I have heard some compare canned lion hunting as nothing different than stocked trout, or ranch elk, or anything else that is raised to be harvested.

But not lions, but why is that ? I think we all deep in our minds are repulsed by the idea of something so noble being reduced to an item on a list.

A true hunter has a great measure of respect for the game he takes. But when it comes to lions, that respect streches into awe, and a love for times past when things were truely wild.

After taking 4 cape buff I feel I have entered at the apprentice level of dangerous game hunting. People ask me why I spent $60,000.00 last year on 2 trips to Tanzania. We strive to challange ourselves, to meet and overcome that little something we need to satisify in our selves.

And to take that most regal of challanges, and bring it down to the level of a farm animal is just sad. Where do we go to prove ourselves ? No, we need to keep something sacred, something to which many aspire but few acheive. A big black maned MGM lion is that animal.

No, I want the lion, in this time of instant gratification, to remain a true trophy. An animal to stir the soul, not something to be checked off a list.

If you don't have enough respect for the lion to earn him, stay home. There will always be someone who holds the lion in the highest regard, ready to pay the cost in money and sweat to take him.

Sorry for the rambleing, I just want a lion to be there in a few years, still wild, ready to hunt when I go............................JJ

JJ and others sure to comment,

I do not disagree with you. Further I think there are circumstances such as exceedingly small enclosures, short duration since release (days or even hours), etc that are not conducive to "sporting" under anyone's definition no matter what the animal.

However when we begin denouncing another's ethics simply because they don't meet our own (high) standards, we begin treading on shaky ground. Denouncing hounds, trapping, baiting, etc. is no better than Jim Zumbo's recent tumble into oblivion for looking down his nose at a particular style of rifle. There is no black and white here, it's all varying shades of grey but we must use extreme care where we step or we'll play an unintentional part in hastening the demise of even those loftly ideals we hold dear.

quote:

I just want a lion to be there in a few years, still wild, ready to hunt when I go....JJ

Is there something I'm not aware of decimating wild lions? Famine? Plague? Chinese home remedy poachers?

quote:

Originally posted by oupa:

However when we begin denouncing another's ethics simply because they don't meet our own (high) standards, we begin treading on shaky ground. Denouncing hounds, trapping, baiting, etc. is no better than Jim Zumbo's recent tumble into oblivion for looking down his nose at a particular style of rifle. There is no black and white here, it's all varying shades of grey but we must use extreme care where we step or we'll play an unintentional part in hastening the demise of even those loftly ideals we hold dear.

Agree,
This is how a lot of the Anti hunting groups make progress. They start by dinouncing a particular subject...then once they get their food in the door they move onto bigger topics. In this example the lion part is getting all the attention, however of bigger importance is that there is now a limit on what you can hunt with a bow. What is next? No bow hunting anything? Then rifle hunting comes into play. This could spiral out of control quickly.

quote:

However when we begin denouncing another's ethics simply because they don't meet our own (high) standards, we begin treading on shaky ground. Denouncing hounds, trapping, baiting, etc. is no better than Jim Zumbo's recent tumble into oblivion for looking down his nose at a particular style of rifle. There is no black and white here, it's all varying shades of grey but we must use extreme care where we step or we'll play an unintentional part in hastening the demise of even those loftly ideals we hold dear.

Well said.

In my opinion, what anti hunters and others are taking such a harsh stance on so called "canned" hunts are two factors:
1. It eliminates the "fair" chase aspect
2. It looks inhumane to breed an animal in a cage or ranch and then to just shoot it.

The result of these factors translates into killing rather than hunting. It makes everyone who does these hunts seem to just want to kill living things, whether lions or other animals. It takes away from the aspect of hunting.

Lion hunting or any other hunting in Africa may be gone if we all seem to be more interested in killing rather than hunting for conservation in a fair chase manner, where there is a 50/50 chance of a hunter taking the animal and the animal escaping.

As hunters, we are out numberered by nonhunters. Most of us don't publish or speak about that we hunt really for the experience rather than the kill. In my opinion, most of us who hunt it is really about spending time with nature and the thrill of the chase rather than the thrill of the kill. Many of us have gone to several hunts, and we are not successful, but we return again and again, whether it is raining, cold, or 100 degree weather.

What these "canned" hunts makes us look is that we are just killers, like to kill animals including so called endangered species. If our perception becomes as killers instead of hunters for conservation, hunting may not be here for long. However, if we change our perception to hunting as a contribution to conservation, then hunting will forever live. I believe Conservation Force is doing a good job in promoting that agenda, but I don't believe it is enough. I believe that all the hunting community have to come together and change the perception that people may have a result of so called "canned" hunts.

More than 90% of the population are not hunters, and in politics, the majority rules, whether they have the right idea or not.

Bow hunting is becoming more unpopular for the same reason that it seems inhumane. When we hunt, we all want the animal to feel less pain as possible. Bow hunting contributes to a larger percentage of wounded and lost animals.

Usangusafaris: Well said, I agree with you almost 100 %. You described the difference between hunting and killing extremely well.

But I do say almost, because I think that hunters in general should be careful not to describe hunting to be something that is done only because of conservation or animal population control. In some countries the effects of this kind of policy is getting hunters in trouble in the near future.

If the non-hunting people are always told that we only hunt because animal populations need to be controlled or we do it for conservation and those people accept it, they will sooner or later make the difficult question: "But how about those species which don't need any control or don't bring money to conservation, but you also hunt them? Why is that?"

To explain why we also hunt these species, those reasons of control and conservation don't make sense, so we shouldn't try to offer these as only reasons in the first place. This policy of expressing that hunting is done just for conservational reasons has already made its way to legislation in some countries, meaning that whereas hunting used to be allowed if there was no special reason to forbid it, it nowadays has become almost profibited if there aren't any special conservational reasons to allow it. At least this is the direction our hunting law is on its way. In here that would mean goodbye to almost all bird shooting and small game hunting.

In my opinion, hunting should be described to be one form of sustainable use of natural resources. And, of course, the hunting should also be realistically based on that principle, meaning that shooting canned animals or birds released from a pen to be shot immediately shouldn't be connected to hunting and hunters in any way. It isn't basically about how easy or difficult the hunting or shooting is, but it is about what do we hunt - wild or tame animals. In my opinion, the only animals that are possible to be hunted, are wild animals.

quote:

If the non-hunting people are always told that we only hunt because animal populations need to be controlled or we do it for conservation and those people accept it, they will sooner or later make the difficult question: "But how about those species which don't need any control or don't bring money to conservation, but you also hunt them? Why is that?"

Fantastic point! I'm glad the word is getting out. For way too many years we (in the states at least) have been touting the "population control" arguement. Fact is, it's simply not valid and as JTH pointed out is actually counter productive to MOST hunting not to mention fishing. There is one main reason for hunting - enjoyment. The problem is how to get a non-hunter to understand the enjoyment isn't in the killing but killing is intrinsic to hunting. I've stalked game with a camera and its just not the same. Another necessary point - we are not necessarily "outnumbered." The true anti-hunting fraternity is essentially the same as hunters. The vast majority (approx. 80%) really have no particular position but are more easily swayed towards non-hunting arguements at present.

Too bad we don't have the writers - or is it the market - for books and stories such as were popular in the 50's & 60's that showed the total experience. Hemmingway and Ruark come to mind but there were many others.

The conservation role is mighty, especially as it applies to Africa where game's greatest value is the revenue hunting brings in. However when the populace eventually accept full fiscal responsibility for game programs that arguement will be gone as well. Which brings us full circle to the orginal question... IF game programs are funded by hunting then the arguement can be made (and often is) that even wild populations are essentially maintained and manipulated FOR HUNTING. Hence my caution on how we criticize the ethics of others.

Here's an interesting take on the subject from a non-hunter's position although admittedly a very openminded non-hunter!
http://ultimate-africatv.com/ultimateafrica/index.php?o...=view&id=23&Itemid=2

I agree 100% that we cannot denagrate any hunting. I really enjoy hunting South Africa, I'm going back in June. I realize 99% of the lion hunts in SA are still hunting. But that 1 percent that shoot drugged lions, or shoot in a 1 acre enclosure must be stopped.

We must find a balance......................JJ

5% of the lion hunts in South Africa are real hunting.

Usangu Safaris, I am glad you made the comment on the bow hunting. There were a few threads last year on the subject of shooting dangerous game with less than the legally required 375 H&H power level weapons; (pistols, bows, crossbows) and all hell broke loose. These stunt hunts are not right and many of the governments in Africa are putting an end to them.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert johnson:
5% of the lion hunts in South Africa are real hunting.

Robert what is the basis for this statement...where did this statistic come from? What is the definition of "real".

I say even a truely "CANNED" lion hunt can be fair to the lion, and less than fair to the "HUNTER"!

Simply place a lion in a 15' by 15' cage, and drop the "HUNTER" through a hole in the roof, with a spear, and no ladder! If that is too harsh, I guess you could give the "HUNTER" an unloaded muzzleloader, with all the possibles to load it when he hits the floor of the cage! OR, if you really wanted to make it easy on the "HUNTER", you could let him drop in with two rounds in his culling belt, and an empty double rifle, and see how fast he could load to stop a very close charge!

Though it isn't my cup of tea, I don't see the lion as any less dangerous in an enclosier, than in the whole country of RSA,if you push him too hard, and get too close! It is the perception that is attached to any animal that is OWNED by someone, that takes away his wildness in the minds of those who have closed minds, in one dirrection or another.

Whether we are for, or against, owned game being fair chasse, or not, the fact is there are several species that are viable today, simply because someone owns them, and protects them from the poachers who almost wiped them out in their natural habitat. These animals are managed, so that they are not wiped out, and that is simply conservation, only on a smaller scale, and by a private owner, so that he will have these animals as long as they are desired.

The key here is how we promote fair chasse, and simply refuse to buy less than sporting so-called HUNTS! Simply because an animal is enclosed in an area he cannot get free from, is not what makes a CANNED hunt. As long as he as a large enough area to roam at will, and has cover, and escape routes, and natural food at his disposal, that is larger than the particular animal's normal range, and not used to human contact, in regard to food and handleing. With those things, and the hunter on foot, and haveing no previous information as to the location of the animal, then it is fair chasse.
I have talked to many hunters on this subject, and it has always amazed me that those who scream the most about hunting ranches, that in many cases are over 1,000,000 acres in size, are quite willing to hunt animals on an island that is the same size, and boast to the world about that big, dangerous, brown Bear, they took on Kodiak, or one of the even smaller islands, and in the next breath condemn another who took a whitetail deer on a high fenced ranch the same size. The only difference is, one fence is wire, and the other is thousands of miles of ocean! Come on Let's get real here, you can't have it both ways.

There are truley CANNED hunts, but a fence is not what makes it CANNED, it is the way the animal is handled, and how he is hunted, and the habitat that animal is afforded! PeTA loves these discussions, and moniter these hunting forums all the time, gathering things so-called experienced hunters say, to post on their websites, as a "SEE, EVEN THE HUNTERS ADMIT THEY ARE ONLY KILLERS!"

quote:

There are truley CANNED hunts, but a fence is not what makes it CANNED, it is the way the animal is handled, and how he is hunted, and the habitat that animal is afforded!

Here here! Well said Mac.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I say even a truely "CANNED" lion hunt can be fair to the lion, and less than fair to the "HUNTER"!

My feelings exactly....If a guy wants to kill a lion in a cage let him...if its legal and that is the desired method of a kill then more power to him. Why should anyone else have any say in the matter?

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I have talked to many hunters on this subject, and it has always amazed me that those who scream the most about hunting ranches, that in many cases are over 1,000,000 acres in size, are quite willing to hunt animals on an island that is the same size, and boast to the world about that big, dangerous, brown Bear, they took on Kodiak, or one of the even smaller islands, and in the next breath condemn another who took a whitetail deer on a high fenced ranch the same size.

I agree with you on this one. Fence doesn't necessarily make animals inside it tame or canned, if it doesn't affect the animals' abilities to avoid the hunter. Most countries are actually fenced with barb-wired high-fence borders, but it doesn't make animals inside it "canned game" in even PETA's opinion (but I guess it's better not to ask them ).

But I do think that ethics is a thing that also concerns hunting and methods by which it is conducted. If it is left up to everyones' own standards -even the most brutal and careless persons and nothing would sanction them- then there wouldn't be any common criteria by which hunting could be defended as an ethical way of harvesting wild animals for a good reason.

And I think we need those criteria, ethics and good reasons, since nature-connected hobbies like hunting are getting harder to preserve in urbanising world day by day. After all, it isn't the hunters who decide the future of hunting, but the non-hunting majority.

You all can have a feeding frenzy after you read this and I'm OK with that; but I've got to get this off my chest. As I've read posts on this forum and many others I think of the anti-hunting groups and how much they may have a part in this "canned" hunting issue and that concerns me to no end. Beyond the various arguments I see something more basic that we, as sportsmen and women, need to come to grips with and stop the hipocracy!

This ain't the old world where only the rich can hunt but we sure are trying, intentionally or unintentionally, to get back there. For every person who says the Lion is Noble and we should not disgrace it by canned hunting, I can find you a person who will say the Trout, or Quail or Whitetail is Noble too and so be it. Yet we make exceptions with fish, "game" birds, elk, and for crying out LOUD, WHITETAIL DEER! I hear people refer to "GROWING YOUR DEER..." all the time. What's the difference? We have singled out the Lion, why not White and now, a select number of Black Rhino?

This whole subject is a matter of ETHICS, period! We raise, grow, breed etc. all forms of fish and wildlife and we don't put the fish in a barrel we "set them FREE in a stream", bull! We have a very good idea where they will go and know they are more prone to being caught on various types of lures or natural bait/FOOD. So we raise game birds and let them go in unfenced areas for dog trials, or pay to hunt etc. We grow whitetails and sell them by the points on their antlers. So let the lion go in a 10,000 hector area; does that change things?

The bottom line is; we can't have it both ways. Sure it's easy to talk about lions cuz most of us will never have a chance to hunt one, canned or not. However, our son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter may have a chance to catch a home grown "wild trout" or shoot a "wild" home grown game bird, or a Purina Whitetail. Some people shoot animals under feeders, others shoot animals at water holes. This may piss you off but it is ALL TRUE! We either CLEAN IT ALL UP or we have done NOTHING!

I will admit I want my grandchildren to hunt someday, do I think I may have to take them to hunt pen raised birds....probably, but I take it for what it is. This is part of the real world. I find it ironic that businesses like Cabelas, to name only one, buy and rent land to sell or lease to hunters. Makes sense, but in doing so there becomes less and less to go around. So we resort to renewable resourses trees, fish, animals etc. If we don't have the big bucks $$$, to own a place of our own, we resort to what we can afford.

I hunted bison, in the Sandhills of Nebraska, I've hunted and lived near the sandhills all my life and would have no sooner even found these animals than the man in the moon, due to the fact this area was so rugged, had we not had a guide I would not have had a successful hunt. The PASTURE we hunted was, just over, 7 1/2 sections, 4,853 acres. Did that make it ethical? If it was 1/2 or 1/4 of that would it have been OK or is the standard 9,000 or 90,000 acres? I've done "it" and I admit it, as I said earlier it is what it is and I admit that for what it is. Is a 2400 pounds Bison Bull less noble than a Lion? In 1993 I killed a, wild free-ranging, Leopard off of it's own kill and that was more of a sure thing than the Bison. Very simply cuz the PH knew by experience and I by research, the odds of the Leopard coming back to it's own kill are very, very high.

You decide; is a Trout raised in a pond and released then caught, in a stream, less noble, than a Lion? Is a Whitetail raised in a pen less noble and less fairchase than a Lion raised for the same reason, any different? Is a wild animal shot over water less fair TO THE ANIMAL or ethical? Remember, EVERY LIVING THING NEEDS WATER TO SURVIVE.

Maybe being an old street "Narc", for 20 years, makes me a little sinical but the reality is as they say on the street, "Money talks and Bullshit walks"! Bottom line is....it's ALL or NOTHING! Your individual arguments only warm YOUR conscience for your particular issues. One 400 pound Lion is no different than a 1 pound Trout or an 8 ounce Quail, or a 150 pound, twelve point Whitetail, or a Pronghorn or Impala shot over water. It's ALL or NOTHING;
ETHICS, LIKE THE LAW, APPLY TO EVERYONE EQUALLY OR NOT AT ALL.

Breeding and raising lions in small double fenced electrified pens for the sole intent of killing them has nothing all to do with conservation!
It's all about money and what some people are willing do to make it. When you abandoned any sense of fair chase and all ethical and moral rules, You can make a hell of a lot of money !


We all ways here about the down fall of Hunting and American values, This is a prime example!

JJ_Miller,

While I do share your view that the canned hunt would not be for me, I would also agree with Oupa that setting one's own ethics as the standard for all others is not a good course. The idea of limiting hunts to specific conditions is very similiar to limiting firearms to specific types. This of course leads to less opportunity for all. Character is shown by what and how we do things in life, and it is also shown by the type of weapons we choose to use in our various quests. Keep your options open would be my advice.

quote:

Originally posted by 308Sako:
setting one's own ethics as the standard for all others is not a good course. .

So you think we should all just sink to the lowest standard? may as well not have any standard.


Have any of you seen the video of the lion"shoot" here on the AR forums?

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:

Bow hunting is becoming more unpopular for the same reason that it seems inhumane. When we hunt, we all want the animal to feel less pain as possible. Bow hunting contributes to a larger percentage of wounded and lost animals.

Please cite your source.

GTR

quote:

So you think we should all just sink to the lowest standard? may as well not have any standard.

No, that's not the idea at all. There are standards almost anyone can agree on although they may be difficult to define. By the same token when we set the standards too broadly such as fair chase = no fences, we are setting ourselves up. The analogy concerning bears on an island is one situation where this type narrow-mindedness could be used against us. The "only walk and stalk is true hunting" crowd is another bad idea... then we prohibit the handicapped hunter any hunting.

As said previously, there is no black and white in this issue - its all shades of gray. It is up to the individual - both hunter and outfitter - to decide what's too light or too dark and stand on his principals. There will always be those who break the rules be they written or not but that is human nature and unregulatable. We must have rules and ethics but they cannot be one-size-fits-all. A hundred acre enclosure may be fine for hunting stocked rabbits just as one thousand may be suitable for larger game and a hundred thousand yet larger or wider roaming game. While all are enclosed they are afforded as "sporting" a chance as if there were no enclosure simply because they wouldn't run that far if there weren't one! Cornering that animal against the fence would be unethical in most peoples eyes and it'd be up to the hunter or outfitter to assure that didn't happen. However to assume everyone WILL corner the animal against the fence puts everyone in a bad light fences or no fences!

First time I have posted here in along time but I think I have some food for thought on this subject.

As long as hunters are shooting canned Lions, they are not shooting the dwindleing supply of wild Lions and that just may be the salvation of the Lion in Africa, remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't take a side in this and don't yet have an opinnion, but I am observing and have been for quite some time, take the emotion out of the subject and look at it from a practical point of view as the alternative might end up in the future with only canned Lion hunting. wild Lions are certainly taking a beating and can't stand a lot more pressure added to them IMO..

Just an alternative point of view, I don't know the answer.

quote:

First time I have posted here in along time but I think I have some food for thought on this subject.

As long as hunters are shooting canned Lions, they are not shooting the dwindleing supply of wild Lions and that just may be the salvation of the Lion in Africa, remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't take a side in this and don't yet have an opinnion, but I am observing and have been for quite some time, take the emotion out of the subject and look at it from a practical point of view as the alternative might end up in the future with only canned Lion hunting. wild Lions are certainly taking a beating and can't stand a lot more pressure added to them IMO..

Just an alternative point of view, I don't know the answer.

Ray, I am NOT a proponent of canned lions at all, but like you, agree with this type of critical unpacking of the issue. I worked for a predator ecologist who felt the same. He too was anti-canning, but was happy that they were not wild adult males that were beintg taken (and he was very much pro hunting, enjoyed shooting game as well).

In my limited knowledge of lion populations bio-geography, I too feel wild lions are being pushed too hard, I would like to see quotas dropped on adult males (lions as geogrphic populations can take some pressure, but selective shooting of only adult males in larger numbers(obviously this requires quantification for given populations) is not conducive to conservation, given their pride structures and male-coalition dominance) - and it is not practical in the field to decide conclusively wether a male is tenure holding or not.

Canned lions are not a conservation issue in the same sense as wild lions popualtions, but is in fact a more convoluted issue, involving a lot more issues and emotions. I feel we may just have to accept in the near future that lion hunting will become akin to shooting 80lb eles, few and far between and very expensive, very limited numbers or mature males.....

Cheers

quote:

I feel we may just have to accept in the near future that lion hunting will become akin to shooting 80lb eles, few and far between and very expensive, very limited numbers or mature males.....

Some fantastic points being raised! In reference to the above correlation to elephants, there is quite a market for "non-trophy" elephants today. There is a limited market for lionesses. Perhaps as things progress that segment of hunting (non-dominent males and lionesses) will expand similarly? I'd never even thought of the aspect of - can we call them "stocked" lions??? - filling the demand for lion hunting without impacting the stock of wild lions. This could very well be a quite valuble tool. Might I remind everyone that without the market for "stocked" buffalo, the breeding of diesease free animals would still place considerable restrictions on where they might be found today?

Yes, there are advantages to "stocked" game operations within reason and acceptable ethic considerations. Let's all hope knee jerk reactions don't put this valuable tool out of use!

quote:

Originally posted by jb:

quote:

Originally posted by 308Sako:
setting one's own ethics as the standard for all others is not a good course. .

So you think we should all just sink to the lowest standard? may as well not have any standard.


Have any of you seen the video of the lion"shoot" here on the AR forums?

First to the video, yes I have seen it, and do not approve of nor would I participate in such an experience.

Now as to sinking to the lowest common denominator, really! I think not.

What I am saying is that we should not have NON-HUNTERS set standards for us to follow. Some cases are quite clearly assignable to the garbage bin, others may not be so obvious. There are many regional or colloquial "ethics" which affect what we believe is to be considered the norm. I am trying to take the broadest view as possible.

JB, would or have you hunted an animal over bait?

If sport hunters don't what anti hunting groups involved setting rules and regulations addressing ethical issues. They had better step up and take the bull by the horns soon. It's only a matter of time before the Anti's in the USA push legislation banning importation into the US of all lion trophies.

Onefun, yes there is a bigger issue at stake which Atkinson highlighted. The experts on this are folks like Gerhard Damm (sp?) who publishes African Idaba and maybe John Jackson at Conservation Force.

The issues mainly are:

a) the demand for hunting male lions is larger (and growing faster) than supply,

b) when the South Africa "canned lion" video came out nearly a decade ago, the public outcry triggered groups like SCI to seperate lions taken in South Africa and Namibia from those taken in other countries in the SCI record book (even though some lions in SA are taken without fence and on the new free roaming places which will continue to operate under the new regs)

c) This prompted many hunters to condemn lion hunting in SA/Namibia on the grounds of ethics.

d) The condemnation of all SA lion hunting caused many hunters to look outside SA/namibia for their male lion trophy. But because of the peculiarities of lion biology (remember The Lion King?), the taking of pride males began reducing mature male lion populations sharply. This was noticed in the "trophy" lions coming out of Africa which were having smaller manes and pinker noses (anyone notice that taxidermed lions on display at SCI Reno and in the hunting magazine ads are looking awfully lioness-like lately?).

Serious African Professional Hunter groups are attempting to have a voluntary ban on hunting lions less than 4-6 years old. Tazania unexpectedly banned lion hunting for a short period last year. It wasn`t clear why. But rumors were that there was some concern about the wild male lion population.

e) Like it or not, SA`s game reserve industry has been highly suceessful at bringing back populations of formerly endangered game to huntable levels. This includes: elephant, white rhino, black rhino, black wildebeest, hartman mountain zebra, etc. The SA game reserves are one of the best places to satisfy the demand for male lions and relieve hunting pressure on immature and pride males in the rest of Africa.

In the past, anyone who hunted a lion in SA was automatically (and somewhat emotionally) condemned as an unethical hunter doing a canned hunt (see past threads on this forum for example). With the new regs, that will hopefully change from this year onward.

It is likely that in the future the charge of "unethical" lion hunting will now be directed toward hunters outside SA who have taken immature lions. Indeed, people who took immature lions in the past may now be hiding their trophies in embarassment when overseas hunters become more aware of the issues.

Sadly, the price that had to be paid is that the SA lion breeding industry will probably slaughter the existing lion stock (recent press reports quote 5,000 lions) unless the new "free roaming" places can absorb them (unlikely since there is only one operation generally known to have made the required investment over the past years).

The two year requirement (it was expected to be six months) for a lion to be in a reserve with other lions freely catching its own game will also probably raise the cost of lion hunting in SA.

For more info, please try to contact experts like Gerhard.

For hunters who might have taken immature lions outside SA in the past (whether intentionally or not) under the belief that this was "real" lion hunting, time to take a hard look at your trophies . . . it could be embarassing when fellow hunters begin realizing what has been going on (and start looking for those scraggy manes and pinkish noses).

By the way on the bowhunting comments, there have been many sad abuses by bowhunters. But there also have been many abuses by rifle hunters, too. Those who applaud crude widespread bans on alternate hunting methods as "stunts" may someday have to face rifle accuracy qualifications and Hunter`s education courses before being allowed to hunt in Africa. It`s all part of the same trend.

And if you think these issues are worth debating, wait until the issue of all those white guys making all the money in hunting starts hitting the Africa agenda (already started in some places, no?).

Mr. Dorrington at PHASA seems to have done a good job given the situation. But there will undoubtedly be more issues coming in the future.

Hope this helps!

quote:

Originally posted by The Big Kahuna:


d) The condemnation of all SA lion hunting caused many hunters to look outside SA/namibia for their male lion trophy. But because of the peculiarities of lion biology (remember The Lion King?), the taking of pride males began reducing mature male lion populations sharply. This was noticed in the "trophy" lions coming out of Africa which were having smaller manes and pinker noses (anyone notice that taxidermed lions on display at SCI Reno and in the hunting magazine ads are looking awfully lioness-like lately?).

Serious African Professional Hunter groups are attempting to have a voluntary ban on hunting lions less than 4-6 years old.

It is likely that in the future the charge of "unethical" lion hunting will now be directed toward hunters outside SA who have taken immature lions. Indeed, people who took immature lions in the past may now be hiding their trophies in embarassment when overseas hunters become more aware of the issues.

For hunters who might have taken immature lions outside SA in the past (whether intentionally or not) under the belief that this was "real" lion hunting, time to take a hard look at your trophies . . . it could be embarassing when fellow hunters begin realizing what has been going on (and start looking for those scraggy manes and pinkish noses).

quote:

Originally posted by The Big Kahuna:
Serious African Professional Hunter groups are attempting to have a voluntary ban on hunting lions less than 4-6 years old. Tazania unexpectedly banned lion hunting for a short period last year. It wasn`t clear why. But rumors were that there was some concern about the wild male lion population.

The phrase "canned hunting" is like "assault weapon" or "saturday night special." Essentially meaningless but elastic enought to include anything the critics who invent them want to smear.

But as the Big Kahuna observed, in the midst of the fake paranoia there can still be real issues which should concern us. We ought to be able to police ourselves, shouldn't we?

Nobody has really provided a useful rebuttal to my comments here:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=368103726#368103726

To all, very good points raised here. What I am afraid of is the feed lot lion hunts being used as an excuse to ban all lion hunting.

Some here are still afraid of offending someone, who am I to set standards kinda thing. Well guess what ??? We as hunters better set some standards soon.

Its time to stop worrying about hurting someones feelings and call a spade a spade. The feed lot hunts must stop as they offer the anti's a way in to stop all hunting.

You know if what you are doing is the right thing or not. Its not hard. We are in danger of PC'ing ourselves right out of hunting.

Its a fact some shooters prefer to walk up to a pen, shoot the lion and go home. I am not afraid to tell that person he is wrong. Its not "imposing my will on others", its seeing something that is wrong and saying that its wrong......................................JJ

It all comes down to personal ethics...Does one want to hunt a wild born lion and maybe fail... Or just kill a lion...

Mike

One of the problems with wild Lion managment is when you shoot the Alpha male, the next in line Alpha male will usually kill all the cubs in the pride and in essence you have shot a number of Lions with one bullet.

A canned Lion on a big acreage can be a formable foe according to the canned lion hunt viewed on this forum. Again only another aspect of Lion hunting.

I never have booked a canned Lion hunt nor have I ever hunted canned Lions, but somewhere in all this melee their has to be a middle ground if we intend to save and continue to hunt the wild lions of Africa, and we certainly cannot leave that up to the African government as money and greed guide them in the wrong direction.

I don't know the answers, but I will continue to keep an open mind on the subject, but I have little hope for the future of "good lions". the old black maned monarch is already a thing of the past in the wild Lion catagory.

Gentlemen,

I think we should all remember where all this "canned" hunting came from.

It was all started by an anti-hunting orgenization, who wish to see hunting as we know it come to and end.

Also, "canned" lion hunts are only available because there so much demand for them. If there was no demand, there will be none offered.

I have hunted plains game in South Africa, and out of choice, would not hunt any animals like a lion, buffalo or a rhino there.

This is not to say I am against it.

We should let those who pay the price decide what they wish to either hunt or shoot.

Also, many of us active hunters, who can actually do what one might classify as an "ethical" hunt on foot. Should remember that we have hunters who are not able to do this.

Do we deny them the pleasure of hunting wht some of us might classify as a "canned" hunt?

I have personally experienced two types of hunters.

One claimed to have the highest ethics, but at the same time shot, and wounded, an animals from the back of the truck. He refused to follow it, and had his PH chase it up and kill it.

Another man was unable to walk vey far due to medical reasons.

He shot most of his animals from the back of the truck.

He told me that was the best "hunt" he has ever been on, despite the fact he has been on many hunts.

I know many of you mean it when you that your ethics won't allow you to go on a "canned" hunt. I am not doubting your word.

But, I think we should not add fuel to the argumet - as is happening right now in South Africa, which, I am sure is due to politics and who has been paid, and by whom, to lobby on their behalf.

But then we have the " call me later " hunter.

I experienced this first hand while in Tanzania. I will not expose the hunter, just tell the facts.

At the end of my safari my license was shot out and we had a couple of days to bird hunt, drive around and enjoy the scenery. A call comes in from the next hunter. He purchased a full 21 day license with lion tag. He told the PH to shoot his plains game quota for bait. Hang them and when one was being hit by a good lion call and the hunter would be on the ground in 24 hours. The client flew in, sat the bait for one day, shot his lion and left the next day on a private jet. Is this " hunting " ??? I guess it seems like a waste to me, but it got the hunter his inner ring super gold achivement pinnacle something or other from SCI which made him happy. Who knows ???.....................JJ

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Nobody has really provided a useful rebuttal to my comments here:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=368103726#368103726

All good points. No need to rebutt them. I thought the idea was to rebutt the arguments made by the people who coin pejorative phrases like "canned hunting."

Essentially, there are always two issues involved, one actual and one manufactured. The biological facts of life, and the public perception of hunting.

The points you made, no matter how valid, will not be considered by the people who want to regulate us out of existence. They are perfectly willing to lie about us to achieve their goal if that is what it will take.

They understand the herd mentality of the voting public. Most people don't put a great deal of thought into thier positions. If the PR folks who drive these issues can convince them that good people hold certain views, then that's enough. Naturally they consider themselves good people, and they want other people to know it. So they adopt those views. As the President of the Czech Republic correctly perceived about global warming, they become quasi-religious matters of faith and not fact.

In California they conned the voters into banning Mountain Lion hunting. They had no facts on their side. Didn't matter. They were willing to be conned, because they became the good people defending wildlife against the evil people. Now the state is crawling with the cuddly little kittens. You can't even bring in a skin legally taken in another part of the U.S. or Canada, as that is a crime in CA. In other states, you can't bait or use hounds for bears. Your right to follow your own personal ethics when hunting is being whittled away through legislation.

Many things that used to be matters of sportsmanship are now dictated by law. Most of those laws weren't made by hunters. Most, in fact, where demanded by people following their emotions and with little grasp of or concern for the actual facts.

Take "assault weapon." It's a meaningless term that plays off "assault rifle." Assault rifles have certain definite characteristics: being clip fed, firing an intermediate cartridge smaller than a battle rife and larger than a machine pistol, and being able to fire fully automatic. "Assault weapons" were sold to a gullible public as "anything that looks bad" by political activists to whom the term meant "as much as I can get away with banning." And shooters fed into the frenzy by buying into and using the term. Now we are stuck with the name, and anything at anytime can be lumped into that non-category. Look at any state that still has an assault weapons ban and you'll see that it's whatever the Attorney General decides.

"Canned" hunting could easily go the same way. The lion doesn't actually come out of a can, does he? So why do we feed the public perception that there is such a thing by using the term ourselves?

On the other hand, we as hunters can come up with a definition of "fair chase." Any body of professionals can and usually does have a standard of ethics that all members of the profession must abide by. It doesn't matter if you're talking about lawyers, doctors, or realtors. I wasn't around when these things came up, but I'd put money on it that they were established as an alternative to legislation due to some public outcry following an ethical scandal.

So is the threat to hunting so great that we should be policing ourselves better? If it is, then we need to drop the attitude that we can't tell somebody else what is or isn't ethical. We need to address the question of who is better qualified to decide ethics, us as hunters or the government? Because that will be the only choice.

I have no concern over the "anti's", they have never had much of an impact on hunting as a whole. My concern is from within, Ultimately we are the ones that form our own destiny.

Ray,
Thanks for posting on this subject. Your opinion is important as you are a veteran of the "war" and of life. Thanks for taking time to post again.

quote:

Originally posted by GTR:

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:

Bow hunting is becoming more unpopular for the same reason that it seems inhumane. When we hunt, we all want the animal to feel less pain as possible. Bow hunting contributes to a larger percentage of wounded and lost animals.

Please cite your source.

GTR

I don't have a source to list, but many bow hunters I spoke to state that in bow hunting, the percentage of wounded and lost is higher than using a rifle. Also, we had few bow hunters, and the wounded and lost percentage was higher than rifle users.