quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:

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.

Thank you for the reply.. Can you please provide the percentages you experienced for both type of hunters?

Thank you
GTR

quote:

Originally posted by GTR:

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:

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.

Thank you for the reply.. Can you please provide the percentages you experienced for both type of hunters?

Thank you
GTR

In terms of wounded and last, rifle hunters contributed to less than 10% of the animals taken. With bow hunting, this number was about 30-40%. However, I had very few bow hunters. So, perhaps the ones that I had may not have been the best, but they all seemed very experienced and knew their equipment well. One wounded a buffalo at 20 yds and it was not recovered. at 20 yds, I don't think we ever lost a buffalo shot by a rifle.

Once a buzzword gets started, the things that fall under it's definition start to increase. Like "canned hunting". I first heard that term when I saw a 20/20 report on it. They had hidden camera footage of guys shooting lions and tigers as soon as their cages were opened.

I think we can all agree that is canned hunting. The problem seems to be where does it stop? To top it off, any disagreement within the hunting fraternity will be used against us by the anti's.

In the end, I would much rather have another hunter saying he disagress with my method of hunting than a state or federal legislator (at the urging of the bunny-huggers, bambiites, and pumbaphiles)telling me that I can't hunt in a certain method.

That bowhunting wounds more than rifle hunting is utter nonsense. Complete and total nonsense. Quoting heresay as fact has never been very smart. In fourteen years of operating two hunting companies and accounting for over 10,000 animals bagged by clients, over half of which are bowhunters, I can tell you with 100% certainty that wounding between bow or rifle is just about the same, no more no less. Bowhunters normally take game at close range while the animal is in a calm state and the hunter relaxed which normally accounts for a quick, clean kill and easy recovery. In 14 years of keeping track of this sort of thing I can also tell you that the wound/lost rate between rifle or bow is less than 10%. Usually around 4 or 5% to be quite honest. On a body shot, nothing kills quicker and with less trauma than a well placed arrow. Many times the animals doesn't even register the hit as the arrow passes thru it in a millisecond. That is a simple fact. Almost all the game expires in less than 15 seconds and is recoverd less than 50 yards from arrow impact. It still amazes me that in 2007 there are still so many archaic views on bowhunting. Of course it is always those with zero experience or tolerance of something that can't or won't try and understand.

Ken Moody

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

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).

This idea is very good in principle and theory, but it is very difficult to achieve in practice. Unless an outfitter stops lion hunting for two years and does an extensive research on the lion population, it will be difficult to practice. A 4 year old lion and a 7 year old lion look the same in terms of mane and body size. Unless a PH has an extensive course in aging lions, I believe most PH we have today are not able to age lions well. I have looked at studies of aging lions. There are lions who are older than 6 who have pink noses and also there are lions less than 6 who have dark noses. For this to work, a field study is important for the outfitter and PHs to know their lions. A study also recommends hunting lone lions. However, one may spot alfa male lions hunting while the lioness maybe taking care of very young cubs.

In terms on mane sizes, that is purely genetics and habitat. It has nothing to do with the age of the lion.

quote:

Originally posted by China Fleet Sailor:

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

"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?

There is a good book called "UNSPEAK" which talks about phrases used by politicians or special interest that carry an "unspeak" message. Phares like "canned" hunting or "fair chase" fit this category.

Anyhow, the buttom line is that, like some have mentioned, is that we as hunters are in control of our own destiny. If we continue to use practices that seem to be unethical in the general public, the government will make laws to ban hunting as politicians will do what the public feels is right rather than what is practical.

Another major problem we have that we have created ourselves are various awards, pinacle awards, record books, etc, that have made some hunters do whatever it takes to achieve that "success" and "recognition" whether it is ethical or not. As a result, a large number of the new generation hunters are only concentrated on record books, and mane particularly for the lion. Therefore, these "canned" hunts in SA are popular because someone can show to their buddies that they have hunted a magnificent black maned lion.

Also, there is a growing trend for people not wanting to take a less than 40 inch buffalo. This is a contribution to record book. Record books and several awards are taking away the core part of hunting that we all enjoy. What I enjoy most is taking old, mature animals. My satisfaction will be the same whether I take a 30 inch buffalo or a 50 inch buffalo. Equally with lions, I will be more happy taking a 12 year old lion with little mane than a 4 year lion with lots of mane. What I feel now that many hunters are record book driven rather than just enjoy what hunting has to offer.

Also, hunting in a truly wild place is the most exciting. The probability of the animal not being there exists. However, in a fenced area, you know the animals are there. In my opinion, the unknown factor hunting in a truly wild area is what gives us the most satisfaction when get what we are after.

Well said.

CFS, your comments were thoughtful and well considered.

I used the term “rebut†because so many of the responses in both threads could be reduced to a bad “South Park†episode with Mr. Hand endlessly repeating, “Drugs are bad.†Or, “canned hunting is bad.†“Canned hunting is bad.†At some point the actual issues need to be reviewed and dissected. A mindless repetition of personal preference is neither interesting nor useful.

I agree completely with you that the enemies of hunting are totally opposed to hunting in any form. I also agree that the majority of the foes of hunting are dominated by their emotions and display a complete disinterest in facts. Your example of the mountain lion situation in California is well chosen and very much to the point. Emotion driven voters, totally ignorant of the subject matter, were persuaded by clever anti-hunting propaganda to pass a law that can be objectively demonstrated to be bad public policy. Essentially, the aesthetics of hunting are used as an ethical argument against hunting, a fallacy, but an unfortunate reality in today’s world. Simply put, non-hunters confuse the aesthetic unpleasantness of a dead and bloody animal with an ethical wrong. Because sound bite voters have no real desire to examine the facts of the situation, they condemn hunting for perceived ugliness and ignore the mitigating facts of the situation: That natural death in the wild is typically far worse and far more painful than the death of a game animal at the hands of a hunter. That game animal populations will swell and die of starvation without a systemic policy of culling. That hunting is responsible for providing the financial incentive to preserve animal habitat in both Old World and New. That it is impossible for the large predators of the past to live in the close proximity of humans without tragedy being the inevitable result.

On a personal note, I believe that many anti-hunters are frightened of their own mortality. Because they are unable to come to terms with the notion of their own inevitable physical decline, the immediacy of death terrifies them and the act of hunting commits the unforgivable sin of exposing them to the immediacy of death. Their revulsion of hunting is really a simple transference of their fear of death.

Regardless, let us return to the issues of public perception and facts. It is an unfortunate fact the distribution of intelligence in the general population is in the shape of a bell curve. In a society in which anyone with a pulse has the right to vote, an implication is that the discussion of issues will never be allowed to proceed above a certain intellectual level because at some point the majority of registered voters will become confused and simply tune out.

That’s worth examining. To win an election or pass an initiative, 51% of the active voters must be convinced to support a proposal. When the arguments in support of an initiative are sufficiently complex that a significant portion of active voters become incapable of grasping them, the democratic process breaks abruptly.

A concrete example of this phenomenon in the real world is the continued viability of Socialism in the 21st century. It can objectively demonstrated that Socialism is a catastrophic failure in both economic and humanitarian terms, but it is still a wildly popular doctrine, notwithstanding the mountain of evidence against its viability. And notwithstanding the mountain of dead bodies left behind it, either. No thinking man can be a Socialist in the 21st century, yet the Socialists win election after election by exploiting envy and promising the unearned to the incapable.

So what do we do?

The public dialog on issues of far greater significance than recreational hunting is depressingly crude. Whether the issue is abortion, gun control and the right to self-defense, global warming or public energy policy, the “debate†devolves into the shouting of slogans rather than the comparison of facts and underlying value judgments. It is a hallmark of a simple mind that it is incapable of understanding that two well-meaning men of intelligence can come to differing conclusions when examining a common set of facts. Unfortunately, because our society rewards the act of gathering the biggest herd and shoveling it into the voters’ booth, we are required to debase the issues to the point at which a critical mass of voters is capable of semi-understanding the slogans in conflict.
We have what we have, and it’s certainly better than being ruled by kings or juntas, but it’s also very far from a process driven by the rational examination of issues. Simply put, most voters don’t have the native intellectual capacity to understand complex or subtle issues. They are much more comfortable with “us vs. them.â€

Moving back to the future of hunting and how hunting ethics relate to public policy, we come to the inescapable conclusion that the battle over the future of hunting revolves around public perception, with all the consequences that implies. Simply stating, “I have eyes in the front of my skull, and am therefore a predator, deal with it,†while accurate, is unlikely to persuade non-hunters who are not anti-hunters to support the tradition of hunting. Arguments like, “50,000 accidents on the roads of Pennsylvania are caused by the surplus deer population. Hunting reduces the deer population and therefore automobile accidents†are much more likely to be successful. I dislike intensely the need to descend into rhetorical device to win elections, but the events in places like California indicate that emotional messages are more likely to succeed than factual messages.

More to the point of the parent thread, any referral to a form of hunting as “canned†guarantees its rejection by the electorate, no matter how ethical or beneficial to the species. Simply attaching the label of “canned†guarantees revulsion. I would strongly argue that government should never be invited to regulate hunting ethics, since all rational debate will immediately end as a consequence. The entire argument over ethical sport hunting will be over, and all subsequent discussion will hinge on sound bites.

Should we, as hunters, develop a “code of conduct†in an effort to combat public misperception of hunting and to forestall harmful and misguided government intervention? Well, in a sane world it would be a terrible idea. As I’ve stated in earlier posts, privately owned game animals are livestock and their disposal should be at the sole discretion of their owners, subject to the laws regarding livestock. In the world in which we actually live, however, it’s probably a depressing necessity. As government chooses to meddle incessantly in peripheral issues, we see most industries develop “voluntary†programs to set standards and police member behavior. Of course, the trade associations and the regulations they produce are hardly “voluntaryâ€. They are obvious attempts to soothe public perception and forestall destructive government intervention. The anti-hunters are blatantly irrational and base their arguments on the most flimsy “factsâ€, but they have been amazingly successful in persuading little old cat-owning ladies that hunters intended to slaughter baby deer and bash out the brains of fluffy mountain lion cubs. It’s pure propaganda, but that’s the reality of what we face, and quite frankly, we’re losing the battle in most places.

If we want to continue to have the right to hunt we must provide an emotional rationale for the preservation of sport hunting as well as the existing logical arguments, which strongly support our position. Simply appealing to tradition is no longer sufficient to preserve our hunting traditions. We must update the emotional appeal of our message so that it resonates with the current generation of voters.

We are dealing with a slippery slope here. On one hand, as pointed out by others, we have the biological realities, which support the independent rights of the livestock owner and game rancher. On the other hand, we have to deal with the illusion that is public perception. In all honesty, I don’t see a good choice here. We can chose to descend into the irrational in an attempt to persuade the voting public and, in doing so, give up the moral high-ground and the act of defending hunting on the basis of natural rights, or we can maintain the moral high-ground and lose to our unscrupulous enemies who believe that the end justifies the means (PETA, etc.). I wish that I had a solution to the problems that we face, but do not see a clear course of action at the present.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Moody:
That bowhunting wounds more than rifle hunting is utter nonsense. Complete and total nonsense. Quoting heresay as fact has never been very smart. In fourteen years of operating two hunting companies and accounting for over 10,000 animals bagged by clients, over half of which are bowhunters, I can tell you with 100% certainty that wounding between bow or rifle is just about the same, no more no less. Bowhunters normally take game at close range while the animal is in a calm state and the hunter relaxed which normally accounts for a quick, clean kill and easy recovery. In 14 years of keeping track of this sort of thing I can also tell you that the wound/lost rate between rifle or bow is less than 10%. Usually around 4 or 5% to be quite honest. On a body shot, nothing kills quicker and with less trauma than a well placed arrow. Many times the animals doesn't even register the hit as the arrow passes thru it in a millisecond. That is a simple fact. Almost all the game expires in less than 15 seconds and is recoverd less than 50 yards from arrow impact. It still amazes me that in 2007 there are still so many archaic views on bowhunting. Of course it is always those with zero experience or tolerance of something that can't or won't try and understand.

Ken Moody

I think bow hunting is fine for particular animals. But, I believe there are animals that bow hunting my not be the best option. However, this is only my opinion, as I have no experience with bow hunting. However, I have few friends who are avid bow hunters, and have admitted that they experienced more loss with bow hunting than rifle hunting.

We as hunters need to do more in advocating good policies based on research and good scientific data to influence the government and fellow hunters to do the right thing. Most laws and regulations made by the government in most cases do not have good data that support it.

This may come to play in bow hunting. There needs to be a criteria for a minimun size of bow required to hunt particular animals. These guidelines are available for rifle usage, but I have not seen it for bow usage as far as Tanzania law is concerned.

(edit)
You answered the question I posted.

GTR

JJ:

I think part of it is in response to the difference between raising a pet lion, and then shooting it, and, hunting a lion that will eat you, and is wild. I just got done watching born free, and, Elsa was pretty much a big house cat that they managed to turn loose, with great effort. Elsa had love and affection for her 'human' parents, and, shooting such an animal just eats at our base sense of morality.

Saeed has posted that he had a female lion, from a zoo, that attacked him so fiercely she nearly licked him to death, another instance of a lion becoming used to, and caring about humans.

Same with domesticated, or close, elephants, etc.

Still, as Saeed has posted, it's more likely the anti-canned hunts is just another move by the blacks in South Africa to take any land they can, and, this includes fenced lands, and huge ranches, that offer 'canned' hunts, from the whites in that country.

I have a friend that's going to Africa next year, and, his rationale is simply he wants his piece of Africa on the wall, because, at the rate they are screwing things up over there, there may not be any lions in his lifetime. Certainly rhinos have been near extinction a couple times, and, unless Aides runs rampant, humans will overpopulate, and, animals may well be gone.

S

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Moody:
In fourteen years of operating two hunting companies and accounting for over 10,000 animals bagged by clients, over half of which are bowhunters...

10,000 animals killed in 14 years is quite astonishing unless you're talking prairie dogs.

Are these canned hunts?

analog_peninsula,

Please run for President.

Deleted

Another "hobby" hunter assumption. Not sure what a "canned" hunt is since that is anti hunting jargon invented by them. It's very reassuring to see how the so called hunting "fraternity" accepts their lingo and loves to use it as much as they do. Much like "assault" rifle is in vogue for semi-auto rifles. They say you follow I guess. Of the animals I was referencing, nearly half are African, shot in various countries in Africa, from elephant to lion to buffalo dozens with proper archery gear. The resulting wound/lost and recovery rates are nearly identical from bow to rifle. That's a simple fact.

Ken Moody

Ken,
Please accept my apologies. However with the information available from the previous post it was a logical assumption. I will edit the previous comments accordingly if still able.

Many parts of this are purely African issues -- which many of us westerners will never fully understand (use/ownership of land is certainly in play and influencing here). The world hunting community doesn't really have many mechanisms available to influence these events. PHASA is probably our best positioned voice to take action here. What really shocked me though was my experience durng this year's show season -- as numerous PHASA members were really bad mouthing bowhunting, and some of what I was overhearing was truly ignorant crap -- actually heard many of them say they really didn't like bowhunters as they have to work harder to make less money, because the bowhunter generally takes fewer species with greater effort. This was a bit shocking, but I herd it quite a bit. Some other feedback was that many of the farms/ranches were going bowhunt only, which forced some long-standing companies off of some prime properties, which made a lot of folks feel threatened.

Also, can't believe all of the bandwagon jumping that I've seen on this and other sites. In gerneral, I beleive that hunting methods are a personal choice as to acceptable levels of challenge within the limits of the law. At the same time, as hunters, we must balance this by ensuring that the actions we take and activities we engage in do not bring discredit on the entire hunting community. However, we really should be alarmed in watching the approval or disapproval of hunting methods based on characterizations decided upon by groups of people (many with conflicting ideologies or lack of any real hunting/wildlife management experience) using pre-conceived notions, soundbytes, mis-information, buzzwords, and bar-room/media chatter as criteria. If the RSA government, and the folks who recommended these regulation changes acted on the results of an independent review, analyses and presentation of facts, and scientific study, they would undoubtedly reach better long-term decisions for RSA and the hunting community -- and, achieve outcomes with much higher credibility.

Personally, I'm very saddened that I won't be able to bowhunt a Leopard in RSA. Also, I really don't understand the outlawing of darting.

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:
[This idea is very good in principle and theory, but it is very difficult to achieve in practice. Unless an outfitter stops lion hunting for two years and does an extensive research on the lion population, it will be difficult to practice. A 4 year old lion and a 7 year old lion look the same in terms of mane and body size. Unless a PH has an extensive course in aging lions, I believe most PH we have today are not able to age lions well. I have looked at studies of aging lions. There are lions who are older than 6 who have pink noses and also there are lions less than 6 who have dark noses. For this to work, a field study is important for the outfitter and PHs to know their lions. A study also recommends hunting lone lions. However, one may spot alfa male lions hunting while the lioness maybe taking care of very young cubs.

In terms on mane sizes, that is purely genetics and habitat. It has nothing to do with the age of the lion.

Usangu,
I disagree with some of what you state. The theory may not be very practical but it is essential that it be practised for the long term. There are big differences between a 4 and 7 year old male in both mane and body. Not soo much between a 4 and a 5 or a 6 and a 7. I agree that most of todays Ph's may not be experienced enough to judge lion ages with some degree of accuracy. That is a problem of Ph licensing procedures and not the "theory". Too much emphasis is placed on the "pink nose/black nose" theory. That is not the determining factor for age assessment of a male lion and should not be used as the sole criteria.

The most important criteria, with the current research information available, when hunting male lions, IMHO, is that the lion should be at least over 6 years old, out of a pride or not have dependant sub-adult lions. If all Ph's/outfitters observe this simple rule than at least current populations in any area will not be affected by hunting quotas.

Of course that means lower sucess rates and potential loss of business but if everyone adheres to this rule, its a level playing field for all.

I futher disagree that mane sizes have nothing to do with age! There is a very big difference in mane developemnt between a 4 year old and a 6 year old male lion from the same geographical area. Of course not all two 4 or 6 year old males lions have the same mane development but essentially, the older a lion becomes the more the mane develops. There are exceptions to this rule but of insignificant proportion.

The trick is this, if in doubt about the lions age then pass it up. When you see an old lion, you will know.....at least the PH's should!

[

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:
However, one may spot alfa male lions hunting while the lioness maybe taking care of very young cubs.

In terms on mane sizes, that is purely genetics and habitat. It has nothing to do with the age of the lion.

I disagree with the above statements.

It is very seldom or ever that the alpha male of a pride will hunt. He is there to protect his harem, fathers the cubs, eats first and the most, the rest he is sleeping.

It is very seldom that a pride of Lions consists out of 1 male and 1 female. The females do most of the hunting for the pride. A female with cubs hides the cubs in the first days and she does not join the pride. She will then regularly move and hide the cubs, while keeping contact with the pride, she will join in the hunts and feeding and then return to the cubs. This is also the reason why it is so dangerous for a Lioness to have cubs in a very dry season, she cannot stay in contact with the rest of the pride because the have to travel large distances to get prey.

A lone male Lion, with a fully developed mane, i.e. a mane that have spread past his ears, does not mean the mane must be long and with lots of scars will most of the time be an old male past breeding age that was kicked out by a younger male. This males are usually not so well fed, because they must now hunt for themselves and due to their bigger weight, they are slower and are less succesful.

The lenght of the mane and the color of the mane is genetic but the spread pf the mane is not.

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:

There is a good book called "UNSPEAK" which talks about phrases used by politicians or special interest that carry an "unspeak" message. Phares like "canned" hunting or "fair chase" fit this category.

Anyhow, the buttom line is that, like some have mentioned, is that we as hunters are in control of our own destiny. If we continue to use practices that seem to be unethical in the general public, the government will make laws to ban hunting as politicians will do what the public feels is right rather than what is practical.

We need to understand that there are at least two bottom lines. Equally important, and they must be considered simultaneously.

1. The actual facts.

2. Selling it to the voting public that overwhelmingly doesn't believe it's directly effected by the issue.

It doesn't matter if we eliminate all "unethical" practices if the antis are the ones dictating what is unethical. Agreeing to eliminate practices (baiting, the use of dogs, the use of blinds, etc.) just because they've been smeared by UNSPEAK feeds into the message that hunters are unethical. The rabid antis have the medias ear and will simply spin another remaining practice as the new unethical.

What do you think an urban non-hunter will think when he reads an article headlined:

"South Africa Proposes Elephant Slaughter Limits"

Even Wildlife managers who are opposed to sport hunting (and more and more are) generally will agree that culling is ethical if done as a last resort. The fact is that the anti's can't allow anything they don't like to be perceived as ethical. In their eyes only the things they like are ethical because they know what's best. They have a compliant media to help them with their message.

So to put this into the context of my own country, let's say this article is about a wolf cull (Slaughter) in Alaska and the antis are trying to appeal to the public to get the Feds to stop it. I live and have restaurant in Dallas, TX that's kind of a date spot. What position do you think a guy here is going to adopt?

a. He'll spend a great deal of time looking into the facts of the matter deeply, even though he doesn't hunt, doesn't care about hunting, and will almost certainly never visit far-off Alaska. Then he'll make a fact-based decision.

b. He'll scan the headlines and adopt the feel-good position the media overwhelmingly tells him is also the right thing to do. Especially if that opinion will make it more likely the single guys will score and the married guys will stay on the right side of their wives who watch animal planet.

I don't do surveys but I overhear a lot so I'm pretty sure of the answer.

When I talk to hunters, they seem to think simply being right on the facts is enough. Even organizations that are supposed to speak for us publicly seem to think so. I don't.

We may have the facts on our side, but unless we figure out a way to get those facts out despite a largely hostile media and, just as importantly, how to present those facts in an appealing way to the target audience we'll lose. Probably not everything, but more than we want to.

Usangu- Your archery statistics are fiction. You list a Colorado phone prefix and most resonable folks would assume given your profile you are giving accurate information. Again, on the ageing lion statements you are dogmatically stating opinions as fact. Please state you sources on the "30-40 percent wounding loss". If your only source is "a few friends", we will take all your future statements for what they are worth. Bob Butler.

My apologies- an Alaska number.

We've all heard the teaching, "It's better to appear a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Having an ignorant perception of bowhunting is anyone’s choice, but when one starts spreading those false perceptions as fact, they had best be prepared for the wrath.

I recall a evening during my first bowhunting safari when shortly after dinner a couple of the PHs came into the camp to get lights. They had a client that had wounded not only one, but two animals earlier that afternoon...with a rifle. Even with the awesome trackers we had, as of lunch the next day, neither had yet been recovered. This simply shows that there are mishaps regardless of the weapon.

Usangu Safaris, I truly hope that you and others involved in the hunting industry might become more educated about bowhunting. Who knows, you might even “graduateâ€â€¦

quote:

Originally posted by crane:
Usangu- Your archery statistics are fiction. You list a Colorado phone prefix and most resonable folks would assume given your profile you are giving accurate information. Again, on the ageing lion statements you are dogmatically stating opinions as fact. Please state you sources on the "30-40 percent wounding loss". If your only source is "a few friends", we will take all your future statements for what they are worth. Bob Butler.

Bob,

First of all, I never stated I was an expert on bow hunting. I only referenced experience, which I stated as being very limited, and opinons of other bow hunters. Therefore, I hope I didn't offend any bow hunter out there. I believe the mistake that some bow hunters may have hunting in Africa they don't take into consideration the thickness of the skin on a buffalo or the massive muscle structure on the lion. Both of these factors should determine the size of the bow used. I mentioned on one of the posts that there needs to be a size recommendation for bows on particular animals as there is a rifle caliber recommendation.

As far as the Alaska number, that is where our booking office is located. I, personally live in Tanzania. So, anyone wanting to know about Usangu, they will get that information from Alaska office.

quote:

Originally posted by Darren Huntsman:
We've all heard the teaching, "It's better to appear a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Having an ignorant perception of bowhunting is anyone’s choice, but when one starts spreading those false perceptions as fact, they had best be prepared for the wrath.

I recall a evening during my first bowhunting safari when shortly after dinner a couple of the PHs came into the camp to get lights. They had a client that had wounded not only one, but two animals earlier that afternoon...with a rifle. Even with the awesome trackers we had, as of lunch the next day, neither had yet been recovered. This simply shows that there are mishaps regardless of the weapon.

Usangu Safaris, I truly hope that you and others involved in the hunting industry might become more educated about bowhunting. Who knows, you might even “graduateâ€â€¦

There are always mishaps on all weapons used. These mishaps can be a result of several factors: faulty equipment, experience of hunter, "buck fever", wrong choice of weapon, ect. I don't know all the facts about bow hunting; however, there is a general agreement among many hunters that bow hunting contributes to a higher percantage of wounding. This may not necessarily mean that bows are not as good, but it could be a contribution of less experienced users of bows hunting with them as an added challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:
[This idea is very good in principle and theory, but it is very difficult to achieve in practice. Unless an outfitter stops lion hunting for two years and does an extensive research on the lion population, it will be difficult to practice. A 4 year old lion and a 7 year old lion look the same in terms of mane and body size. Unless a PH has an extensive course in aging lions, I believe most PH we have today are not able to age lions well. I have looked at studies of aging lions. There are lions who are older than 6 who have pink noses and also there are lions less than 6 who have dark noses. For this to work, a field study is important for the outfitter and PHs to know their lions. A study also recommends hunting lone lions. However, one may spot alfa male lions hunting while the lioness maybe taking care of very young cubs.

In terms on mane sizes, that is purely genetics and habitat. It has nothing to do with the age of the lion.

Usangu,
I disagree with some of what you state. The theory may not be very practical but it is essential that it be practised for the long term. There are big differences between a 4 and 7 year old male in both mane and body. Not soo much between a 4 and a 5 or a 6 and a 7. I agree that most of todays Ph's may not be experienced enough to judge lion ages with some degree of accuracy. That is a problem of Ph licensing procedures and not the "theory". Too much emphasis is placed on the "pink nose/black nose" theory. That is not the determining factor for age assessment of a male lion and should not be used as the sole criteria.

The most important criteria, with the current research information available, when hunting male lions, IMHO, is that the lion should be at least over 6 years old, out of a pride or not have dependant sub-adult lions. If all Ph's/outfitters observe this simple rule than at least current populations in any area will not be affected by hunting quotas.

Of course that means lower sucess rates and potential loss of business but if everyone adheres to this rule, its a level playing field for all.

I futher disagree that mane sizes have nothing to do with age! There is a very big difference in mane developemnt between a 4 year old and a 6 year old male lion from the same geographical area. Of course not all two 4 or 6 year old males lions have the same mane development but essentially, the older a lion becomes the more the mane develops. There are exceptions to this rule but of insignificant proportion.

The trick is this, if in doubt about the lions age then pass it up. When you see an old lion, you will know.....at least the PH's should!

Bwanamich,

I agree with you in some parts. An experienced PH should be able to tell an old lion from a young lion. However, for the lion aging process and theory to really work, there needs to be mandatory worshops for PHs to attend as a condition of licensing. However, I don't think this will happen.

Another fact is that a true age of a lion can only be determined after the fact, only when one decides to x-ray the second molar.

I have placed condition on my PHs to take extra caution when hunting lions, but I believe this is difficult to police especially when tips from clients are a consideration by the PH.

Also, to really know all of the lions in ones area, a field study and population sample is necessary. I have seen alfa males go alone and hunt. Some maybe be drawn by bating. The only way for this to be effective, a real study of the lions in a particular area must be done. Given the cost to conduct such studies, very few outfitter will be willing to do it.

Another problem is that many people, especially in Africa, only care about today, and careless what happens tomorrow. For outfitters, the survival of lions is crutial, but I don't think it is the same for PHs, who do most of the work in the field on behalf of the outfitter.

quote:

Posted 27 February 2007 20:48 Hide Post
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 Atkinson
Atkinson Hunting Adventures
10 Ward Lane,
Filer, Idaho, 83328
208-326-4120
www.atkinsonhunting.com
ray@atkinsonhunting.com

Ray: You are so close and yet so far away! You say the anti's are of no concern there I would beg to differ. But you go on to say the very profound! "Ultimately we are the ones that form our own destiny."

If the first part is true then why is this an issue?

The anti's use every tactic in the book to pit one animal use group against the other! Probably the only thing more ingrained in human than hunting it pointing the finger at someone else when the heats on!

While there are many "good points" made on the many facets to this discussion, (it's not a black and white 2 sided issue) the reality is that it is all based upon the false premise!

"should canned hunting be banned?"

Answer: If its canned its not hunting!

subtext: Killing is a whole different question and in this instance it would have to do with property rights, horticulture and many other slippery slopes.

Instead of analizing the premise we take the bait and run. Then we being the type that likes a good sporting fight we take turns reeling ourselves in!

Score: antis way ahead - Hunters running the wrong way!

Controling our own destiny by throwing our weaker to the wolves will only feed the wolves thus making them stronger and apt to return for more!

Respectfully

Mike Ohlmann
Mike's Custom Taxidermy
4102 Cane Run Rd
Louisville KY 40216
info@mikescustomtaxidermy.com

To me this is a very simple question, not complicated at all.

If a hunter is unwilling to reveal the full truth of the methods used in his lion hunt and the true nature of his lion - to publish the full truth to the world - after his hunt is over, then he should not have hunted his lion in the first place - it was wrong.

How many of these hunters of tame lions in fenced enclosures come home and tell the unadulterated truth about their "safari"?

How many explain that their lion was raised from a cub by humans, acclimated to the presence of humans, made dependent upon humans - and then "released" by his tenders into a pen for the hunter to approach in a truck and shoot?

None. Because what they have done is shameful. And they damned well know it.

Hey, hey, hey! Look at what just was announced on Don Causey's the Hunting Report!

Looks like John Jackson at Conservation Force is right on top of the lion issue!

Let the process begin . . .

*******************************************

Guide To Aging Lions Is Now Available
(posted March 2007)

Conservation Force has finally completed its field guide on how to age and judge African lion trophies. The guide is the culmination of two years of work and includes hundreds of color photographs and contributions from 19 of the top African lion specialists in the world. It was a collaborative effort between Conservation Force and Savannas Forever, an organization we have worked with from its inception. It is the first, foremost and most authoritative work of its kind. It is of extreme value to every safari hunter and non-hunter alike. There has never been such a beautifully depicted, informative and useful guide to the king of the beasts. The colorful guide is designed to be taken into the bush or to be on a coffee table.
Safari Press, a long-time supporter of Conservation Force, has published the field guide. It is available from them and from The Hunting Report at www.huntingreport.com. Tel. 800-272-5656. Cost is $16.95, plus $5.95 shipping within the US; $8.95 international. Royalties from the sale of each guide go to Conservation Force for its continuing African lion projects. Conservation Force leaders serve on both the Cat Specialist Group of IUCN and the African Lion Working Group for the good of all.

The Hunter’s Guide is a guide to making trophy selection. It contains the most scientifically up-to-date data on judging the age of African lion. The foremost scientific experts in Eastern and Southern Africa joined together with Conservation Force to provide the best available information. The objective was to apply science for better or the best hunting practices.

This is part of a larger collaborative effort between Conservation Force and the African lion scientific community. Conservation Force has led the hunting community’s increased efforts to conserve the African lion with dozens of projects and programs across most of Africa, predating the Kenya listing proposal in Bangkok at CITES COP 13. Tourist hunting has a critical role to play in conserving lion beyond the borders of protected areas and protected-area lions when they seasonally range out from those areas. Most existing lion habitat and prey are in Africa’s tourist hunting areas. We are focused on these areas beyond the protection of park boundaries. In those areas, tourist trophy hunting can maximize the value of lions to both the authorities and local people who will ultimately determine its fate. Moreover, the biological consequences of taking lions can be minimized if all lions taken are six years of age or older. For example, the cubs of most pride males are generally old enough to survive pride takeover if the pride male has reached six years of age when removed. The strategy of limiting the harvest to older males is in harmony with tourist trophy hunting, and it raises the esteem of this important “Big Five†game species. It is believed to be the best management practice at this time.

More trophy lions will be available if young males are spared to grow older. The overall take will be less because fewer lion live to the age of six or more, though that is only an incidental consequence. The whole lion population will be more robust due to the survival of more cubs. It’s time that safari hunters stop settling for anything less than a mature lion. Who has more to lose than the safari hunting world if African lions don’t survive?

The guide aims to increase the conservation value of lions as well as serve as an aid to hunters. The fact of being a game animal can serve a species well. Being a true trophy serves it even better.
Conservation Force is endeavoring to better forge hunting into a force for conservation. We know and promise that all will find the guide useful, and we wish fellow hunters luck in their quest to genuinely make the king of beasts a memorable part of their life experiences.

Conservation Force contracted the guide that was authored by Karyl L. Whitman and Craig Packer. It could not have been completed without the guidance of Craig Packer, and is a fundamental part of Savannas Forever. It is one more important step in our effort to establish best hunting practices and tweak hunting as a force for conservation. It also demonstrates the hunting world’s good faith to the scientific community as we work together to save beasts at risk because of conflicts with man. The Guide was primarily funded by Conservation Force with help from Dallas Safari Club, the International Council of Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), the International Professional Hunters Association (IPHA), the Rann-Force Program (Rann Safaris), and the Chancellor International Wildlife Fund that has helped fund so many of our projects and programs. The principle reviewers were myself, Luke Hunter of WCS, George Hartley, Markus Borner, Debbie Peake, Shane Mahoney, David Erickson, Sarel van der Merwe, Philippe Chardonnet, Bertrand des Clers and Dr. Craig Packer of the Serengeti Lion Project and Savannas Forever. The true list of contributors goes on and on and includes most of the top African lion authorities of today.

Special thanks are also due four prominent advertisers at the back of the book that helped offset the printing and distribution costs of the publication: Sports Afield magazine, Animal Artistry, W.J. Jeffery & Co. Ltd. London, and LEGENDARY ADVENTURES, Inc.

quote:

Originally posted by UsanguSafaris:
Bwanamich,

I agree with you in some parts. An experienced PH should be able to tell an old lion from a young lion. However, for the lion aging process and theory to really work, there needs to be mandatory worshops for PHs to attend as a condition of licensing. However, I don't think this will happen.

Usangu, at the insistence of the 2 main associations, TAHOA and TPHA, the Game dpt has no reason to not adopt such workshops and make them a part of the licensing process.

quote:

Another fact is that a true age of a lion can only be determined after the fact, only when one decides to x-ray the second molar.

I know what you mean, but for the better understanding of those that are reading this, even x-raying the 2nd PRE-MOLAR, DOES NOT determine the exact age of a particular lion. it is still a calculated guesstimate.

quote:

I have placed condition on my PHs to take extra caution when hunting lions, but I believe this is difficult to police especially when tips from clients are a consideration by the PH.

You have stated a point that happens all the time. The fact is, you are the employer of your PH's and you should control their actions. They don't like it, they can leave. Plenty other good Ph's around looking for a job.

quote:

Also, to really know all of the lions in ones area, a field study and population sample is necessary. I have seen alfa males go alone and hunt. Some maybe be drawn by bating. The only way for this to be effective, a real study of the lions in a particular area must be done. Given the cost to conduct such studies, very few outfitter will be willing to do it.

You are correct in principle. However, most outfitters have been operating in their current concessions for close to a decade and their PH's, field mgrs etc should have a reasonable idea of the main lion prides in these concessions. The same way they use this knowledge to influence their annual quota allocation for other species, they can do the same for lion quotas. How many outfitters do you know of that have asked for a reduction of their allocated lion quota? Probably not many. The main point is that in the long term, if you still want to be selling quality lion hunts, some investment into research of population sizes and distribution needs to be carried out. Expensive? Not as much as a loss in revenue due to not being able to sell lion hunts anymore 5 years down the line

quote:

Another problem is that many people, especially in Africa, only care about today, and careless what happens tomorrow. For outfitters, the survival of lions is crutial, but I don't think it is the same for PHs, who do most of the work in the field on behalf of the outfitter

Exactly! But this is more a philosophy of the non-educated. Outfitters should NOT fall in this category of thinking and act accordingly. As for PH's, if such individuals are under your employment and hence control, they can easily be converted if they value job security.

[/QUOTE]
Exactly! But this is more a philosophy of the non-educated. Outfitters should NOT fall in this category of thinking and act accordingly. As for PH's, if such individuals are under your employment and hence control, they can easily be converted if they value job security.[/QUOTE]

Bwanamich,

I agree on what you are saying. we have taken steps to educate PHs on the importance of conservation. We are conservative on the usage of our lion quota. But, I believe only a few outfitters in TZ are taking this approach. For any proposal on lions to be effective, all outfitters need to work together for a common goal. But I see very little cooperation among outfitters in TZ. TAHOA is a good start, but I think it can be better. One thing I don't agree with TAHOA and TPHA is that they hold their annual meeting at the SCI show in US, which I can safely say less than 40% of the outfitters attend the show and less than 20% of all TZ PHs attend the show. For TZ operators and PHs to be successful, these annual meetings need to be held in TZ instead of outside the country, where key conservation proposals can be discussed including implementation of some workshops.