quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Tendrams, really not inclined to waste my time arguing about this.

quote:

I still find it funny that hunters can piss moan about this but then on other threads praise the hunting of a hundred pound elephant that basically wandered in from a national park, just like Cecil.

quote:

Originally posted by vvreddy:
You have provided lots of good info but unfortunately this has nothing to do with the conservation point of view but rather the public perception point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

And you can fight public perception with factual counter arguments, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Thierry Labat:
I think the best thing would be to inform any given client, prior to the commencement of the hunt that should by chance we happen to encounter a collared animal, that the said collared animal is off limits. This will save the problem of now trying to explain to the client that said animal is not to be hunted, once the animal is in sight or view of client?

I know for a fact that there is a very big elephant that has wondered into the SVC from probably Gona Re Zhou and the operators and landowners have decided that this said elephant should be collared for research purposes and not be shot. Now if I have an elephant hunter with me and we happen to come across this elephant, prior to it being collared and I was to turn around and say to client that we can't take this elephant because he is too big and that there are plans for him to get collared, what would you as the client feel??
On the other hand if I was to say to you the client, prior to commencement of the hunt that there is one elephant in the whole of the SVC that has a collar on it and we are not to hunt this elephant and if we then happen to come across it, would you not find this easier to accept and understand??

By the way, I'm not judging the PH who guided this particular lion in question. What he did was not illegal and who knows what actually happened on the ground. Maybe he couldn't see collar because of the mane? Maybe he didn't have trail cameras to study the photos and notice the collar? Who knows, apart from them.

Cheers all

quote:

Originally posted by Thierry Labat:
I think the best thing would be to inform any given client, prior to the commencement of the hunt that should by chance we happen to encounter a collared animal, that the said collared animal is off limits. This will save the problem of now trying to explain to the client that said animal is not to be hunted, once the animal is in sight or view of client?

I know for a fact that there is a very big elephant that has wondered into the SVC from probably Gona Re Zhou and the operators and landowners have decided that this said elephant should be collared for research purposes and not be shot. Now if I have an elephant hunter with me and we happen to come across this elephant, prior to it being collared and I was to turn around and say to client that we can't take this elephant because he is too big and that there are plans for him to get collared, what would you as the client feel??
On the other hand if I was to say to you the client, prior to commencement of the hunt that there is one elephant in the whole of the SVC that has a collar on it and we are not to hunt this elephant and if we then happen to come across it, would you not find this easier to accept and understand??

By the way, I'm not judging the PH who guided this particular lion in question. What he did was not illegal and who knows what actually happened on the ground. Maybe he couldn't see collar because of the mane? Maybe he didn't have trail cameras to study the photos and notice the collar? Who knows, apart from them.

Cheers all

quote:

We have to learn to fight the fight the same way they do, by swaying public perception through emotional arguments that are fact based.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Thierry Labat:
I think the best thing would be to inform any given client, prior to the commencement of the hunt that should by chance we happen to encounter a collared animal, that the said collared animal is off limits. This will save the problem of now trying to explain to the client that said animal is not to be hunted, once the animal is in sight or view of client?

I know for a fact that there is a very big elephant that has wondered into the SVC from probably Gona Re Zhou and the operators and landowners have decided that this said elephant should be collared for research purposes and not be shot. Now if I have an elephant hunter with me and we happen to come across this elephant, prior to it being collared and I was to turn around and say to client that we can't take this elephant because he is too big and that there are plans for him to get collared, what would you as the client feel??
On the other hand if I was to say to you the client, prior to commencement of the hunt that there is one elephant in the whole of the SVC that has a collar on it and we are not to hunt this elephant and if we then happen to come across it, would you not find this easier to accept and understand??

By the way, I'm not judging the PH who guided this particular lion in question. What he did was not illegal and who knows what actually happened on the ground. Maybe he couldn't see collar because of the mane? Maybe he didn't have trail cameras to study the photos and notice the collar? Who knows, apart from them.

Cheers all

If you are going to add that stipulation, it's ok...... as long as you tell me that BEFORE I make a deposit to hunt with you and not when I show up at camp. I most probably would decide to hunt with someone else if given proper notice and would be much less than pleased if told when I arrived to hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by martin pieters:
Thierry in theory I agree to what you have said, but these days the majority of male lions on park borders are collared in the Hwange region ( to monitor movements/ cattle killing etc ) and hence it would be difficult and OR unfair to sell a lion hunt on the peripheries of Hwange nat park ( including Matetsi/ Forestry or private land )

Collars monitor movement and are not in place to protect any given animal UNLESS it has been granted special protection from government.

quote:

Originally posted by bakerb:
The sad reality is that there are certain species that tug on the heart strings of the public, and you simply cannot alter perception with facts. No matter the facts presented, hunting them will always look bad to the general public, even the non-antis.

Big cats, wolves, polar bears, elephants, etc. No matter the facts presented, a lot of the general public cannot get around the fact that someone would want to kill that species, no matter what the conservation facts are. . .

I can go over to the local diner, and eat lunch with the local farmers, and if mentioned that I was going to shoot an elephant, they'd ask "Why?" They wouldn't care. But they can't fathom why someone would want to kill an elephant

The general public that is removed from hunting can understand someone hunting deer or something like that. But mention killing a big cat, you'll get a different response. They simply can't fathom why anyone would do so. Even if they're not antis

We simply must accept that reality, that our actions in hunting certain species is indefensible to a large portion of the public. Whether it's a perception of rarity, intelligence, or whatever, certain species are just darlings of the public

What's the answer? . . . I don't know. I'm certainly not advocating giving up. I don't mean that at all. But no matter what we do, no matter what facts we present, hunting some species cannot be defended to the public at large.

Realizing that, we certainly can police ourselves so as not to give ourselves a self-induced black eye. Not for the sake of the antis. But for the sake of general, majority, non-hunting and non-anti public.

Bake

quote:

Originally posted by bakerb:
The sad reality is that there are certain species that tug on the heart strings of the public, and you simply cannot alter perception with facts. No matter the facts presented, hunting them will always look bad to the general public, even the non-antis.

Big cats, wolves, polar bears, elephants, etc. No matter the facts presented, a lot of the general public cannot get around the fact that someone would want to kill that species, no matter what the conservation facts are. . .

I can go over to the local diner, and eat lunch with the local farmers, and if mentioned that I was going to shoot an elephant, they'd ask "Why?" They wouldn't care. But they can't fathom why someone would want to kill an elephant

The general public that is removed from hunting can understand someone hunting deer or something like that. But mention killing a big cat, you'll get a different response. They simply can't fathom why anyone would do so. Even if they're not antis

We simply must accept that reality, that our actions in hunting certain species is indefensible to a large portion of the public. Whether it's a perception of rarity, intelligence, or whatever, certain species are just darlings of the public

What's the answer? . . . I don't know. I'm certainly not advocating giving up. I don't mean that at all. But no matter what we do, no matter what facts we present, hunting some species cannot be defended to the public at large.

Realizing that, we certainly can police ourselves so as not to give ourselves a self-induced black eye. Not for the sake of the antis. But for the sake of general, majority, non-hunting and non-anti public.

Bake

quote:

think the best thing would be to inform any given client, prior to the commencement of the hunt that should by chance we happen to encounter a collared animal, that the said collared animal is off limits.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
Not to get side tracked.. But I think you should encourage him to take those deer he lets lie to a hunters for the hungry facility. Damn shame letting that happen. Back to the

quote:

Originally posted by Thierry Labat:

quote:

Originally posted by martin pieters:
Thierry in theory I agree to what you have said, but these days the majority of male lions on park borders are collared in the Hwange region ( to monitor movements/ cattle killing etc ) and hence it would be difficult and OR unfair to sell a lion hunt on the peripheries of Hwange nat park ( including Matetsi/ Forestry or private land )

Collars monitor movement and are not in place to protect any given animal UNLESS it has been granted special protection from government.

I hear you Marty and I personally have taken a collared leopard with a client. The ecologist who collared the cat informed me that it was fairgame and would be part of his research, should the cat be hunted. I also informed client that there is a chance we get a collared leopard on bait and that should he still be happy to take it then no problem. I had no problem taking it. Like you say at the end of the day collars are mainly for monitoring purposes....just thinking allowed to prevent further issues! Again I reiterate that taking a collared animal is not against the law. Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by bakerb:
The sad reality is that there are certain species that tug on the heart strings of the public, and you simply cannot alter perception with facts. No matter the facts presented, hunting them will always look bad to the general public, even the non-antis.

Big cats, wolves, polar bears, elephants, etc. No matter the facts presented, a lot of the general public cannot get around the fact that someone would want to kill that species, no matter what the conservation facts are. . .

I can go over to the local diner, and eat lunch with the local farmers, and if mentioned that I was going to shoot an elephant, they'd ask "Why?" They wouldn't care. But they can't fathom why someone would want to kill an elephant

The general public that is removed from hunting can understand someone hunting deer or something like that. But mention killing a big cat, you'll get a different response. They simply can't fathom why anyone would do so. Even if they're not antis

We simply must accept that reality, that our actions in hunting certain species is indefensible to a large portion of the public. Whether it's a perception of rarity, intelligence, or whatever, certain species are just darlings of the public

What's the answer? . . . I don't know. I'm certainly not advocating giving up. I don't mean that at all. But no matter what we do, no matter what facts we present, hunting some species cannot be defended to the public at large.

Realizing that, we certainly can police ourselves so as not to give ourselves a self-induced black eye. Not for the sake of the antis. But for the sake of general, majority, non-hunting and non-anti public.

Bake

+1

It all sounds fun to stand up and fight the good fight on the internet or with other like minded big game hunters. But killing elephants and lions is tough to justify in general public conversation.

At DSC i was driving a bunch of zim phs meeting up with other zim phs at cowboys red river. Not one of the zim phs (some who have even written books and made dvds) was willing to acknowledge in public what they did for a living. They were all in the photo safari business and had some corny line about being white africans.

That is reality.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


In reality, if true data is to be gathered...the collar should be disregarded in the decision to shoot.

In regards to this lion...if the PH/outfitter really cared about the industry they would have avoided it. It makes no sense to stir the pot like this.

We have to try to educate when we can, enjoy while we can...time I am afraid is limited.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I still find it funny that hunters can piss moan about this but then on other threads praise the hunting of a hundred pound elephant that basically wandered in from a national park, just like Cecil.

One of the big boys wandered out from Amboseli and into a hunting area on the Tanzanian side of the border and was promptly nailed. (some might remember the saga).

The killing of this "tame" elephant stirred up so much shit that it led to a ban on shooting elephants in the northern sector.

I understand they (authorities) have since established some sort of corridor to act as a buffer zone.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by bakerb:
The sad reality is that there are certain species that tug on the heart strings of the public, and you simply cannot alter perception with facts. No matter the facts presented, hunting them will always look bad to the general public, even the non-antis.

Big cats, wolves, polar bears, elephants, etc. No matter the facts presented, a lot of the general public cannot get around the fact that someone would want to kill that species, no matter what the conservation facts are. . .

I can go over to the local diner, and eat lunch with the local farmers, and if mentioned that I was going to shoot an elephant, they'd ask "Why?" They wouldn't care. But they can't fathom why someone would want to kill an elephant

The general public that is removed from hunting can understand someone hunting deer or something like that. But mention killing a big cat, you'll get a different response. They simply can't fathom why anyone would do so. Even if they're not antis

We simply must accept that reality, that our actions in hunting certain species is indefensible to a large portion of the public. Whether it's a perception of rarity, intelligence, or whatever, certain species are just darlings of the public

What's the answer? . . . I don't know. I'm certainly not advocating giving up. I don't mean that at all. But no matter what we do, no matter what facts we present, hunting some species cannot be defended to the public at large.

Realizing that, we certainly can police ourselves so as not to give ourselves a self-induced black eye. Not for the sake of the antis. But for the sake of general, majority, non-hunting and non-anti public.

Bake

+1

It all sounds fun to stand up and fight the good fight on the internet or with other like minded big game hunters. But killing elephants and lions is tough to justify in general public conversation.

At DSC i was driving a bunch of zim phs meeting up with other zim phs at cowboys red river. Not one of the zim phs (some who have even written books and made dvds) was willing to acknowledge in public what they did for a living. They were all in the photo safari business and had some corny line about being white africans.

That is reality.

Mike

I think that has more to do with the guilt suffered knowing all the BS that goes on behind the scenes in the industry...like quota swapping. Knowing once great places like Chete and Matetsi have been devastated due too high quotas by the plunderers.

quote:

Originally posted by vvreddy:
The NRA does not support and has admonished people who walk around with AR15s to make a point.

quote:

Originally posted by Thierry Labat:

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Thierry Labat:
I think the best thing would be to inform any given client, prior to the commencement of the hunt that should by chance we happen to encounter a collared animal, that the said collared animal is off limits. This will save the problem of now trying to explain to the client that said animal is not to be hunted, once the animal is in sight or view of client?

I know for a fact that there is a very big elephant that has wondered into the SVC from probably Gona Re Zhou and the operators and landowners have decided that this said elephant should be collared for research purposes and not be shot. Now if I have an elephant hunter with me and we happen to come across this elephant, prior to it being collared and I was to turn around and say to client that we can't take this elephant because he is too big and that there are plans for him to get collared, what would you as the client feel??
On the other hand if I was to say to you the client, prior to commencement of the hunt that there is one elephant in the whole of the SVC that has a collar on it and we are not to hunt this elephant and if we then happen to come across it, would you not find this easier to accept and understand??

By the way, I'm not judging the PH who guided this particular lion in question. What he did was not illegal and who knows what actually happened on the ground. Maybe he couldn't see collar because of the mane? Maybe he didn't have trail cameras to study the photos and notice the collar? Who knows, apart from them.

Cheers all

If you are going to add that stipulation, it's ok...... as long as you tell me that BEFORE I make a deposit to hunt with you and not when I show up at camp. I most probably would decide to hunt with someone else if given proper notice and would be much less than pleased if told when I arrived to hunt.

Fair enough. But let's say I offer you a hunt for an elephant of 50lbs+ and that I am pretty confident of getting you an elephant of over 50lbs, but in the same breath tell you that there is 1 elephant in the 500000 acres, that is approx 80lbs, which has a collar and is not permitted to be hunted.....you would still hunt elsewhere? What are the chances of finding that 1 elephant as opposed to targeting many elephants over 50lbs? I hope your getting my point?

quote:

Originally posted by vvreddy:
The NRA does not support and has admonished people who walk around with AR15s to make a point.

So should we police our ranks or someone else will police them for us. To say that we should support each other no matter how detrimental the behavior or practice to the greater good makes no sense.