I was under the impression that hunting/finding/stalking elephant from a water source is taboo and looked down upon as not sporting. Am I wrong? Is this not the way it is done anymore? Not trying to stir the pot. I just would like to hear about what is/isn't the way it should be done. Or is it okay to find them at water and just not shoot until they are a distance from it?

Never heard that one. Just because you find tracks at a waterhole doesn’t mean you might not have to walk many miles, depending on terrain. Seems abit like saying if you get lucky and find one standing in a road, you should chase him off, then try to catch up. There is a difference between finding tracks at a waterhole and hanging around the only waterhole for many miles, waiting for them to show up.

Shooting at a watering point is in general a no-no. Making animals afraid to come to water is bad for them, and by extension us.
That being said, I see no difference between tracking from water and tracking from a road. You have to start tracking where you find tracks. We may start tracking from the Cruiser, but that is not the same as shooting from the Cruiser.

Even buffalo, in particular the solitary or groups of bulls are often tracked from a water source.

The presence of Lion and Leopard tracks at waterholes are also good pointers to the hunter in determining size, sex, approximate time and if frequently used. This data will be a determining factor if to bait or not (at a distance of the watering point).

Back to the original question: the answer is no, it is not taboo or unethical to track from a water source nor is it unethical or illegal to bait within a reasonable distance from a water source.

May be we should ask this question of predators like lions, hyenas and wild dogs?

I thought I had read it in a Ruark, Capstick or some other book. Looks like my memory failed me again

quote:

Originally posted by deadibob:
I thought I had read it in a Ruark, Capstick or some other book. Looks like my memory failed me again

Maybe it was Crapstick.

100% agree with Marty. Ambushes at water holes have been considered bad form for a long time. That said, most bowhunting is done at water sources.

quote:

Originally posted by deadibob:
I thought I had read it in a Ruark, Capstick or some other book. Looks like my memory failed me again

I think you probably did read it in Ruark. I just reread him and I seem to remember him saying something about that. It suprised me since we sure do hunt over water here and in Namibia, the place I hunted had a blind at every water hole.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
100% agree with Marty. Ambushes at water holes have been considered bad form for a long time. That said, most bowhunting is done at water sources.

And bowhunting is conducted mostly on private land where the landowner has created artificial waterholes and feedlots to draw/oblige game to visit these spots.

If there is a form of unethical hunting, this would take first prize.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
100% agree with Marty. Ambushes at water holes have been considered bad form for a long time. That said, most bowhunting is done at water sources.

And bowhunting is conducted mostly on private land where the landowner has created artificial waterholes and feedlots to draw/oblige game to visit these spots.

If there is a form of unethical hunting, this would take first prize.

How so? Unlike a gun a bowhunter has no choice but to get very close regardless of the animal hunted. It therefore becomes necessary to set up the situation for the shot with this in mind.

The so called etiquette comes from a rifle culture where some unwritten laws of fair chase came into play by sportsmen. I don't imagine ivory hunters way back when felt bad about downing tuskers at a waterhole. But theirs was not a game of fair play.

So called "ethics" are man made rules to make one feel better.

Nothing else.

Compare how many animals might be shot at water holes, and animals getting killed at water holes by predators!

Tracking from a water source, great. Shooting at one, not. It's one of these things where you can say 'to each his own' as long as it's legal, but to me the latter is wrong and it would greatly diminish the way I looked back on the experience.

It is not easy to find a mature game animal at the water hole.When I hunted with Blake Wilhelmi in Dande in 2012 there was a very nice buffalo bull that a trail cam had once photographed at a waterhole.We picked up his tracks and hunted him for 5 days without luck.We once caught a glimpse of him and the tracker said he had really big horns.We tracked him for miles and miles and I think he never went back for water for a couple of days or more if he went back at all.
Would I wait at a waterhole for a buff or ele?Probably not, but a water hole is part of the natural habitat and should I come upon an ele at a waterhole after tracking, I don't think it would bother me to take him.You got to make the best of each hunting trip not every hunt goes along with your wishes or fantasies.
Sometimes waiting at a waterhole can be fun.I have a great memory of taking a very old warthog at one on a hot afternoon in Mozambique.The waterhole made for a nice video too.

I remember on Wild Skies Tony Makris and Johan Calitz discussed not wanting to have Elephants associate water holes with danger and would track from a water hole but only shoot an elephant if it was a mile or more from the water hole

Ethics and morality ! Man Made.... Yep

But lets ponder for a second the opposite ?

Unethical and Amoral

I choose the former and not the latter...... that of course is personal choice

Shooting a animal over a bale of hay or a concrete trough filled with water, sitting on a beach chair in a darkened permanent blind is IMHO simply sitting and then shooting at unsuspecting animals!

IMHO this is not hunting this is shooting !

Question to self..... Am I a shooter or a hunter ?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Ethics and morality ! Man Made.... Yep

But lets ponder for a second the opposite ?

Unethical and Amoral

I choose the former and not the latter...... that of course is personal choice

Shooting a animal over a bale of hay or a concrete trough filled with water, sitting on a beach chair in a darkened permanent blind is IMHO simply sitting and then shooting at unsuspecting animals!

IMHO this is not hunting this is shooting !

Question to self..... Am I a shooter or a hunter ?

I am both!

I follow them for hours and hours.

Then I shoot.

Best of both world’s

Slippery slope how about cat hunting bait ,dark blind and a comfy chair

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Compare how many animals might be shot at water holes, and animals getting killed at water holes by predators!

Predators don't pay daily rates or game fees.

quote:

Originally posted by cnm123:
I remember on Wild Skies Tony Makris and Johan Calitz discussed not wanting to have Elephants associate water holes with danger and would track from a water hole but only shoot an elephant if it was a mile or more from the water hole

The smell of death lingers for a very long time and Elephants are very susceptible of the demise of one by unnatural means (they know the difference). Shooting one at a waterhole will keep them away or extremely skittish.

I once met a guy in the woods who refused to use a rest when shooting mule deer. "Not sporting", he stated emphatically. He believed you needed to stand up like a man and shoot.

He didn't believe in deer drives either.

I say trust your PH. If he has no issue with shooting around a waterhole, then go for it.

If you will regret it for the rest of your life, then say "No!".

I would rather kill a 100 pounder at a water hole, than walk 100 miles and shoot a 30 pounder in the jess. But that's just me.

BH63

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:


I would rather kill a 100 pounder at a water hole, than walk 100 miles and shoot a 30 pounder in the jess. But that's just me.

BH63

Not me. Not an ethics judgement on my part. Just that I prefer, for my own satisfaction, to put in the hard miles for a hard earned trophy, especially when it comes to elephant.

On the other hand, I've got no issue shooting a big whitetail over a feeder in TX.

So YMMV.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:


I would rather kill a 100 pounder at a water hole, than walk 100 miles and shoot a 30 pounder in the jess. But that's just me.

BH63

Not me. Not an ethics judgement on my part. Just that I prefer, for my own satisfaction, to put in the hard miles for a hard earned trophy, especially when it comes to elephant.

On the other hand, I've got no issue shooting a big whitetail over a feeder in TX.

So YMMV.

I am with you brother.

How about this: You keep your "ethics" and I'll keep mine.

You keep your "ethics" and I'll keep mine

Ah yes but that's not how society works !

Cecil the lion and the dentist who hunted him a example ! Society collectively shut him down ! No matter how he viewed "his ethics"

If you look at certain hunting sites, they blur out the hunters face to protect him/ her from the over reach of society's ethical and moral stance !

There are hunting skills involved in picking a bait tree or site, hunting, killing and placing the bait and situating and building the blind. I respect such skills.

But there is not much skill involved in staking out a water hole and shooting game that has no choice but to come there to drink.

I have hunted game using baits, including deer using feeders, by the way.

quote:

Originally posted by cnm123:
Slippery slope how about cat hunting bait ,dark blind and a comfy chair

How about an apex predator with fang as large as your thumb tearing at your blind in the dark. Your chair does not feel that comfortable any more.

In cat hunting, the hunting part comes before the shooting part. Come to think of it, that’s True with elephant as well. Just not so obviously separated,