacting is OK, how will you feel about 10%? Why do we not then settle for anything less than 49%? Where do we draw the line? At what level of un-natural interaction in the trophy that I am hunting do you start calling me an unethical hunter? Is there any degree to what is natural and what is unnatural? No, methinks that even the least bit of un-natural interacting in a hunted animal makes that hunt a non-fair chase, and thus unethical, hunt. The natural interacting of an animal is either 100.00% natural, or the hunt is not in fair chase! No compromise!

The reader of this should note that there are other factors in the CHASA definition of fair chase that could result in a hunt not meeting the requirements to be called in fair chase . I have only looked at the requirement that the hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual because I want to come back to this in a later posting in the same series.

In good hunting.

All we are doing is adding to the ammo of the antis.

And all they care about is dividing us and stopping us hunting.

One form at a time.

My own opinion, stated many times before, is go and hunt whatever you wish.

Just go out and enjoy being out in the wild and hunt any animal that is legally available to hunt.

Regardless whether it is a Marco Polo sheep several thousands feet up, or a blesbok on a farm in South Africa.

It is no one's business. You pay your money, and you decide on whjat you want to shoot.

What is fair chase?
How can you define fair chase?


Is it due to the hardhsip one encounters while on the hunt?

Is it due to the difficulty one encounters to shoot his animal?

I have been hunting for many years.
On occasions, I had to endure very difficult hunts on a farm in South Africa, as well as in the whild spaces of Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

I have encountered very easy hunts in both South Africa on a farm and in the wilds of Zimbabwe and South Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
All we are doing is adding to the ammo of the antis.

And all they care about is dividing us and stopping us hunting.

One form at a time.

My own opinion, stated many times before, is go and hunt whatever you wish.

Just go out and enjoy being out in the wild and hunt any animal that is legally available to hunt.

Regardless whether it is a Marco Polo sheep several thousands feet up, or a blesbok on a farm in South Africa.

It is no one's business. You pay your money, and you decide on whjat you want to shoot.

What is fair chase?
How can you define fair chase?


Is it due to the hardhsip one encounters while on the hunt?

Is it due to the difficulty one encounters to shoot his animal?

I have been hunting for many years.
On occasions, I had to endure very difficult hunts on a farm in South Africa, as well as in the whild spaces of Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

I have encountered very easy hunts in both South Africa on a farm and in the wilds of Zimbabwe and South Africa.

+ 1

a Kudu needs 1.5 km2 as a range. Is it a canned hunt if it was born on 15-17 000ha fenced farm with mountains Thick Rivirine bush ??
It wont leave its territory and if it does it will come back again

I feel that all of Africa is fenced in some way or other, if its not a river its a mountain cliff or its just plain HUMANITY encroaching on its area.

If the Hunting area is bigger than its natural range its fair chase.
BUT When is the area considered big enough to be FREE ROAMING ??. .

quote:

All we are doing is adding to the ammo of the antis.

And all they care about is dividing us and stopping us hunting.

One form at a time.

My own opinion, stated many times before, is go and hunt whatever you wish.

Just go out and enjoy being out in the wild and hunt any animal that is legally available to hunt.

Regardless whether it is a Marco Polo sheep several thousands feet up, or a blesbok on a farm in South Africa.

It is no one's business. You pay your money, and you decide on whjat you want to shoot.

What is fair chase?
How can you define fair chase?


Is it due to the hardhsip one encounters while on the hunt?

Is it due to the difficulty one encounters to shoot his animal?

I have been hunting for many years.
On occasions, I had to endure very difficult hunts on a farm in South Africa, as well as in the whild spaces of Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

I have encountered very easy hunts in both South Africa on a farm and in the wilds of Zimbabwe and South Africa.

+1
Well said.

I am going to put a spanner in the works now.

Statement:

The more fair chase a hunt is, the less ethical is the hunt.

Think about this for a second.
Ethical hunting is where the animal encounters the minimum amount of stress, pain and discomfort. This means that it must be killed in the fastest possible time. To achieve this a person has to use a rifle of suitable caliber, shoot it extremely well, use the best ammo. Also, the distance has to be close enough for the hunter to hit the exact spot every time and not 95% of the time.
All this has to happen without the animal being chased or scared a few times so that it runs away and feel stressed.
A hunter that is in a relaxed mode will always shoot more accurately than one that is tired from miles of walking/climbing/freezing. So, shooting from a vehicle/hide/ambush will result in a more accurate shot that will kill faster/better.

Now:
If we talk about about fair chase it means that we take on an animal on it's own turf. We walk/stalk/climb and travel through it's area. Then we hunt it by trying to get close enough to make the fate-full shot. Most of the time we try and get the biggest. That means that we often spook an entire herd of animals by trying to get to the one we want. This is stress and it is classed as un-ethical. We wound, we use guns that makes such a noise that even if we do kill the animal that we want with one well placed shot, the other animals in the area takes flight because of this noise etc. etc. etc.

I fully support Saeed in his statement. Do it the way that you feel comfortable. Africa is big enough so that there is enough for all of us without stepping on another person's toes.

So, there is no single definition of "ethical". If we go to the extreme logic of it all, we will have "ethics officers" assigned to follow us around to make sure we aren't breaking any ethics rules.

If man is a predator and the prey knows it's being hunted, then of course there is stress. When the prey is being hunted by lion is there stress? Will the herd disperse in that case? Why would stress from human predation be unethical when stress from other predators is ethical? Should we only allow long-range sniping of animals that don't even know they're in the cross-hairs?

All of this looks like a futile argument to me and has little bearing on the conservation of a species, which should be at least one of the hunter's restrictions.

Saeed,

I’m very sorry if you feel that my posting adds any substantial argument for the Antis. I quite agree with you: You pay your money, and you decide what you want to shoot! To this I want to add: and, seeing it is your money, you also decide on how you wish to shoot it! IMHO it is your right [it is after all your money] to not want to shoot an animal that has spent a substantial portion of his last days on earth either in a boma or on the back of a cattle truck! If in this wish you differ from other hunters who do not mind doing it, well then I’m just sorry that the hunters are so divided! But if the hunters of the world is really divided into two groups, one does not mind shooting an animal just released from captivity, and the other group does not want to be involved with such shooting, who should change? I sure as hell do not intend changing my views on this just to present a unified hunters front to the Anti’s!

Fritz, Your posting prompts me to respond by simply quoting from the input by the Confederation of Hunting Association of South Africa’s input into the debate about Norms and Standards in the South African Hunting Industry.

Define “ethical hunting” as hunting conduct that
- obeys legislation,
- complies with the principles of fair chase,
- causes minimal suffering for the hunted animal, and
- conforms to broadly accepted norms of respect for nature and fellow man.

Read this together with the definition of fair chase given in the same document by CHASA to see what is the difference between fair chase and ethical.

Wink, Yes, there is much truth in your own signature line!

To stop the confusion between fair chase and ethical – which incidentally was not mentioned in my original posting, I will now post something about ethical hunting.

In good hunting.

Andrew,

I did not mean that you personally have added to the antis arguments, far fromit.

I meant all our arguments about standing against one form of huntingand another is.

Whether it is Africa/North America/Austrailia, it really does not matter, we all have our own definition of "Fair Chase" hunting. As I have stated here on AR in the past and on other forums, when a human being is involved, in actuallity, there is no such thing as "Fair Chase".

Yes, we are predators, the ultimate predator, but the only aspect that has allowed us to achieve that status, is our brain. As far as physical attributes are humans are the weakest, most ill equipped of all the predatory species. Any one, single, individual of our species would find it difficult at the least, or completely impossible to go out and without picking up a stick or a rock obtain enough meat to feed them self l;et alone a family.

While our species first evolved with some of the physical attributes of a predator, in our early history, we were scavengers. Until our ancestors figured out the use of sticks and rocks to first defend ourselves and then to use them to obtain food, we were more often prey than predator.

As we have evolved over the centuries, one of the first things that we improved was the ways we could make obtaining meat faster/easier and safer for ourselves.

Now, we have evolved to the point that we do not have to depend on hunting to obtain our daily food, it has became a "Sport" and rarely do any of us want to just go out and kill "An Animal", we want to kill a "Trophy".

What is causing these type discussions is that some folks want to try and justify to themselve and others why they are hunting and they want to try and convince themselves and others that the manner in which they choose to hunt is on some form of higher plane, and is somehow "Fairer" for the animals being pursued.

What we as a group need to concern ourselves with is making sure what we are doing is legal. The next thing in my opinion that we need to do, is as a group, stop trying to justify what we are doing to others and why we feel one way is more honorable than another, and just openly admit that we hunt because we enjoy it and it is a base component of the human condition.

We were born predators and unlike other predators, we no longer depend upon killing to stay alive ourselves, but for those of us that do hunt we have developed equipment that allows us to make our kills quickly and as humanely as possible as long as we do our part and do it in a legal manner.

As has been stated by others that are a lot better at doing so than me, the anti's Do Not Care how any of us hunt or choose to hunt, all they care about is getting it ALL stopped, they are not going to pick and choose.

I see a thematic piece in this thread-- All of us hunters need to support one another. Bravo!!
I joined the National Trappers Association quite a few years ago, but I haven't trapped since I was a kid. I feel that this group of folks, legally engaged in an outdoor pursuit, are the most vulnerable (in the US). I hope my yearly dues help...

quote:

I see a thematic piece in this thread-- All of us hunters need to support one another. Bravo!!
I joined the National Trappers Association quite a few years ago, but I haven't trapped since I was a kid. I feel that this group of folks, legally engaged in an outdoor pursuit, are the most vulnerable (in the US). I hope my yearly dues help...

I salute you Sir.

You have made a leap of faith that too few of us seem willing to do.

We do not have to agree with another form of hunting. We do not have to all be in agreement about "Fair Chase" or ethics for that matter.

But we do have to get beyond the "Personal" , or we ALL will lose.

My compliments to you Sir for setting an example.

Is driven bore or stag hunting in Europe or driven moose in Sweden ethical hunting?

Go back in time, was beating for tigers ethical hunting?

quote:

Is driven bore or stag hunting in Europe or driven moose in Sweden ethical hunting?

Go back in time, was beating for tigers ethical hunting?

By todays "Ethical" standards of some individuals, none of what you listed is ethical.

Does not matter that all of it is/was accepted, traditional methods.

Does not matter that many people have never experienced either.

All that matters to many folks is what is acceptable now.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
All we are doing is adding to the ammo of the antis.

And all they care about is dividing us and stopping us hunting.

One form at a time.

My own opinion, stated many times before, is go and hunt whatever you wish.

Just go out and enjoy being out in the wild and hunt any animal that is legally available to hunt.

Regardless whether it is a Marco Polo sheep several thousands feet up, or a blesbok on a farm in South Africa.

It is no one's business. You pay your money, and you decide on whjat you want to shoot.

What is fair chase?
How can you define fair chase?


Is it due to the hardhsip one encounters while on the hunt?

Is it due to the difficulty one encounters to shoot his animal?

I have been hunting for many years.
On occasions, I had to endure very difficult hunts on a farm in South Africa, as well as in the whild spaces of Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

I have encountered very easy hunts in both South Africa on a farm and in the wilds of Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Perfectly stated!

http://www.huntfairchase.com/i...useaction/ethics.why

"Fair Chase" is the original code of conduct first used by Boone and Crockett Club members in the early 1890s at a time when sportsmen emerged as the guardians over our game animals and birds. It was defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike, lawful pursuit, and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

now,..how does one define "improper advantage"?

Trax, while the information you posted is accurate, it was accurate for the time, and neither Boone or Crockett were alive at that time.

Boone and Crockett were men of their time, and the hunters of the 1890's that came up with that statement, had no real idea of how either of those men lived or what they thought about hunting.

The problem too many of todays hunters have, is that they do not have the ability to understand that men like Boone/Crockett/Jim Bridger, Did Not Hunt For Entertainment, they hunted to LIVE.

By the 1890's, the indians were on reservations and the genteel folk in the east were going to the west to try and experience it before it was gone. Even TR, felt that hunting should be reserved for the priveledged, not the common man, because the common man had no appreciation for nature.

Sport hunting as we know it today, did not really take off until after WWII.

Has B&C done a lot of good work for hunting, Yes, without a doubt. Have they, and SCI and Texas Trophy Hunters and BuckMasters and Pope&Young helped create problems, definitely.

Hunting, was never meant to be a COMPETETIVE SPORT.

Hunting has been changed from a past time where families were involved and any animal killed was a trophy, to a numbers game, and the higher the numbers, the higher the price to play.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:


Hunting, was never meant to be a COMPETETIVE SPORT.

what is meant to be I have no presumptions about,...in this evolving-changing-modern world we are in the process of discovering what will be,...to some the degree, the order of things in the past is irrelevant.

hunting was probably never meant to be a a majorly competitive pastime or commercial enterprise in Africa or NA before Europeans arrived.
However it was both widespread recreational & commercial hunting of Bison which almost wipped them out.

So whether its nearly wiping out a species 150+yrs ago, or things like the competitive SCI culture of today , its commercial interests that cause such things to develop and flourish.

I've hunted both South Africa (40,000 unfettered acres) and Mozambique (never saw a fence and apparently the "real deal"), and the animals acted the same to me. I enjoyed both hunts tremendously, and I'm going to hunt both again. In Mozambique the presence of large predators added to the excitement and stressed the game; but, the poachers and their wire snares were horrible. In South Africa I didn't see large predators, but there were no poachers.

I say, kick-back and enjoy your hunts where ever they are - avoid the guilt trips. The vehicles and guns, in both environments, give us tremendous advantage, even the compound bows with sights. Regards, AIU

quote:

hunting was probably never meant to be a a majorly competitive pastime or commercial enterprise in Africa or NA before white man arrived.
However it was both widespread recreational & commercial hunting of Bison which almost wipped them out.

Recreational hunting of buffalo was non-existant. Commercial hunting, and the FACT that the U.S. goverment realized that if the biuffalo were exterminated the Indians fpood supply would be gone and therefore easier to subdue.

Trax, once again you show an ignorance for verifiable facts. The U.S. military authorized the commanders of the frontier forts to provide settlers, at NO charge, ammunition for the purpose of exterminating the buffalo and starving out the indians.

All you do with your posts is demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of western history.

quote:

Hunting, was never meant to be a COMPETETIVE SPORT.

Very true!

That is why I deslike SCI's glorification of "bigger is better".

This alone has driven some individuals to throw ethics out of the window as long as they see their names in the record book.

Yes, but competition is inate to all living things. Non-competitive organisms have been getting Dwarwinzed for billions of years on the Planet - you know, survival of the fittest. The winners survive the losers die. We should not try to deny what we are - competitive predators, just like the lions and hyenas...etc, etc. I say go with the flow of the Universe. Actually we have no other choice, even though we think we might. Free choice may be a delusion. AIU

Actually, competition in hunting trophies is not a competition in any form at all.

In any competition, we have rules by which everyone is supposed to abide, and there are refrees to make sure we keep to the rules.

The SCI sort of competition has no judges except the ones who measure the trophy.

There is no judge on how that trophy was shot, no limit on how much was paid for it.

That is precisely why all the hunters who receive all the accolades from SCI are very rich.

I have nothing against them being rich, or being able to hunt whatever they wish.

I do have a problem with them competing trophy wise with others who do not have the disposable income they do.

A whole industry was created in South Africa by dishonest outfitters and PHs who capture or buy animals that would not be allowed even in the SCI record book. And transport them to other areas where rich trophy hunters go and shoot them.

Whether they are aware of this fact or not I cannot say.

If they are true hunters, they should bloody well be aware of this fact.

quote:

Hunting, was never meant to be a COMPETETIVE SPORT.

Man is competitive by nature.
Infact, nature-wild animals are also competitive for territory and/or resources and breeding partner.

Im confident some 1,000,000 yrs? ago a much more primitive man sheltered in a basic dwelling-cave and hunted for food-subsistence survival,...society has changed, those things once considered basic have become components-expressions of mans competitive streak and status symbol,
i.e.; to have the biggest house,boat,diamond for his wife,fattest livestock etc.
Considering so many other things have been made competitive by man, I don't see why hunting can't also be subject mankind's natural will to make it a competitive activity-achievement.

quote:

I have nothing against them being rich, or being able to hunt whatever they wish.
I do have a problem with them competing trophy wise with others who do not have the disposable income they do.

The football team, F1 team, or olympic team, thats fortunate enough to have access to best financial support, allowing it to have access to best players/drivers and access to any advantage [technological or otherwise] over the competition, seems fair to those receiving such privilege- advantage.

If your competing the Tour de France, and your team has exclusive privilege to the elite riders,the lightest fastest most efficient-responsive bike, and the better coach and doctors, that other less financial teams cannot afford-access, is that an issue?

next thing ill hear is the claim, that the invention of the basic form of wheeled transport,the bicycle,even simpler still the use of horse, was[apparently like hunting] never meant to be the basis for the forming of a highly competitive sport.

There are:
- those that don't like hunting and oppose it,
- those that don't like hunting but don't oppose it,
- those that like hunting, but don't like the way [or the reasons why] others hunt.
- those that like hunting, but don't oppose the way others hunt or why they hunt.

Deer hunting in North America has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry, and WHY, because it got turned into a competetive sport buy a few individuals that realized not everyone can be an NFL star but anyone, with the correct amount of cash can shoot a big deer.

Because humans no longer has to concern themselves with just living thru from one day to the next, they have stopped viewing hunting as a means of staying alive and now view it as a form of entertainment.

As the resource diminishes (supply drops), yet demand increases (by increasing human population), the cost will increase - simple application of the law of supply and demand. We can't obviate this universal law.

High quality hunting has become a rich man's sport, and it is becoming more so everyday. One popular measure of success is the size of the trophies harvested. I don't blame the SCI for trophy hunting, they are not creating the demand or the market, they are just responding to the market. Whenever a team wins a championship, they get a trophy or medal - it's Worldwide and has been part of human nature...like, since forever. Getting rich is a competitive business.

Hunting Africa is not cheap! There are many rich men posting on this forum, who have spent a lot of money on this sport harvesting a myriad of trophies. A picture of one trophy is posted at the top of this thread - nice trophy Cape buffalo. The bull has even been made to look bigger than it is by trick photography.

Come on guys, quit deluding yourselves, we are who we are! There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it is an adaptive benificial trait selected for through evolution.

I'm not going to go a guilt trip denying who we are as typical narcisistic competitive organisms. The dominant market economy - capitalism - is just an extension of this quality. It works!

Welcome to life on the Planet Earth - IT'S ACTUALLY A MIRACLE AND SOMETHING VERY EXTRAORDINARY!! I worked hard for my money and success, and now I'm having fun and I'm going to continue having fun. I can't wait until I get my next trophy - and that trophy will be judged by my personal definition of a trophy.

Rich men are putting value on these animals, and thus, allowing them to continue to exist.

Regards, AIU

Having large amounts of money being an advantage in "competing" in the trophy books is certainly not unique to SCI. Whether it is SCI, Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, Rowland Ward or any other compilation of game animals, money can and does play a big role in taking many (but certainly not all) record book entrants. (There are a large number of ordinary guys like Milo Hanson, B&C record holder for whitetails, represented in the record books) But leaving aside the question of "estate hunted" animals where guaranteed trophies of a given size are available according to a price list, money provides a huge advantage in your chances of making any book.

Having money enables one to hire the "best" outfitters with access to the "best" hunting areas. It enables one to make multiple trips in an attempt to "make the book" no matter who sponsors "the book". It enables the rich to bid on high priced auctioned sheep tags, elk tags, etc. Indeed for some species (mountain sheep, bongo, mountain nyala, etc.) disposable incomes rules out, for many, the possibility of even hunting many species much less taking a book animal. These limitations and realities are in play regardless of any particular record book. It is simply a fact of life.

In addition, often times making the book or where an animal places in the book is not a matter of either money or skill. In many cases, maybe most, it is simply a matter of luck; being in the right place at the right time.

The problem isn't the book itself, rather it's the change in emphasis from recognizing the animal to recognizing the hunter. That has led to competition and the abuses that follow. Hunting should not be a competitive sport unless one competes against nature

To the original question I don't know how you can identify in detail Fair Chase? If you are of the mind that Fair Chase can only be achieved in a true wilderness area with the hunt conducted on foot only I don't think there would be many that would argue that this hunt is not Fair Chase. So for all the other types of hunts out there are they all less than fair chase? Even if the animals are not contained in any way is it Fair Chase if you use trail cameras, food plots and pattern the game for years and months before the hunt? Does a particular bushbuck that eludes hunter after hunter along the riverine of a 10,000 acre enclosure offer any less a Fair Chase hunt than one hunted in the Zambezi valley? I certainly can't answer that for anyone except myself. I know what Fair Chase feels like to me and that's as definitive as I can be on Fair Chase.

Mark

Much marginal land previously utilised for the production of domesticated livestock in South Africa is now used to sustainably manage and utilise indigenous wildlife.This environmentally friendlier practice is often overlooked in favour of its negativities.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Sport hunting as we know it today, did not really take off until after WWII.

Has B&C done a lot of good work for hunting, Yes, without a doubt. Have they, and SCI and Texas Trophy Hunters and BuckMasters and Pope&Young helped create problems, definitely.

Hunting, was never meant to be a COMPETETIVE SPORT.

Taadaaaa! And the arrival and growth of the Internet/WWW has turned it to even more of a perversion.