quote:

Then my PH asked why the hell was I jumping from the truck to shoot. I told him that was the way I have always hunted before. He said you might as well stay put and shoot from the truck, because that is the way they did it, and the end result is not going to change.

He was absolutely right, and Walter, of course, fell in love with that sort of hunting.

Yeah that is kind of how my first safari in RSA was too. More like shooting than hunting. I'll take tracking in the Selous any day.

Is strange how we all see and feel different about our hunting strategies.

Obviously when we are talking about shooting from the truck we are not talking about shooting elephants.

So leaving that aside, when we are hunting we are stalking an animal with the objective of killing him, you can paint the picture of whatever colour you want but we after him to kill it.

So we use all our skills to suceed in that job. If we are after buffs we go to the burnt land because we know they will be eating the new green grass and we will stalk them there or directly ambush them there, if we go after bongo without dogs or after LDE a good idea is to look at places with salt and ambush them there, if we hang a bait for a cat we are taking advantage of his feeding necessities.

If we hang a tree plataform infront of a pasture we will know that deers will come to feed sooner or later, etc, etc.

I respet every other opinions, and much more the ones given by experienced hunters as 465H&H (I have been following his hunts through this forum), but I see the hunting as the chasing of an animal where I must use every advantage I can (with common sense obviously), like feeding spots, waterholes, territorial conducts, etc.

Why using a super extra magnum with a 12x scope for sniping a gazelle or a springbuck at xxxx yards is more ethical than hunting it at a waterhole ?

I think that much more sense has an ethics debate about what kind of weapons we use to bag our animals.

But I will also be the bad guy of the movie there as I also love night vision devices.....

I think that the important thing is that we are all hunters that support a very honorable and ancient sport and that our duty is to pass this tradition to our kids to keep them in the fields, no matter if they do it at waterholes or climbing a mountain after a goat..

Much important is to teach them these concepts than promoting them to enter their animals in a "book" just to show the rest how good hunters they are....

L

We all grow up in different environments where we percieve different hunting styles as sporting and ethical or not. I never thought once about hunting deer over a corn feeder in Texas until I hunted in states where it was not considered ethical or legal. In Texas we plant food plots, make protein and minerals available and use corn as an attractant. We manage our deer population for proper genetics and numbers. Many areas are relatively small and high fenced. Is this fair? Is it ethical.

I will not hesitate to sit on a water hole in Africa with my bow,, but would not hunt in that manner with a gun at this time. We all get older, when I am less mobile do I give up hunting or hunt in blinds over food plots and corn or over a water hole? I would much prefer walking canyon rim rock and glassing and stalking. How many years can I still do it,,, not many if any. I will not tell others what is the proper manner to hunt in Africa or here in the states. Each persons ability and where and how they were taught to hunt dictate what each of us perceives as the proper way to hunt and we can develope different philosophy's of hunting as we travel and see how others hunt and what is "normal" in that part of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by drwes:

I will not hesitate to sit on a water hole in Africa with my bow,, but would not hunt in that manner with a gun at this time.

I feel the same way drwes.

David

Gentlemen, IMO, the hunting of game on a water hole is not what I would do if it were the only water available to the game in the area. Unlike food that is usually available in many places, and in many verieties, the animal has a choice where, and what he eats. Food being neccessary to life, he must eat, and if food is only available in ONE place then IMO it is not ethical to ambush him there either. The same goes for water,if it s avaliable in a wide assortment of places, then how is it any more unethical than hunting him where he can find natural food? That IMO, is simply the act of a smart hunter, who patterns his quary's habits, and movements for food, water, bedding areas, and trails he uses.

If it is the only source of water, then it is no more ethical than the only source of food. Hunting him under those conditions where he has no choice but to come to a single place for food, or water, is IMO not ethical, and is no different from placeing him in a cage and shooting him between the bars. Because he cannot live without food, and/or water, ambushing him at a single source of either is not my idea of hunting. That sounds a little more like meat farming than hunting!

Others, however, may do as it suits them! It just is not for me personally!

The Ph knows where the water and food is, he will know the animals patterns as well. We all use the animals need for food and water to pattern their movements. It is harder to stalk them away from the water than shoot them on the water hole itself but let's not kid ourselves. It is that need for the animals substanance that makes them more vulnerable. So we shoot them 100 yards away from the water, a mile, 2 miles, 3 miles. IT is up to individuals to determine what they are comfortable. And realistically, how do we always know how far we are from the water hole when we are unfamiliar with the area, we have to trust the Ph to honor our wishes as to the "method" and "approach" we use. I love animals, they are tasty,,,,

I agree with most of the posts here that ethics do not come into play with this sort of hunting. In fact, to me all hunting ethics are basically personal except for when an animal is purposely made to suffer. That being said, I have a message for anyone planning their first African safari, and that is do some research and think long and hard about the nature and challenge of your first experience over there. I purposely saved an extra 2 years so that my first trip would be for plains game in Zambia so that I could experience truly wild Africa first. Now I know this isn’t possible or affordable for many hunters, and one day I may get to SA or Nambia for a ranch hunt myself, but I suggest that you at least do enough research to make sure that the challenge is to a level that will make those memories have some lasting value beyond a head on the wall.

Again, no ethical judgment implied at all, but when I watch an outdoor show where some hunter takes a beautiful Kudu while sitting in a permanent semi-underground blind with special shooting windows that is overlooking a concrete water filled stock tank 25 yards away, I can’t help but feel sorry for the hunter and the empty experience he has paid for. Just my 2 cents (or 1 trillion Zimbabwe dollars) worth.

If a PH's opinion are allowed on this topic, I would say that it takes a whole lot of killing under different circumstances and conditions to realize what hunting really is about.
This will differ from person to person, just like sex once a week is satisfying for one guy and the other needs it twice a day the rest of his life.
In my life as PH, I have either guided others or myself to kill roughly 1000 head of game so far.
Somewhere along the line you get a very clear picture of what is plain killing for whatever cause it may be and what is " hunting ".
When I am hunting alone, my personal rules and conditions for ethical hunting definately does not allow shooting at a waterhole, among many others.

" Stalking 'Old Spots' in broad daylight still beats everyday life "

Thats kinda like hunting for an Irishman by sitting in a bar.

quote:

I think that the important thing is that we are all hunters that support a very honorable and ancient sport and that our duty is to pass this tradition to our kids to keep them in the fields, no matter if they do it at waterholes or climbing a mountain after a goat..

Excellent thought out of an excellent post Lorenzo.

We all need to stop trying to force our ethics, if in deed they are ethics and not just high words typed on a computer, on to others, nor do we need to look down on anyone that will hunt a water hole or a food source or whatever, as long as it is legal and it does not go against their personal ethics.

We also should not draw lines saying that it is okay to hunt one species one way and not another or that it is okay to hunt a water hole while using a bow but not a gun.

As a group, we have to stop drawing lines and acting like someone is less of a hunter because they don't hunt we do, or say we do.

As long as what is being done is legal and the person doing it has a clear conscience and kills the animal as quickly and humanely as possible, that should be enough for anyone. JMO.

What about animals walking to a water hole?

Or leaving a water hole?

100m?
200m?
1000m?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You know, I got to the point where I follow that old axiom. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

Beyond that, I've gotten to the point where I realize the anti's only raise "ethical" questions about hunting to further their ultimate end.

Preventing any animal from being killed under any circumstance.

So I don't like providing ammunition to their side.

If they had their way here in the states, for instance, they'd rewrite the migratory bird regulations to include a "baiting" prohibition that is so broad that it would preclude you from hunting anywhere a bird would actually want to be. If the hunter succeeds, he must have used some "unfair" method that made things "too easy."

There are at least a few locally legal hunting methods I prefer not use. And haven't. But I'm not going to condemn them, either, as they may be sporting or at least justified under some circumstances. And my words may come back to haunt me.

The thing about personal ethic's is that they are personal and are arrived at through a number of influences. sometimes they are learned from a previous generation and sometimes a singular experience can colour the rest of our hunting lives, and circumstances will have an influence on our understanding of what is "the right thing to do". Someone in a game rich enviroment will have a different take on ways of hunting to one who may have ethics decided for him by legislation. We are hunters gentleman and as such, even with similarities, every hunt is different and an experience to be treasured.

Von Gruff.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Or put out decoys for ducks, shoot cats over bait, run cats with dogs, plant food plots for deer, call moose or elk, hunt nocturnal species at night with a light etc. etc. If it is legal and does not endanger the health of the game herds where is the problem? Now if these methods are repugnant to an idividual hunter personally that is fine. Each hunter should hunt the way that makes him happy with his hunt as long as it is legal.

Mark

amen .. if its legal, then its up to the hunter to decide if its right for himself