It was often said here on AR that we as hunters are our own worst enemies! We are constantly fighting amongst ourselves, instead of uniting against the true enemy: The Anti-Hunters!

Firstly I wish everyone [yes even the antis] a blessed and merry Christmas.

My gripe is about the wrong terms used loosely to describe some activities. So, I also wish to make a plea to everyone commenting or offering an opinion on certain “animal killing activities” to be careful in choosing a word to name the particular activity. I’m not a linguist, nor is English my first language, so I do not wish to make any suggestions about which is which. I will confine my opinion to describing, just as a straw dog for discussion a few similar activities that all involve the killing or attempting to kill an animal.

Canned “killing” as normally used to refer to ”Canned lion killing”.

Although even just the mention of the word “ethical” gets blood pressure up, almost everyone agrees that any activity that is not legal cannot be called “hunting”? My remarks about this activity is confined to just within South Africa, where the so-called TOPS Regulations were draughted, discussed, promulgated and implemented specifically to (amongst other objectives) also make canned animal killing illegal. Given those facts, my common sense tells me that Saeed should have the AR site programmed so that the word “canned” can never be followed directly by the word “hunting”. Any attempt to make a posting where the word “hunting” is preceded by the word “canned” should be immediately be deleted, and if possible the poster who attempted to use that stupid combination of words be sent an editorial message explaining why his attempted posting was removed! We as hunters should NEVER EVER use that particular combination of words. No, I’m not calling anyone ‘stupid’ at all. I’m merely suggesting that it is a stupid combination of words. Please don’t ever use it! It does a lot of harm and it degrades me as a proud hunter to be called and placed in the same category as some idiots who illegally kill lions! Yes it is illegal, as the promulgated and implemented TOPS Regulations makes it illegal!

Captive bred and released lion “killing”.

I do not know what this activity should be properly called, but it is not and I really mean most definitely NOT the same as the hated combination of the two words discussed above! I await the many very clever guys on AR to suggest an appropriate phrase or word for this – perfectly legal under certain conditions in South Africa – activity. Please, please never be to lazy to type out the rather long proper description of the activity and shorten it to the stupid combination of the two words discussed above. It is not the same thing at all: One is legal and one is definitely not legal! How can you use the same words for both? Doing it merely divides us as hunters by and upsetting and alienating those who have in the past, or wishes to in the future, to participate in this perfectly legal activity. I repeat my plea: Please do not degrade the perfectly legal activity of going somewhere to legally kill a lion in 100% keeping with the TOPS Regulations by calling it by those two words in a stupid succession! Type out the full description, or suggest another name or phrase to describe it.

Captured, transported and released into an enclosure (of whatever size) trophy antelope “killing”.

I have seen quite a number of photographs of AR members proudly posing by the trophies that they have killed shortly after the animal was released from captivity. They mostly (but surely not always??) have fallen for the bulls&%T spinned to them by the guilty hunting outfitters and ‘think’ that they have ethically ‘hunted’ the trophy in a large fenced enclosure. There are many of those guilty hunting outfitters who use this technique to maximize their profits. Yes, it is true that it also maximises the chance of getting a trophy for their clients. But can it be called “hunting”? Methinks not! This has been called “put-‘n-take hunting”. Again I await suggestions of what we as hunters should all call this activity. Here it is a fine line as it is not illegal, and for the uninformed sucker caught by the scam it does really look like true ethical hunting. I’m a bit at loss to even suggest how we as hunters should handle this? As a start I will make a bold statement and assure anyone and everyone here and now that Andrew McLaren Safaris will never expose any client to even the most remote possibility of hunting a trophy that was recently released from captivity!

Behind high fence “killing” of animals.

Here I may upset some individuals – but do you know what? I simply do not care! My first experience of this activity was in about 1973. It was very challenging, even though by that time I had been a hunter with about 15 years’ experience. I have a big chip on my shoulder about this. I also dare anyone to come and attempt to knock it off! I bloody well know that hunting that first impala on the late Norman Atherstone’s high fenced farm “Silent Valley” was true ethical hunting. And since then I have hunted on maybe 200 different such high fenced game farms. I feel insulted when some “holier than thou” AR expert, who might have actually been to Africa more than once, condemns me as an ‘unethical hunter’ simply because I hunt animals in a fenced area. Utter bullshit! But to be fair – there are some areas where actually searching for an animal to kill behind a high fence cannot really be called “hunting”. But this is by no means the rule in South Africa, as some armchair experts wants to make out. To them I say: “ F*^k you! You are doing the great harm to the sport of sport hunting by flaunting your poorly informed attitude. Please use this opportunity to learn how to know when sport killing behind a high fence can be called “hunting” [mostly] and when it is merely “killing” [very seldom]. Once you have learned, then please change your ways and attitude. Your present actions of blanked condemning of all killing of animals in a high fenced enclosure as unethical is much more harmful to the great sport of true hunting than a lot of efforts by anti-hunters.” If it is your own personal choice to never hunt behind a high fence, so be it. I’ll respect that, and will do nothing to coerce you to change your views! But do not think my respect for you having your own views on the subject entitles you to condemn others who do not share your own personal belief. Show that you are indeed a true gentleman hunter by affording those who find nothing wrong with it the pleasure of enjoying their chosen activities without you condemning them for their actions.

I can think of a few more activities about which we as hunters should unite by at least speaking the same language and being consistent about what we call certain activities, but it is Christmas and I’ll leave you here.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Some good points in general but sadly others will nit-pick your ideas to death. The line between ethical and legal is twisted by hunters and outfitters so badly that many people have no idea what "real" hunting is anymore.

When I suggest to bowhunters that sitting in a permanent blind at a waterhole isn't true hunting I get jumped on pretty quickly. I prefer to call it assasination but then what do I know? The only Animals I've gotten in Africa were ones I stalked or ambushed on game trails well away from water, with nothing more than a gillie suit and longbow. That kind of hunting takes lots of time and a fair bit of skill. It's definately not the way to "fill your bag." Most outfitters would argue for the waterhole stuff just because their clients can kill more animals and the outfitter makes more money.

I notice on a canadian forum I frequent that when people break the law the forum members are starting to call them poachers rather than "hunters breaking the law." I agree with this idea wholeheartedly, if you must break the law to get an animal you've stepped away from the relm of hunting and you've lost the right to call yourself a hunter.

Yes indeed we do ourselves a disservice with the words we choose.

Merry Xmas Andrew - Nice to see you appreciate South African Wine

Shall we call it shooting lions in a bucket then?

Does it change the facts and circumstances? Does it change the fact that one is shooting livestock?

Does calling cattle feces-cow pies change the fact we are dealing with excrement?

Andrew, I fully understand everything you are trying to convey, and agree with 99% of what you are saying. However I fear this post will do more harm than the good you hope for, because those with closed minds will take your meaning and twist it far out of shape!

I have hunted on fensed properties that were certainly fair chase hunting, not be cause of the size of the property per sey` but because of the type of land, and the way the hunt was conducted. Judging a hunt simply because of a fence that may never be seen bu you or the animal, or the linier measurment of the size of the property with no regard to the cover, or escape routs for the game, is patently wrong PERIOD. Those things never occurs to people with closed minds that are made up! Facts seem never to enter into their thoughts!

Mery Christmas or what ever holiday you observe!

I cringe everytime I hear someone say they "harvested" this or that animal. I get this mental picture of somebody sneaking up on a field of corn with their John Deere combine, catching it unawares from down-wind.

But come to think - that's the perfect term for canned hunting/shooting. I would have no problem in it being called canned harvesting.

Merry Christmas Andrew and a good post. As others have stated, the more open minded/ experienced among the membership will understand the point you are trying to make. The close minded/less experienced will make their own interpretation, and that i to be expected.

Andrew,

South Africa have the biggest HUNTING industry in Africa. The lattest figures I heard (please do not quote me) is`18,000 hunters a year.

Reading your posts over the last couple of weeks I suggest two things.

1. Get a copy of Peter Flack and Shane MAhony's DVD : The South Safarican Nature Conservation Success Story
2. Take all this time you spend on this topic every year, and come to the PHASA AGM and convey your wisdoms to the convention. This way you will reach people that might be able to help you with your thoughts. I will try and get you a turn on the podium.

Hi Andrew

This topic is truly worthy of solid discussion & debate amongst hunters. As part of “organised” hunting structures within South Africa I am also acutely aware how important the correct words are as they lead directly to legislation, regulation & interpretation so when used without due consideration it can lead to far reaching consequences for hunter and outfitter!

I’d like to place here an extract from the Hunter Confederation’s (CHASA) ethical policy. I really believe this puts in a nutshell what many true hunters believe:

“Fair Chase is defined 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.”

The Peter Flack DVD, The South African Conservation Success Story, mentioned by Charl really goes a long way to enlightening folk as to what the South African hunting model (especially as a result of the “high fences”) has managed to achieve. It is excellent viewing, but in my opinion, when shown to non-hunters should be facilitated by someone who can assist with explaining & interpreting the message for the viewer. It’s long at 80 minutes, and if a viewer, especially a "non or anti hunter", only watches the first half, they’d get totally the opposite message as to what the whole story is.

At the premier of the DVD Shane Mahoney mentioned in his address that the SA model is almost exactly the opposite of the North American one. Here, private ownership of game animals has preserved and increased them, whereas in the North American context it’s a combination of state ownership, coupled with good stewardship and good citizenship that combine to preserve the game. But the fundamental dynamics of the two societies, African & American, are so different that it’s not surprising that two totally different models emerged.

The facts are simple; if the ordinary citizen, be he foreign or local, wishes to hunt African species, in Africa, in reasonable abundance, then the SA high fence model is essential. Those well heeled enough to afford the wide open spaces of Africa as can still be found in Tanzania, Mozambique etc. are fortunate indeed, but such space will be ever more scarce and expensive. The SA model works……

On another note, at the last meeting of the “Wildlife Forum” (a forum hosted by the SA Dept. of Environmental Affairs, which includes all hunting & wildlife industry roll players) the bid by the SA Predator Breeders Assoc. to join the forum was approved. This is to my mind very positive as these folk are now part of a structure where there is a sharing of concerns across all existing interest groups. They will have no option but to hear the criticism and consequences of “canned” shooting practices first hand from all sides including government, ranchers, professional and recreational hunters & mainstream conservation groups. They, and more importantly the thousands of lions they own, will not just disappear off the map, so bringing them into the forum must be a good step in the direction of vastly improving the modus operandi of some of their less morally conscious members?

Thoughtful posts Andrew and Stephen. I agree that many let a few cloud their impression of what South African hunting is really about. If they would look at game numbers in South Africa 75 years ago vs. today they would marvel at the stewardship South Africans have exhibited to the rest of the world. White rhino, black wildebeest, bontebok and cape zebra have avoided extinction because of your efforts. While there will always be detractors, please hold your heads high for a job well done!

I have hunted South Africa before and, God willing, will do so again! I can think of no finer sport than Vhallies in her high places.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Palos:
Hi Andrew

This topic is truly worthy of solid discussion & debate amongst hunters. As part of “organized” hunting structures within South Africa I am also acutely aware how important the correct words are as they lead directly to legislation, regulation & interpretation so when used without due consideration it can lead to far reaching consequences for hunter and outfitter!

I’d like to place here an extract from the Hunter Confederation’s (CHASA) ethical policy. I really believe this puts in a nutshell what many true hunters believe:

“Fair Chase is defined 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.”

The Peter Flack DVD, The South African Conservation Success Story, mentioned by Charl really goes a long way to enlightening folk as to what the South African hunting model (especially as a result of the “high fences”) has managed to achieve. It is excellent viewing, but in my opinion, when shown to non-hunters should be facilitated by someone who can assist with explaining & interpreting the message for the viewer. It’s long at 80 minutes, and if a viewer, especially a "non or anti hunter", only watches the first half, they’d get totally the opposite message as to what the whole story is.

At the premier of the DVD Shane Mahoney mentioned in his address that the SA model is almost exactly the opposite of the North American one. Here, private ownership of game animals has preserved and increased them, whereas in the North American context it’s a combination of state ownership, coupled with good stewardship and good citizenship that combine to preserve the game. But the fundamental dynamics of the two societies, African & American, are so different that it’s not surprising that two totally different models emerged.

The facts are simple; if the ordinary citizen, be he foreign or local, wishes to hunt African species, in Africa, in reasonable abundance, then the SA high fence model is essential. Those well heeled enough to afford the wide open spaces of Africa as can still be found in Tanzania, Mozambique etc. are fortunate indeed, but such space will be ever more scarce and expensive. The SA model works……

On another note, at the last meeting of the “Wildlife Forum” (a forum hosted by the SA Dept. of Environmental Affairs, which includes all hunting & wildlife industry roll players) the bid by the SA Predator Breeders Assoc. to join the forum was approved. This is to my mind very positive as these folk are now part of a structure where there is a sharing of concerns across all existing interest groups. They will have no option but to hear the criticism and consequences of “canned” shooting practices first hand from all sides including government, ranchers, professional and recreational hunters & mainstream conservation groups. They, and more importantly the thousands of lions they own, will not just disappear off the map, so bringing them into the forum must be a good step in the direction of vastly improving the modus operandi of some of their less morally conscious members?

The above post is very well thought out, and could be the basis for a thoughtful debate here. The key word being “THOUGHTFUL”!

I find that once this subject is opened thought goes out the window and yelling and name calling ensues! The loudest of which come from folks that have never hunted a high fence property of any size of landscape type. The result is a dialog from a base of ignorance! ( Before anyone gets needlessly insulted, “IGNORANCE” simply means a person is unaware of certain facts, and has nothing to do with intelligence! Before one can discuss a subject properly they must first have a good grip on certain facts. That being said most who oppose high fence hunting tend to think only of the size of the land behind the fence, and disregard all other aspects of the subject. The passage in the post quoted above that I placed in BOLD print is a start in explaining some of the concerns over SIZE, and basically explain some of the land conditions, that I will attempt to explain further here.

Here we take two properties that are the same size exactly, and perfectly square for ease of explanation! Both properties outside measurement make each property one section (640 acres) before anyone gets in a huff we all know that 640 acres is not the best size for all types of game, and is only an example to show a difference that can occur depending on the lay of the land and cover differences.
Property #1 is flat with only 2 foot high grass with a water hole in the exact center of the property. For this lets take only a whitetail deer, and animal that naturally lives and dies within one mile of his place of birth, the 640 acres being one square mile in area.
Property #2 is the same square mile but in hilly country, with creeks and springs, large rock outcroppings, with tall fruit or nut bearing trees, and under tight brush in places and openings in others. In outside measurement this property is also one square mile, but because of the lay of the land being many elevations the actual land surface may be three times that of the flat property #1 or an actual 1900 acres of actual land surface.
#2 property will have water in many places, cover in many places, and food in many places, and a deer in this property will have escape routes in many directions, hiding places to avoid detection by a hunter, and in many cases has only to move just enough to ge t out of sight. If you can’t find him you can’t shoot him,
This is the reason the size of a property is not a good criteria for judging a property fair chasse or not! Admittedly this is an extreme example but you will see that simply placing a law on the books stating that a property must be a certain size to be fair chasse is not a well thought out criteria.

Certainly a property should be larger if the natural range of the game inside needs more room naturally for their home range, nobody would argue that fact!

Next we need to consider whether the animals inside high fence have had a lot of human contact, and have lost their fear of humans. This is one of the dangers of this type of hunting property. If the animals have become ZOOized, where they simply stand and look at a hunter without fear then in my opinion he is simply a target, the same as a paper target on a firing range, and not fair chasse no matter the property size of condition.

The other thing that may impact the fair chasse status of a hunt behind high fence is the way the hunts are conducted. For instance especially on a smaller property hunts may be limited to foot hunts only with vehicle only used to recover the downed game. Some properties may be limited to bow or muzzle loader with only iron sights, and also on foot.

Larger properties may be allowed vehicle traffic to cover more land, and/or oppose shooting from the hunting car. This is mostly the way safari is conducted in most concessions in what most here consider free range hunting and would be no more advantageous to the hunter in a fenced property of great size than in a concession.

Some of the properties in RSA are very large, and one may hunt for days and never see a fence. In most of these properties there are no dangerous game, and the ones that do have dangerous game it is my understanding that the fence must be electrified to avoid the escape of dangerous game into the human population. This last thing is a sensible law if that is correct.

Gentlemen the existence of a fence does not necessarily indicate a “CANNED” shooting range! Andrew is right the word “CANNED” is used far too frequently by people who really do not know what they are talking about and are acting from a base of emotion rather than knowledge, just as we accuse the anti hunters of doing.
The word “CANNED” is a real dangerous word for all of us on both sides and when used by a hunter it is ammo for the antis regardless if true or not to be used against all hunting. That word was thrown back at me by one of the antis because a hunter had used it without any justification of the word. This A HUNTER from New Jersey who was opposed to high fence, told me that if the whole state of Texas was fenced, any hunt that took place inside that fence would be a “CANNED” hunt! Now anyone with a lick of sense knows that is ridiculous. I suspect that hunter would have hunted on an Island half the size of a small Texas county, and smaller than some ranches in Texas and been as proud as a peacock of his trophy, while the island surrounded by thousands of mile of ocean is far better fenced than most high fence ranches.

As I said in an earlier post, this subject is far too important to cause in-fighting among hunters. It is important enough that both pro and con need to talk, and listen to both sides rather than make thing easier for the antis by making statements that have no backing, to be used out of context by the antis to shoot back at us as a group!

A little more listening and less yelling would be a start for a meaningful DEBATE, rather than a excrement throwing at each other, while the antis sit on the side and laugh, at us then use or ill conceived words to choke us to death.

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

Andrew, thank you for putting this topic on a front burner again.

I don't think that either hard-and-fast rules or nomenclature really get us very far. I am inclined to believe that virtually everyone here on AR knows the difference between fair chase and not fair chase. If it's legal, and you want to do it, do it, whatever "it" is. That is not at all the same thing as saying that I want to do "it."

Good hunting.

Mac, my hat is off to you Sir. Your response is probably the best, open minded assessment of the issue I have ever read. Thank You for your insight

Further to what Crazyhorseconsulting has said regarding the aspects of various fenced areas there is in fact many differing scenarios which affect the hunt on a particular property.

The first & most obvious is how heavily it has been hunted in the recent past. Animals learn (and un-learn) rather quickly. Another critical factor, particularly in thicker bush areas of the Northwest & Limpopo provinces, is how early or late in the season you hunt. These two factors also work in tandem, so if you have an early hunt after a fairly rainy summer, the game may well be less skittish, but visibility & shooting opportunity due to thick bush & long grass make hunting very difficult. Later on that same place may be much easier as the bush opens & the grass thins IF the hunting has not been heavy up until then, making the game VERY wily & skittish….

Another factor I have experienced is predator presence. Believe it or not, many game ranches have wild ranging predators, especially leopard but even cheetah, wild dog & hyena. One 2000ha (5000acre) ranch I have hunted a bit in the Silent Valley area is plagued by them due to a bordering private reserve. Their game is plentiful enough but wild as all hell!

An outfit I hunted for many years in the Ellisras area had many different farms available totalling over 16 000ha. Only one, of 1000ha, was game fenced, the rest only having normal cattle fencing which means nothing to any game species occurring there. They were in close proximity to, with some farms actually on, the Limpopo, opposite the Tuli Block of Botswana. We hunted in large groups, but each hunter literally picked himself a farm to himself each day. No one EVER focussed on the game fenced unit except if specifically after a specie that simply did not occur on the “outside” farms. All our kudu, impala, warthog, wildebeest & even waterbuck & bushbuck were rather taken on the open farms. The farmer charged a small premium for “his” closed game! Except when eventually his closed farm became heavily over-stocked, the hunting was not noticeably different between the open & closed areas.

A “tiny” fenced farm I’ve hunted a bit in the past near Rustenburg is long & narrow, goes up into very stony mountains, full of old “kraals” of circular stone walls made by tribes about 250 years back, and VERY densely bushed. Species include impala, kudu & wildebeest and the size does not exceed 250ha fenced area. It is well stocked. It is also some of the most challenging hunting I have ever done! Short visibility, noisy loose stones and close brief encounters are the norm.

I have hunted the last few years a 16 000ha (20km long X 8km wide) ranch in the far south of Botswana. Typical Kalahari, with thinly grassed dunes, Camel-thorn trees, scattered bush and very sandy. It is both exremely hard & extremely easy! Hard, because you walk for ever, but easy in that when you come on the game there is sufficient cover without affecting visibility, the dunes are easy to use to your advantage & the sand makes for easy tracking. It is relatively easy to get within shooting distances of 60 to 120m without disturbing the game. This is by a factor of “times 8” the largest fenced farm I’ve ever hunted, yet I find it the easiest! Oh, leopard, cheetah & occasional lion occur on this property but it's the wild ostriches that scare me the most....