Very good article by Peter Flack.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...onservation-efforts/

With all due respect for him, I think he is just jumping on the "ME TOO" bandwagon!

One cannot have one type of "canned"hunting and not another.

If we use the same excuse, practically everything hunted in South Africa falls under the same classification.

For the record, I don't care for truly canned hunting and do not do it. I was more interested in the writer's emphasis upon the more "ethical" type of hunting where the meat is more important than the headgear/trophy quality. I suspect I would fall into that category, even though if given a choice, I will always take the animal that is trophy-quality as opposed to one taken simply for meat. My wife and I eat an average of three whitetailed deer per year. Most of them are bucks. Bucks are larger an yield more meat, and I usually hold out for larger bucks with trophy-quality headgear.
When we hunted in Africa, we insisted that we have a chance to sample the meat from animals I killed. We realized that it was illegal for us to import meat from such animals, but we appreciated the fact that others benefitted from them. I well remember the day I killed my Cape buffalo. A stream of local villagers appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to share in the distribution of meat. It appears that locals hear a rifle shot and realize meat is in the offing.
While the article is attempting to further demonize canned hunting and those who support it, one truth is missing. Whether an animal is killed for sport or for meat makes no difference to the animal or those who eat it. Which is more immoral? To eat meat from a cow, raised for slaughter, having no chance to avoid that fate, or from a wild animal taken in fair chase? A lamb or a wildebeest? A pig or a gemsbok?

So much is in the definitions, which are unclear, and easily exploited by the antis and the activists.

Because South Africa was colonised in the 1600s virtually all hunting there can be defined as "canned" if you want it to be. Everything is fenced. And the media wants it to be.

There is a big difference between captive bred (and captive breeding at some stage may well be the only chance a lot of wildlife will have to survive) and canned, but it's not in the interests of the "donate now!" brigade to see unbiased reporting here.

South Africa, unfortunately, has been its own worst enemy press and PR-wise, and I think a lot of where Peter Flack is coming from is the damage from not so much what is being done, but from what is perceived to be happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

. . . practically everything hunted in South Africa falls under the same classification.

Please do not be disingenuous. There is no legitimate comparison between a pen-raised lion that is released in a fenced area with the intent and objective that that specific lion will be hunted by a specific hunter within a matter of hours or days of having been released versus animals bought at auction that are released in a fenced area to propagate and breed with a view that only a portion will be harvested over time and the remainder will become established herds. It is disingenuous to pretend that there is not a material distinction between the two.

"The major difference between canned killing and captive bred animal killing is a fig leaf behind which these greedy, conscienceless bastards are trying to hide their nefarious activities.

It fools no-one other than those wanting to be fooled".

That pretty much sums up the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

. . . practically everything hunted in South Africa falls under the same classification.

Please do not be disingenuous. There is no legitimate comparison between a pen-raised lion that is released in a fenced area with the intent and objective that that specific lion will be hunted by a specific hunter within a matter of hours or days of having been released versus animals bought at auction that are released in a fenced area to propagate and breed with a view that only a portion will be harvested over time and the remainder will become established herds. It is disingenuous to pretend that there is not a material distinction between the two.

You can play with words as much as you like Mike.

An animal is an animal is an animal.

Bred in a shed or a cage, still farm bred.

How many elk are bred nd shot in pens in the US??

How come you are not campaigning to stop that??

What about other animals raised for killing??

Hunters still refuse to open their eyes and minds, they want to cling to beliefs instead of understanding that the anti hunting forces do not care about the personal ethics or lack there of among those that call themselves hunters, they are working and spending money to get ALL HUNTING OF ANY KIND STOPPED!

Unless or until all hunters comprehend that concept and join together to preserve hunting in any form, the future of all hunting is doomed.

Really guys! To say that a herd animal, an antilope or deer can be compared in behavioural terms to Africa's top apex predator is not on. Please educate yourself! There is enough scientific literature around, there is enough opportunity to spend some time in Africa game parks and observe these animals behaviour.

quote:

Please do not be disingenuous. There is no legitimate comparison between a pen-raised lion that is released in a fenced area with the intent and objective that that specific lion will be hunted by a specific hunter within a matter of hours or days of having been released versus animals bought at auction that are released in a fenced area to propagate and breed with a view that only a portion will be harvested over time and the remainder will become established herds. It is disingenuous to pretend that there is not a material distinction between the two.

It would be more disingenuous to pretend that the second operation described above does not partake in similar behavior as the first when the opportunity for income is discovered. Particularly on "trophy" animals that are purchased.

So when the rest of Africa has either eaten , fucked and then finally shat all over it there will only be South Africa and it's fences left !

So Lets be honest Saeed, It was not long ago when your beloved "no fences Tanzania" had its borders closed and the no hunting posted, Kenya is gone, Botswana is gone, Zimbabwe ? lets see now will the new dude suddenly reverse the trend .... as to the rest.... if you like hunting in a war zone be my guest.....

Facts are facts if it were not for the game and veterinary laws with their fences enacted in South Africa in the 60's there would likely not be a viable game population left in Southern Africa.

People in masse, commercial and subsistence farming to feed them and wildlife are mutually exclusive !

Africa's population densities are vey high!
Especially those areas where there is still available hunting !

Kenya 85.15 ( game concentrated in realtievly small reserves only ) , Tanzania 47,5 ( one of the highest birth rates in Africa) Zimbabwe 33
South Africa 42.4 , Zambia 22.32, Botswana 3.97 Namibia 3.012, Angola 23.11 Mozambique 36.66

The biggest threat to hunting of any type however is the millennial phenomenon !

I predict that this group are and will be the end of what we know and what we do ! it's already happening in Canada ! The USA will follow !

The signs are there as those who make and build the tools of our trade are folding under the economic pressures that are brought about by this demographic !

quote:

Really guys! To say that a herd animal, an antilope or deer can be compared in behavioural terms to Africa's top apex predator is not on. Please educate yourself! There is enough scientific literature around, there is enough opportunity to spend some time in Africa game parks and observe these animals behaviour.

To an anti-hunter, the species nor their behavioral differences are not part of the equation, they do not concern themselves with such facts.

The one and only thing the anti's are looking at is that a "Hunter" is going to take a rifle or a bow and kill that animal, and they want that stopped.

quote:

The one and only thing the anti's are looking at is that a "Hunter" is going to take a rifle or a bow and kill that animal, and they want that stopped.

Plus, there are those of us that perceive the real motive of the ANTIs to be anti gun; the disarming of the public.

quote:

Plus, there are those of us that perceive the real motive of the ANTIs to be anti gun; the disarming of the public.

I have to disagree with that statement. I know gun owners that do not hunt and don't understand hunters all that well.

Just because someone does not own a gun or does not hunt that does not automatically equate into their being anti gun or anti hunting.

Equating people in that manner places things on a very slippery slope where people that do/will or can support both hunting and gun ownership, even though they personally do not own a gun or wish to hunt, will be alienated.

The last thing hunters and gun owners need to do is alienate those that have not taken sides yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
With all due respect for him, I think he is just jumping on the "ME TOO" bandwagon!

One cannot have one type of "canned"hunting and not another.

If we use the same excuse, practically everything hunted in South Africa falls under the same classification.

Saeed,
I have gotten to know Peter fairly well over the last 5 years due to his latest series of books of which I contributed.

He and I have had long discussions on this topic and the overall topic of conservation/sports ethics in hunting.

I do not see him as a "me too" guy jumping into the fray right now. He has fought this over the last 5 years on many levels in South Africa. He has been the "voice calling in the wilderness" on this topic and has spent a great deal of time and money advancing his position and beliefs. He started a guild of sorts for free range hunters, much like what Boone and Crockett is doing in the US, that had support across many organizations in South Africa. When he launched it, he was back stabbed by a couple of the groups that reverted to supported canned hunting. He then announced he was giving up the fight... a sad day for me.

Apparantly he is back in the fight as he has new and vocal support. I hope he succeeds along with the break away group.

As to the USA, you are correct. I believe the problem is far greater in the USA than in Africa. I can hunt nearly every species offered in Africa (bongo, mountain nyala, bushbuck, cape buff, etc.) in Texas. I can hunt nearly every sheep species on various high fenced ranches in Texas, Nebraska and other states. I can shoot a variety of pheasants, chukars, quail, and ducks that are pen raised. I can shoot any size of a whitetail deer or mule deer or elk that I can afford. All of this in the name of "sport". SCI and other groups turn a blind eye to this disgusting activity. Check out the deer offered on various websites or elk.

It is wrong and we in the USA are guilty as charged. We are worse than the Russians that shoot bears in the den or New Zealanders that shoot tahr from a helicopter. The list goes on and on.

We are the problem. Not the anti's.

So you are for all hunting being stopped unless it is conducted under your own Personal standards?

Is that what it is going to come down to among hunters, either its "My Way Or The Highway"?

Some how I feel that will only hasten the end and maybe that is as it should be. It is good to see that Elitists still exist.

As long as there are hunters that are willing to give up rather than compromise, there is no future for hunting.

As I have predicted for a couple of decades now, "Canned Hunting" where Publicly Owned wildlife is not part of the equation, and basically Privately owned livestock and poultry are all that is available.

Will it be "Hunting", no, not to the purist/elitist, but it will keep the Spirit alive into the future for a while.

With the world's population and the populations in all of the African countries increasing, there will be only so many places left for wildlife.

Any of us that are truly hunters, regardless of where we hunt or how we hunt, know that regardless of the predator, lions or coyotes, indigenous peoples that raise livestock/poultry, whether it is a Bushman in Africa or a sheep/cattle rancher in Montana or the resident of a small community in north Texas, they are going to do whatever is necessary to protect their stock and in Africa and Montana that includes themselves and their families from lions and grizzlies, and those folks are not going to concern themselves with legalities.

They are going to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families and their livestock, so if sport hunting is ended because some hunters are too wrapped up in the "Ways and Means" a hunt is conducted, will have played their part in the extinction of species such as lion and leopard.

When the $$$$$ and desire is taken from the equation, governments in and of themselves have little interest/impetus to spend money on wildlife.

I do not like that things have evolved or devolved depending on the individuals point of view and it may already be too late, but if hunters cannot unite as a group and set aside the petty issues dividing us, we only have ourselves to blame when the lights are turned off.

Unfortunately, I do not believe hunters can set aside their differences.

I agree that shooting an animal in a small pen that has never been allowed to fend for itself is not sporting, and is not hunting.

However it does fit within the standards of agribusiness and the shooting may well be a reasonable and ethical way to kill said animal.

I can see how the animal rightists make hunters and farmers look very bad when they can demonstrate great cats acting like pets as petting zoo cubs and then walk with animals adolescents and then get hauled out to a “hunting operation” that has some guy come out and shoot (usually poorly) poor ol simba, then act like some yahoo (see most hunting tv shows) after he kills it, videotapes the whole thing, and then puts it on YouTube as “dangerous game hunting”

I suspect that many see this as evidence against hunting... it isn’t it’s agriculture. It’s also boorish. I do think high fence can be hunting, but I’d have a heck of a time writing it up better than “I know it when I see it.”

My issue is that some, like Mike here, seem to think it’s easy to tell the difference. The big issue is what are you defining as “canned hunting” as that term is not specifically defined. To an anti, I suspect any method of killing is bad and any killing where the person involved enjoyed the activity is evil. What I consider canned hunting and unethical is quite different, and frankly is probably different than anyone else’s here. Thus we are forced to go to “legal” vs. a mismatch of personal definitions.

The fact that drawing ethical lines is difficult is no excuse to forego having such lines. And of course some activities will always fall in a gray area that is subject to legitimate debate. Fortunately as regards canned lion shooting that is not an activity that gets captured in any way shape or form in that gray area and is easy to condemn as a practice antithetical to ethical hinting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The fact that drawing ethical lines is difficult is no excuse to forego having such lines. And of course some activities will always fall in a gray area that is subject to legitimate debate. Fortunately as regards canned lion shooting that is not an activity that gets captured in any way shape or form in that gray area and is easy to condemn as a practice antithetical to ethical hinting.

For some reason I'm starting to agree with you...I won't lie..it worries me.

It is terribly easy to understand. Hunters as a group can either set aside minor differences or we can see hunting taken away from us.

Folks you really need to understand that hunters have became a minority in today's society, worldwide.

If you do not want to understand that, then do not whine and cry when hunting is taken from us.

We either develop open conversation about hunting and what hunters can do to save the ability to hunt or we can divide into camps and all end up losing.

I like Peter's writing. My own perspective is far less analytical. Hunting, though an inborn urge/desire goes through several stages. He has reached the philosopher stage, usually experienced at the end of a long and successful life spent able to do what one wants to do. Many of us will never be able to reach that point.

Hunting fills a need to get back to the land. I'd opine that very few desire that any more. If it were taught to kids, they still can choose and many (not opposed to others hunting) won't find it urgent. I grew up frustrated/unable to hunt like I wanted to. Many my own age devoured outdoor magazines and tales of safari derring-do growing up. Gun writers and their exploits fascinated me and eventually lead in adulthood to starting to hunt in earnest as I could afford it. Now, at sixty prospects are dim. I'd hunt again, but not forever. My two girls have hunted and my wife would go along to also hunt. But, things have probably run their course with us, and the girls won't be able to even if they have the desire again.

Guess what I'm saying is hunting will disappear for economic reasons. In fact, the current level of hunting, especially safari hunting, is simply former kids catching up on their dreams. I don't believe the dream has been passed on. I'd say the hunting fields will soon be plowed. Not because of canned / farmed hunting, weird "species" offered or projected public image. Rather, economics and population growth needs will do us in. Rich folks will always be able to go shooting somewhere...

The one concept so many are missing or do not want to consider, is that the Anti's do not want just hunting in Africa stopped, they want ALL HUNTING worldwide stopped!!!

Each and Every one of us that hunt are being threatened with the loss of aqn activity that is a fundamental part of our basic being as a human.

We cannot afford to divide ourselves into partisan camps with the individual groups only concerned about keeping THEIR personal type of hunting being saved.

All that will happen if we do become that divided is that the anti's will win that much faster.

I have a different approach to huntng canned lions, something I have never done nor have I ever booked a canned hunt for Lion but I figure that those folks that raise them, like those who raise cattle, horses, and the spiral horned antelope have a right to do so, and for every canned Lion hunted, a wild lion is not hunted and killed by that hunter, and in the future the salvation of the Lion and many other animals may be in the hands of those high fenced ranches that manage their animals. The same folks that saved the American Bison might be a point to an open minded person.

I see this high fence thing as high minded holier than thou bull shit by those that tend to be mother natures self appointed guardians that reside in Ivory towers far removed from the real world, that no matter what, would have no animal hunted and allow them to over graze and die of sickness followed by starvation.

the world of today has boundries, be it a fence, a border, or a concession, when animals crosses a concession they are not home free they are in another concession being hunted, free was many years ago in another place and time..

BTW, probably more lions and game wiped out in war zones than by hunters or local poachers, and in large numbers, never hear about this, I mean and Army has got to eat..and they probably eat one of every 10 animals killed, the rest the kill for fun, its their nature.

A little different approach but might be worth some folks at least giving it some thought. I had many years of hunting Africa to decide as I have, be it right or wrong, I belive I am right, and time will prove me out as populations continues, especially in Africa by those that care not one wit about the game animals and continually take away their habitate, and that's the real danger we should be facing and put the rest aside.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
So you are for all hunting being stopped unless it is conducted under your own Personal standards?

Is that what it is going to come down to among hunters, either its "My Way Or The Highway"?

Some how I feel that will only hasten the end and maybe that is as it should be. It is good to see that Elitists still exist.

As long as there are hunters that are willing to give up rather than compromise, there is no future for hunting.

As I have predicted for a couple of decades now, "Canned Hunting" where Publicly Owned wildlife is not part of the equation, and basically Privately owned livestock and poultry are all that is available.

Will it be "Hunting", no, not to the purist/elitist, but it will keep the Spirit alive into the future for a while.

With the world's population and the populations in all of the African countries increasing, there will be only so many places left for wildlife.

Any of us that are truly hunters, regardless of where we hunt or how we hunt, know that regardless of the predator, lions or coyotes, indigenous peoples that raise livestock/poultry, whether it is a Bushman in Africa or a sheep/cattle rancher in Montana or the resident of a small community in north Texas, they are going to do whatever is necessary to protect their stock and in Africa and Montana that includes themselves and their families from lions and grizzlies, and those folks are not going to concern themselves with legalities.

They are going to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families and their livestock, so if sport hunting is ended because some hunters are too wrapped up in the "Ways and Means" a hunt is conducted, will have played their part in the extinction of species such as lion and leopard.

When the $$$$$ and desire is taken from the equation, governments in and of themselves have little interest/impetus to spend money on wildlife.

I do not like that things have evolved or devolved depending on the individuals point of view and it may already be too late, but if hunters cannot unite as a group and set aside the petty issues dividing us, we only have ourselves to blame when the lights are turned off.

Unfortunately, I do not believe hunters can set aside their differences.

Crazy,
The issue is ethics and perception as well the reality that habitat loss and human encroachment do far more damage than other aspects.

My point is that in the USA, we nearly exterminated the buffalo, elk, pronghorn, various birds, otters, beavers and others as we viewed wildlife as a commodity to be collected and used. Thank the good Lord that the like of Teddy Roosevelt and others stopped the waste and instituted most of the modern thoughts on conservation and the value to society. He alone set aside 109 national wildlife refuges in his time as president. That started the "awakening" as to game laws, limits, and conservation. All species rebounded to a large extent except the various bighorn sheep. My point is that, in the USA, just because we can import markour or bongo or eland or ibex - should we pen them up and shoot them? I understand that the addax and scimitar horned oryx are nearly extinct in their home areas, as are Barbary sheep.

So I ask, where do we draw the boundary in our quest to hunt and to conserve? Peter Flack and others (Shane Mahoney for one) are a voice that says - hey guys, ethics are involved, sportsmanship is involved, - so there is a boundary.

I draw it at training deer to come to a feeder after having bred them intensely for antler growth - then shooting them and calling hunting. I draw the line on "kick and shoot" pheasant hunts. I draw the line on canned lions or canned whatever....

If you look - we are the ones that are not articulating what is ethical/right/wrong other than the broad brush of the law. If we all abide by the Boone and Crockett Fair Chase standards - we have a platform that can be heard and understood from the other side.

In the end, our best hope is to fend them off but we are losing ground - look at the number of hunters out there. Dropping steadily even though game populations are high compared to 100 years ago. Africa offers tremendous options as does Asia and the South Pacific. However, if we persist in unethical practices and not in a Fair Chase standard - we will lose eventually.

This is not about who has the most money or who can hunt when and where they please - this is the soul of hunting. Hunting IS NOT A RIGHT in our constitution. It may be in some states, but not everywhere and not on federal land. Hunting is a privilege earned.

So, unite we can - but it needs to be under the correct ethical standard that we can articulate and defend logically.


PS - not sure who is an elitist on this forum but I assure you every living person in the USA is an elitist compared the folks in most of sub-Saharan Africa. There are no truly poor in the USA when looking at a world standard. If traveling the world and seeing the human condition in all types of disarray and need is "elitist", I stand guilty. You only need to go to Haiti or Mexico to understand this.

quote:

So, unite we can - but it needs to be under the correct ethical standard that we can articulate and defend logically.

No, we can not unite, it is impossible simply because hunters, as can be seen from the various comments that have been posted on this one topic, do not share the exact same concept of what is and what isn't ethical hunting practices.

See, you feel that the way you hunt is ethical. I have no problem with that, but you feel that the way I choose to hunt is unethical, and that is where the problem comes in on your part because the Anti's do not care either way, they want it ALL STOPPED!!!!

You are incapable of understanding that, the ANTI's Do Not Give A Damn how any of us hunt, they want it ALL stopped, Wake Up To Reality.

Speaking of an inability to understand basic precepts, the battle is not for the hearts and minds of the anti-hunting community, it is not even for the hearts and minds of those that are indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting, it is a battle to keep the latter group largely indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting.

quote:

Speaking of an inability to understand basic precepts, the battle is not for the hearts and minds of the anti-hunting community, it is not even for the hearts and minds of those that are indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting, it is a battle to keep the latter group largely indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting.

But as long as hunters cannot set aside their own personal differences concerning hunting, what you proposed in your comment above cannot be achieved.

It still comes down to hunters putting aside their personal beliefs and uniting to keep hunting in some form a viable activity.

I know this is the African Hunting Forum, but ALL hunting is threatened, how many actual care and how many only care about the future of hunting in Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Speaking of an inability to understand basic precepts, the battle is not for the hearts and minds of the anti-hunting community, it is not even for the hearts and minds of those that are indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting, it is a battle to keep the latter group largely indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting.

Very true.

That is why we should never give up answering questions rather than bowing out and agreeing to some pre-conceived idea of what we should and should not do.

I get quite a few questions from people who are not hunters on why we hunt.

They fall into two main types.

The ones that start by "you bloody MURDERERS! Why are you killing all these beautiful animals"

I just ignore, as IO can see trying to convince a brainless idiot of anything remotely connected to common sense is not going to work.

The ones that start by "May I ask why you like to shoot animals?"

I take the time and explain to them why, very politely, and with facts.

Every single one has answered back by saying "thank you for taking the time to answer my question".

I meet many people here in my house, and every now and then someone would bring along some PETA champion.

As soon as they start talking about how nasty I am for killing all these poor animals, I answer them back. Basically telling them they might spare a thought for the cow they are eating at McDonalds!

It generally makes for quite an amusing situation, when everyone around start telling them to "stop being an idiot!"

That is exactly I support any type of hunting, as long as it is legal in that country.

I would not consider hunting lion or buffalo in South Africa.

But would be more than happy to hunt whatever else is offered.

You don't like it?

Don't hunt it.

But stop brandishing your type of so called "ethics" onto the rest of us.

Pause for a minute and think about what has been most damaging in terms of the public perception of hunting and hunters in the last two or three years. It has unquestionably been Cecil and canned lion shooting. Both Cecil and canned lion shooting have the questionable ethical activities of hunters at their core. So we are to unite around the very types of activities that are threatening the sport? Double down on dumb? Seems like the better course might be to avoid questionable ethical activities that bring disrepute to hunting. That means acting ethically and responsibly in my view.

. . . why do I keep hearing George Bernard Shaw whispering in my ear . . .

And Cecil was it turns out incorrectly stated.

It was not an illegal hunt...it was a wild animal in its him range, fairly hunted...if a botched shot by a method some have issues with.

I was caught up in the hoopla myself, and thought there had to be something herky for a bow hunt wild lion for only $50,000.

The point being the anti hunting "scientists" didn't come forward and tell the people raising hell that they were factually wrong until well after the hullabaloo died down.

Frankly, telling someone "you eat meat, and you wear leather, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical for you to object to a farmer utilizing his livestock" actually works. The problem arises with folks that have done these lion walks and think the big cats are just tabby writ large. They get upset when it comes out that the kitty they played with and had pictures taken with ends up getting placed in a field confused and shot by someone who acts like he's just done the next to impossible.

I get that killing a lion is an emotional subject. I've killed them and yes, indeed, I felt a number of strong emotions...none of which were gloating, fist pumping, screaming like a NFL player scoring a game winning touchdown.

To me the ethical line as far as hunting has to do with the ability of the individual game animal to escape. If a single animal is determined beforehand, and then will barring an act of God, absolutely be found and shot at, that isn't hunting.

Still it isn't unethical, it's just not hunting....or else I could not eat chicken or beef or pork...and god forbid you talk about veal or suckling piglet....

Game farm pheasant for me is shooting, not hunting. But I have no problems doing that. I have no interest in shooting a lion in a small pen, and don't consider it a hunt, or for that matter, an accomplishment, but I can not get all worked up about someone else doing it, after all the lion is going to get killed somehow, and the carcass used for whatever. It's just now going to be the hide will be thrown away, and fewer will be around.

Are you saying that we should stop shooting scimitar horned oryx in Texas? Do you really want to cause an animal to go extinct?

I get that the vast majority of folks anthropmorphize some species and not others, the big cats, elephant, and sea mammals seem to be big that way, but tend to have a lot less concern regarding herd animals, even if they are objectively the same (ag products) when done as captive bred put and take shooting.

I just would point out that if we give in on a small point because of "sensitivities" then we will relatively shortly be totally stripped of the activities because the folks we are up against are like the terminator of movie fame... it will not stop until it has killed hunting... no matter how much you try to reason with it.

Look at the whole gun rights thing in the US. We were rapidly headed down the road of disarmament until the NRA and gun owners started to take a similar no compromise, no retreat philosophy to our opponents, and now the laws are much more reasonable than before, at least in our view.

Compromise is only reasonable when both sides are reasonable...and the antis are not.

Frankly, I think the real way to handle this is to have the farmers realize that filming a canned hunt is not in their interest and flat out banning it.

Custodians of professional hunting and conservation South Africa.

The Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA) issued a number of newsletters
since its 2017 AGM in an attempt to explain its adoption of a new resolution in respect of captive
bred lion (CBL) hunting and also its 2017 constitutional changes. Most notably all references to
“ethical” were removed from the constitution and substituted with “legal/lawful”; also, the
constitutional provision that a member can, through his conduct, bring the association into
disrepute was removed too.
(It must be said at the outset that the terms “hunting”, “hunt” and/or similar words are used in
this piece purely for the sake of convenience. The breeding of an animal in complete captivity
purely for the purpose of shooting it in a put and take situation is not hunting.)
These newsletters unfortunately contain inaccuracies.
Newsletter 45 says the following:
“Under the previous PHASA constitution the 2015 Resolution was fatally flawed, it could
not be enforced and was inconsequential.”
and
“The riders that were added as after fact to the 2015 AGM in an effort to give
consequential action to the 2015 resolution were rejected by the High Court in the action
of 2016 as being incorrect, misleading and wrong. They formed no part of the 2015
Resolution.” (sic).
and
“FROM THE 2016 COURT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS CLEAR THAT PHASA’S 2015
RESOLUTION HAD NO LEGAL STANDING AND COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.”
(In terms of the 2015 resolution PHASA distanced itself from CBL hunting. The so-called “riders”
refer to documents published by PHASA after the 2015 AGM to the effect that members who
were involved in CBL hunting may be subjected to disciplinary action.)
These statements in newsletter 45 are extraordinary. They put forward a version of what
transpired during the court case that is neither accurate, nor supported by the judgment at all
and they grossly misrepresent what the Court in fact said.
Nowhere in the judgment did the Court state or find that the 2015 resolution was fatally flawed,
unenforceable or inconsequential. In fact, the validity of the resolution was not even in dispute.
It was also never in dispute that the so-called riders were not part of the resolution. The court
merely found that the inclusion of the riders, in the affidavit that members were requested to
2
sign, was incorrect and furthermore that the matter was urgent. The final judgment, i.e. to
reinstate the membership of those involved, was agreed to between the members involved and
PHASA. The Court went further in its order by leaving the door open for PHASA to bring
disciplinary proceedings against the members involved.
This PHASA newsletter goes on to state that:
“PHASA is now in a far SUPERIOR position to apply stricter hunting regulations on
ranched lions and can now legally implement disciplinary action against members who
contravene the new 2017 Resolution.”
The resolution reads as follows: “PHASA accepts the responsible hunting of ranched lions on
SAPA accredited hunting ranches within the relevant legal framework and/or according to
recommendations of the applicable hunting association, such as SCI’s fair chase standards.”(sic)
The resolution includes some definitions and furthermore, purportedly, provides for so-called
consequential action: “Any member who contravenes this resolution may face disciplinary
procedures according to the PHASA constitution.” It is noteworthy that the resolution defines a
“responsible” hunt as one that is legal and that promotes the sustainable utilisation of wildlife.
This statement and the situation that PHASA now finds itself in is somewhat ironic, to say the
least. During the debate at the AGM on the constitutional changes it was mentioned, time after
time, that PHASA wishes to implement “the lowest possible standard” for acceptable hunting
practices, i.e. hunting must simply be “legal/lawful” for it to be acceptable. It was furthermore
stated, repeatedly, that the PHASA constitution supersedes all else when it comes to considering
the actions of its members.
If that is the case, then there is really only one question that PHASA needs to answer and that is:
What will happen to a PHASA member who hunts a CBL in accordance with all
minimum legal requirements in say the North-West province (whose laws stipulate
amongst other things a shorter release period than the period required by SAPA) on a
farm that is not SAPA accredited?
This question is important because such a hunt will, seemingly, fly in the face of the 2017
resolution.
The simple answer is that nothing will happen to that member, the reason being that the hunt
was legal/lawful and therefore not against the PHASA constitution.
The irony is compounded further if one considers the 2017 resolution in the context of the
arguments put forward by those members who criticised the 2015 resolution, some of whom
took PHASA to court and some of whom are now senior PHASA Exco members. They, and by
extension now the PHASA Exco, continue to use these arguments to attack the now defunct 2015
resolution and to validate the 2017 resolution. Let us consider these arguments.
It is firstly said that the 2015 resolution was meaningless and unenforceable because it merely
distanced PHASA from CBL hunting. It was never resolved, so the argument goes, that members
who hunt CBL will be subjected to disciplinary action. Ironically, the 2017 resolution is no
different. It merely states that PHASA accepts the hunting of CBL under certain circumstances
and, possibly, that members who contravene the resolution may be subjected to disciplinary
processes. Nowhere does this resolution say that members may not partake in hunts that are
legal in all respects (and therefore constitutional) but, not in compliance with the SAPA
standards/not taking place on SAPA accredited farms. Nowhere does the resolution say what
will be viewed as being in contravention of it. And the saga of the riders continues. Newsletter
3
45 goes on to state that “PHASA members may only hunt ranched lions on these few ranches.”
(with reference to the SAPA accredited ranches). This stipulation is nowhere to be found in the
resolution itself and would seem to be the new rider.
It is secondly argued that the 2015 resolution did not change the constitution, that the
constitution supersedes all else and that the resolution is therefore meaningless. Again, the 2017
resolution is no different. It does not change the PHASA constitution to say that CBL may only
be hunted i.t.o. the SAPA rules and on SAPA accredited ranches. Despite the resolution, the
PHASA constitution remains silent on CBL hunting and still only requires a hunt to be
legal/lawful.
The old constitutional stipulation that members could, through their actions, bring the
association into disrepute was removed from the constitution in 2017. This new void in the
constitution makes the 2017 resolution even more meaningless. Non-compliance with the 2017
resolution can, as long as the hunt is legal/lawful, no longer bring the association into disrepute.
Furthermore, the wording of the resolution, and therefore its exact meaning, is confusing. It
stipulates that hunting must take place on SAPA accredited ranches but, no mention is made of
it happening in terms of the SAPA standards. It simply refers to the “relevant legal framework”
and then there is a vague reference to “recommendations of the applicable hunting association,
such as SCI’s fair chase standards.” SAPA is by definition excluded from being such an
“applicable hunting association”. The reason for the inclusion of the SCI standard is unclear.
Perhaps PHASA should attempt to clarify the resolution without adding any riders to it.
As a side note, in the same newsletter PHASA also states the following: “Issues that are subjective
or morally selective such as ethics, are not clearly defined and can’t supersede the legal
parameters of the South African Constitution.” It is unclear on what legal basis this statement is
made. The Court, in the mentioned case, certainly did not say anything that resembles this
statement. There is also not a general legal rule in our law that says that voluntary associations
may not make their own rules that are stricter than the laws of the land.
In Newsletter 46 PHASA says that it is ”embracing its responsibility … in the Biodiversity
Management Plan (BMP) for the Lion … (in) That PHASA must “Assess the management of the
captive lion population.”
To use this “responsibility” as a justification for the 2017 resolution and constitutional changes
is somewhat desperate. Assessing the management of something does not mean that one must
embrace it as an acceptable practice.
This newsletter also states that “South Africa’s National legal requirement for the hunting of
predators is of a higher standard than the ethics of most other African or International Hunting
Associations.” This statement will undoubtedly be viewed with some interest by other
associations.
In newsletter 47 PHASA says that it “has in no means changed its ETHICAL HUNTING
STANDARD and the claim that PHASA has turned its back on “Ethical” practices such as fair
chase to adopt lower “Legal” standards are unfounded. “Fair Chase” & “Ethical Conduct” are
legal requirements for all hunting organisations in South Africa under the National Environmental
Management Act”.
The first and obvious problem with this statement is that PHASA removed all references to ethical
from its constitution. The second is that during the deliberations on the constitutional changes
4
it was said, on more than one occasion, that PHASA wishes to implement “the lowest possible
standard” for acceptable hunting practices.
After adoption of the CBL resolution at the 2017 AGM the question was asked from the floor,
twice, whether PHASA now condones the hunting of CBL. It was answered in the affirmative.
In all the newsletters PHASA states that it “vehemently rejects any and all forms of canned or
illegal hunting”. It then relies on certain hunting methods prohibited in terms of our TOPS
legislation in an attempt to define “canned”. These prohibited methods have little, if any, bearing
on whether the hunt is “canned” or not and nor is there an actual definition in SA law for “canned
hunting”. The rejection of canned hunting but the acceptance of CBL hunting is, simply put,
artificial. In both cases the following happens: lions are bred in captivity, a specific lion is
selected, prior to the hunt and based on the requirements of the hunting client, for release from
its enclosure onto a farm (SAPA requires a minimum of 1,000ha and the smallest accredited farm
is 1,100ha and only one of the 8 accredited farms exceeds 10,000ha). Hunting may then legally
commence within 96 hours of release and the lion is shot usually within a day or two of the hunt
commencing.
Newsletter 46 goes on to state that “it is regrettable that 5% of PHASA members resigned as a
result of inter alia disingenuous media statements by individuals and certain Hunting
Associations”.
This statement seems to suggest that those opposed to PHASA’s new position are a small,
uninformed minority. PHASA’s new position was however emphatically rejected by the
following in the hunting community: all the African professional hunting associations – OPHAA,
NAPHA, SOAZ, ZPGHA, PHAZ, TPHA and APHA; by SAHGCA, the largest hunting association
in South Africa; by WSF and Boone & Crocket in the USA and by the IPHA. During the 2015
AGM PHASA was presented with correspondence signed by 17 USA based hunting associations
wherein the practice of CBL hunting is rejected. During the 2017 AGM representatives from CIC
and Conservation Force spoke against this practice. The marketing of CBL hunting is no longer
accepted on the floors of the major European hunting trade shows, including Dortmund. PHASA
sponsors bookyourhunt.com and Rip Cord reject CBL hunting and withdrew their support of
PHASA, as did the Hunting Report. At least three major awards were withdrawn from PHASA.
Global and local conservation bodies, most of whom view legal and ethical hunting as an
important conservation tool, reject this practice. These include the IUCN, of whom DSC is a
member, and the world’s leading lion conservation and research organisations, among them the
African Lion Working Group and EWT. It is their view that CBL hunting simply has no
conservation benefits. The USFW is of the same view and refuses the importation of CBL trophies
into the US. Australia stopped the importation of all lion trophies purely because of CBL hunting.
In South Africa, the Southern African Wildlife College terminated its relationship with PHASA
because of CBL hunting.
It would seem that the 5% of members who resigned may well, in the world of hunting, not be
in the minority after all.
Finally, the 2017 resolution and constitutional changes were aimed at bringing SAPA and CBL
hunting into the PHASA fold. If SAPA was so convinced of the broad acceptability of and
recognition for CBL hunting, why did it not go it alone? Why did it need PHASA? During
presentations at the AGM, SAPA mentioned that the release period should in their view be as
short as possible in order to minimise stress on the lion that is released and shot. How does one
even begin to promote or defend an activity where something like this is a consideration? SAPA
also declared that it is their hope to ultimately stop the hunting of all wild lions. SAPA, in an
attempt to convince US authorities of the alleged conservation value of CBL, wrote a letter to US
5
Interior Secretary Zinke. The world’s leading lion conservation and research organisations,
among them the African Lion Working Group and EWT, had this to say about the arguments put
forward by SAPA:
“The points (raised by SAPA) are presented repeatedly, with little or no evidence to
support them”
and
“SAPA does not currently represent any lion biologists, researchers or conservationists in
their membership or their board, and as such, we do not believe that the association is
equipped, or qualified, to make statements or recommendations on the conservation of
the species…”
and
“We wish to express that SAPA’s letter is fraught with inaccuracies, false statements, and
a flawed viewpoint that is shaped for the economic benefit of captive lion breeders. We
recommend that USFWS maintains their current position which is to ban the importation
of captive - origin lion trophies. Nothing has changed in the South African context since
the previous US FWS finding that can justify a change of position.”
and
“The hunting of captive - bred lions neither benefits biodiversity conservation, nor the
conservation of wild and free - ranging lions.”
Sadly, SAPA, an association with no recognized lion conservation credentials or track record,
is now firmly entrenched in PHASA.
Hunting is under threat. Now, more than ever, do we need the support of the undecided middle
ground – that majority of the population that is neither for nor against hunting. It is that segment
of the population that will ultimately influence our future one way or another. One can only
successfully engage with the non-hunting public and mainstream media, proudly and openly, if
one does not partake in practices that are clearly and blatantly abhorrent and unacceptable. For
the sake of our own values as hunters and for the long-term future of hunting we must hunt within
the boundaries of a hunting ethos – ethically and responsibly. To breed wild animals in a cage
purely to be released and shot for financial gain does not fall within those boundaries, especially
when there is no demonstrable conservation value.
We trust that this separates fact from fiction.
CPHC-SA
16 December 2017
Further reading: Statements by WSF, OPHAA, NAPHA, SOAZ, ZPHGA, PHAZ, TPHA, APHA,
IPHA; Letter from SAPA to Interior Secretary Zinke and the response by ALWG and others
thereto; IUCN motion adopted at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September 2016 -
Terminating the hunting of captive-bred lions and other predators and captive breeding fo

What really worries me, and not only from this thread but many other threads on this forum, is that it is perceived that the norm for a South African hunt is that animals are bought on auction and dropped off.
You do know that there are hunt-able, self sustaining herds in South Africa, right?

quote:

Originally posted by KMG Hunting Safaris:
What really worries me, and not only from this thread but many other threads on this forum, is that it is perceived that the norm for a South African hunt is that animals are bought on auction and dropped off.
You do know that there are hunt-able, self sustaining herds in South Africa, right?

Marius,

I do not think that is the point.

For the antis, who are determined to stop ALL HUNTING, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Let me ask my friends on here what they actually think is a true hunt??

Does depend on the size pf the farm?

Does it depends on whether the animal has lived and bred there or has been bought at an auction before the season and let out there?

Is it dependent on the type of animal?

As far as I am concerned, a true wildness hunt is on land that has no fences at all.

Whether the animal has been there for a week, or his great granddad has been born there.

It really makes no difference, as long as I know there is a fence around that animal, it is not a wilderness hunt.

Would I hunt on a farm?

With pleasure, as I have done before.

But I knew precisely where I am hunting.

If one is to be truly honest, the animal being killed does not care whether it was born free or raised to be killed.

Death is part of life and killing or being killed is experiencing one of life's greatest dramas.

Trying to rationalize which killing is sporting and which killing is not is basically a fool's errand IMO.

People take pride in raising the best fighting roosters or best fighting dogs, yet killing a pen raised lion/duck/catfish is devoid of fair play?

As long as the animal is taken by a hunter that gives the lion a chance to charge, then it is a fair hunt IMO

Fire away!

BH63

quote:

Originally posted by KMG Hunting Safaris:
What really worries me, and not only from this thread but many other threads on this forum, is that it is perceived that the norm for a South African hunt is that animals are bought on auction and dropped off.
You do know that there are hunt-able, self sustaining herds in South Africa, right?

Of course they realize that. Just like they realize that the issue is not converting the anti-hunters but trying to educate those that are largely indifferent to hunting. They just choose to ignore those points and over generalize, beating their chests and shouting for the same leave-us-alone approach to addressing hunting issues that has largely gotten us into the swivet we currently find ourselves. Fact is that there are far too few hunters to make that sort of approach viable given the realities of the world in which we live.

Crazy and Mike and Saeed,
I may be misunderstood in line of reasoning. Bear with me.

It is obvious I like to hunt. I have hunted in high fenced areas - the largest being the Bubye Conservancy (2,000,000 acres if my memory is correct). I have hunted on 25,000 fenced ranches in Texas and on a 200,000 acre fenced property in Zambia.

My point is that the concept of fair chase, as stated by Boone and Crockett, is an excellent standard by which we should communicate how/why/when we hunt to the folks on the fence. Anti's will remain anti's. Much like the atheist who denies the facts that there must be a God behind creation and all the see, smell, hear, and feel. The "anti" argument has been around for over 400 years that I have been able to determine. I have read a great deal of history. The "anti" movement in the UK and Europe started 300 years ago. In the USA, it gained legs in the latter half of the 1800's. When Daniel Boone claimed to have killed 23 black bears in one day in the early 1800's - it raised an outcry from the anti's in New England.

The reason ethics are important today is that the platform used by the anti's (and by the NRA and others) is extremely wide reaching - TV, internet, social media. In a culture where news is less than 15 seconds long and the hearer rarely reads for facts - we must take the ethical high road and demonstrate in word and action that we, hunters/consumers of wildlife, can answer the why/what/where/how questions.

In the 15 second news world, we get precious little time to do this. So, how do we "sell" ourselves and our passion for wildlife? Peter Flack was in the process of setting up an organization that could do that. Further, during the Cecil the Lion mess, he was the most vocal advocate of getting the facts out there in a message that could be digested by the neutral and anti crowd. SCI, DSC, NRA and all the others totally floundered on this. They missed the short window of opportunity to tell our story. Instead, they were silent until the hunter was smeared to the point of nearly going out of business and hiding out. The facts bore out that nothing illegal happened. Ethics were another issue, but defensible.

So, back to ethics. I am not telling Saeed or Crazy or anyone else - "hunt my way or no way". What I am saying is that we must be able to defend and articulate why we hunt, how we hunt and where we hunt in a manner that shows our true commitment to conservation and not blood lust.

The arguments - "I hunt because I want to" or "I hunt because I need the meat" or "I hunt because my daddy and granddaddy did" - Does not stand up to the questions of the neutral or anti's. In the USA, I dare say that there are an extremely small population of subsistence hunters. I come from a very rural part of West Virginia, up in the holler, as we say - my family were no longer subsistence hunters in the 1930's and even then, it was cheaper to raise chickens and pigs. We had no deer or turkeys on the property. Now, we can kill several each year.

Ok, you say, the eskimos or native peoples are subsistence hunters. Maybe. I have been where they live and see the snow machines, four wheelers, homes and roads - many get support from our government and most work. So, they do not need to hunt to exist.

If we persist in shooting deer over feeders that are "managed" for antler growth by food supplements and are enclosed - then show it on TV - we are throwing wood on the fire of our own pyre. There is nothing remotely ethical about that and the public is not convinced by saying "that's the only way to do this" or "that is just how we do it in Texas (or wherever".

So, back to my comments - we must be able to articulate why/when/how we hunt. And it must meet a fair chase standard or we will lose the battle for the neutrals.

quote:

The arguments - "I hunt because I want to" or "I hunt because I need the meat" or "I hunt because my daddy and granddaddy did" - Does not stand up to the questions of the neutral

I have to disagree with that because non hunters or those that are neutral on the subject, really do not care how we hunt, they are simply curious as to why we hunt.

Those with open minds discuss it rationally and for the most part are able to comprehend the reasons that are put forth.

Do not know about anyone else, but except for a few rare individuals, non hunters, at least those I have came into contact with during my life, don't want to hear the details of the hunt but are not one bit bashful about accepting wild game if it is offered.

Maybe that is just a Texas thing, I am not sure and I do have my doubts. For 25 years I worked at a major zoo here in Texas around folks that were borderline anti hunters, but let me come back from a hunt and those same folks were not one bit bashful about about lining up to eat the game meat Lora and I would cook and bring to parties.

During my time working there I fed people elk/mule deer/pronghorn/whitetail/moose/two types of caribou, woodland and barren ground, muskox and javelina. There never was any left overs.

You claim:

quote:

So, back to ethics. I am not telling Saeed or Crazy or anyone else - "hunt my way or no way". What I am saying is that we must be able to defend and articulate why we hunt, how we hunt and where we hunt in a manner that shows our true commitment to conservation and not blood lust.

And then you come back with this:

quote:

If we persist in shooting deer over feeders that are "managed" for antler growth by food supplements and are enclosed - then show it on TV - we are throwing wood on the fire of our own pyre. There is nothing remotely ethical about that and the public is not convinced by saying "that's the only way to do this" or "that is just how we do it in Texas (or "wherever".

The problem is not with the shooting of the deer at the feeder, the problem is the "End Zone - Touchdown Celebration" that is filmed after the shot.

My bet is that on Opening Day of deer season across America, there are more people setting in stands waiting to shoot a deer, than the total number of Americans that go to Africa to hunt in a 3 or maybe 5 year time span.

Also take into consideration, the visual differences between a hunter kneeling by a deer or an elk and that same hunter standing beside a dead elephant. Hunter or Non-Hunter/Neutral on hunting, a dead elephant brings out an emotion that a deer or elk won't, even among die hard/life long hunters.

Same with a Lion. Realistically and I hope I am wrong, but I feel that hunting in Africa is on its Death Spiral and not because of the actions of hunters.

Instability of the various governments, poachers, the "Bush Meat" trade and unchecked human population growth are all having an effect that will only continue to escalate.

Honestly what real difference is there between shooting a deer at a timed feeder and shooting a lion or leopard at a bait?

To non-hunters there is none, so trying to equate one as being more acceptable than the other isn't going to fly.

This discussion and its companion, merely point out that hunters, as a group create their own lines of division and are unable to compromise long enough to show some modicum of unity.

Just think of this, I have no problem with you or anyone else shooting an elephant or a lion/leopard over a bait because that is just Standard Operating Procedure when hunting those animals, no big deal.

On the other hand, you feel that shooting a deer from a stand overlooking a bait pile is totally wrong.

That is nothing more or less than claiming Your Personal Ethics are best.

When questioned about hunting my first question is if they are vegan. When they almost invariably answer "no, why" I explain that if they are vegan the conversation would be about the ethics of killing than animal. Otherwise it is just a discussion on who is doing the killing and the conditions the animals lived in prior to being killed.

The majority of anti-hunters that I have encountered eat meat. Often the question has arisen while we are both eating meat.

One small fact issue with the article in question. The author when calculating hunting yield in North America uses 2.5 lbs. per bird for quail. Granted I've never actually weighed a quail but in my many years of quail hunting I don't think I've ever seen a quail that would approach 1 pound in weight (Live weight) let alone 2.5 pounds.

quote:

One small fact issue with the article in question. The author when calculating hunting yield in North America uses 2.5 lbs. per bird for quail. Granted I've never actually weighed a quail but in my many years of quail hunting I don't think I've ever seen a quail that would approach 1 pound in weight (Live weight) let alone 2.5 pounds.

You are on the money. I have hunted and raised quail over the years and 8 to 10, maybe 12 ounces is normal. I do not think a chukar will go a pound in weight.