quote:

I think we should unite to stand a chance against the opposition.

We have hunted South Africa twice, and enjoyed it.

We knew what it was before we started, so there were no surprises.

It does not compare with hunting in the wild, but it is still better than nothing.

Which is what we will end up if we continue supporting the antis.

Plus one.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Hopefully this will draw Peter Flack back!

You got your wish.

Well, it is Christmas!

https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...fforts/#.WjeHmFWWZhE

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Agree, but if we unite for poorly thought out ethics or message, we all fall.

+1 . . . so sad to see fellow hunters stand for the lowest common denominator when it comes to hunting, i.e., whatever is legal goes. Whenever society adopts such an approach of dumbing down activities to accommodate the least educated, the lowest quality standard, the least sophisticated, the lowest level of taste, etc. we are all diminished.

So sad to see fellow hunters delude themselves into believing we are winning the war against the anti hunters by pretending we're engaged in a popularity contest.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
So sad to see fellow hunters delude themselves into believing we are winning the war against the anti hunters by pretending we're engaged in a popularity contest.

+1 . . . it is about educating and ensuring that the vast majority of the public, those indifferent to hunting and agnostic toward hunting, at worst remain that way. Tough to do while defending the propriety of and engaging in practices like canned lion shooting.

I totally agree that public education is wonderful. Not that it matters one iota to the anti-hunters and their diligent work to end ALL forms of hunting in Africa, but we all should work to educate the uneducated.

Now, to the issue of protecting our hunting rights, we're not at all engaged in a public relations war. We are at war with those who want to end hunting - period. I see no benefit in helping them win that war one step at a time.

Today captive bred lion shooting, tomorrow high fenced farm shooting, and next week, hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
So sad to see fellow hunters delude themselves into believing we are winning the war against the anti hunters by pretending we're engaged in a popularity contest.

+1 . . . it is about educating and ensuring that the vast majority of the public, those indifferent to hunting and agnostic toward hunting, at worst remain that way. Tough to do while defending the propriety of and engaging in practices like canned lion shooting.

+1. I’m not sure why the above sentiment seems so unreachable by so many.

I see no difference in hunting lions or plains game behind a fence. Fenced lion hunting has been going on for years with little objection. I think the animal rights people have found an easy target and are whipping up public sentiment against the practice. Professional groups and hunters are playing into their hands by condemning canned lion hunting. The antis win this one, what's next?

Dave

quote:

I see no difference in hunting lions or plains game behind a fence. Fenced lion hunting has been going on for years with little objection. I think the animal rights people have found an easy target and are whipping up public sentiment against the practice. Professional groups and hunters are playing into their hands by condemning canned lion hunting. The antis win this one, what's next?

That is another side of the whole issue that some folks do not want to address.

One of the first concepts that needs to be realistically addressed by "Hunters", and I am not sure it is an issue anyone wants to address, but what is it that defines a "Real Hunter" and how are the ones that aren't weeded out?

quote:

Originally posted by nopride2:
I see no difference in hunting lions or plains game behind a fence. Fenced lion hunting has been going on for years with little objection. I think the animal rights people have found an easy target and are whipping up public sentiment against the practice. Professional groups and hunters are playing into their hands by condemning canned lion hunting. The antis win this one, what's next?

Dave

They are only winning it because we are not just allowing them to, but positively helping them!

Isn't it in a court of law that precedent is used as an example??

They will say "why bann farm bred lions if you are not going to ban these too? All are farm bred, so this cannot be called hunting"

Who among us will stand up and decry all killing of animals raised just to be killed? The Pennsylvania pigeon shoots, the raising of wildebeest to be targets of hunters, the raising of chickens and turkeys for the sole purpose of being eaten-------whoops. All of a sudden, the ethics get blurred a bit, don't they.

quote:

Originally posted by muttleysgone:
Who among us will stand up and decry all killing of animals raised just to be killed? The Pennsylvania pigeon shoots, the raising of wildebeest to be targets of hunters, the raising of chickens and turkeys for the sole purpose of being eaten-------whoops. All of a sudden, the ethics get blurred a bit, don't they.

Stop muddying the water!

Don’t you realize that some believe using a scope to kill animals is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting a buffalo at 100 yards is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting off the back of a truck in South Africa unethical?

I can go on and on and on.

Nowadays it seems some people think they can ram their convoluted form of so called “ethics” down everyone else’s throats.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

They are only winning it because we are not just allowing them to, but positively helping them!

100% correct . . . and practices like canned lion shooting and incidents like Cecil are prime examples of how hunters themselves are aiding and abetting the anti-hunting groups.

Cecil is more of an example of the media twisting reality to further their anti-hunting agenda.

IMO...

But otherwise I agree...

quote:

Stop muddying the water!

Don’t you realize that some believe using a scope to kill animals is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting a buffalo at 100 yards is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting off the back of a truck in South Africa unethical?

I can go on and on and on.

Nowadays it seems some people think they can ram their convoluted form of so called “ethics” down everyone else’s throats.

Truer words were never spoken.

It is sad that so many people love to hunt and claim they want to see hunting preserved for future generations, but only if iot is conducted according to their Personal Code of what they believe are ETHICAL means.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

Cecil is more of an example of the media twisting reality to further their anti-hunting agenda.

. . . well let’s see . . . we had a hunter that had twice been convicted of game law violations hunting a collared lion on the boundary of a national park where there had been a quota swap not technically allowed under Zim law who along with his PH attempted to conceal evidence of the kill. How could anyone ever question whether that was all kosher?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Stop muddying the water!

Don’t you realize that some believe using a scope to kill animals is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting a buffalo at 100 yards is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting off the back of a truck in South Africa unethical?

I can go on and on and on.

Nowadays it seems some people think they can ram their convoluted form of so called “ethics” down everyone else’s throats.

Truer words were never spoken.

It is sad that so many people love to hunt and claim they want to see hunting preserved for future generations, but only if iot is conducted according to their Personal Code of what they believe are ETHICAL means.

It's mind-boggling to me that people can't see that an agreeable and sustainable code of ethics is a good thing for wildlife, hunters, and hunting. The idea that there is a code of behavior that should govern hunters' behavior and management practices is not a new thing, and was a primary concern (mainly the former) of the much vaunted EAPHA when it was founded in the 30s. To devolve into the postmodern BS of "everyone sets their own ethics" in an activity where one person's negative behavior directly affects another person is foolish. We are not talking about what goes on in the privacy of your own home, we are talking about what goes on in the public eye (if you doubt this, you haven't been paying attention), and if you want to get picky, with *some* of the public's money (via gov't supported management), and with potentially (and generally publicly owned) vulnerable species. If trying to raise ethics to the point where they can be defended by something other than "it's none of your business," makes one a bad person, consider me bad. The very hunters of old we hold in such high regard as exemplars of *real* hunters would agree. Finch Hatton, Ker and Downey, Ionides, Adamson, et al. - all were as concerned as much for the whole as for the one.

Let me add this too: I think it's worth considering why someone would engage in what many consider an unethical way. What do they think they are gaining? Why not hunt (say, lion) in a wild, free, and demanding way? Don't we often talk about the value of something being determined by the effort to obtain/achieve it? We seem to do this in just about every (other) aspect of life. I think it says something that people desire to obtain something in a cheap way in order to claim they have achieved something of great value. And I don't think that is a positive thing.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

Cecil is more of an example of the media twisting reality to further their anti-hunting agenda.

. . . well let’s see . . . we had a hunter that had twice been convicted of game law violations hunting a collared lion on the boundary of a national park where there had been a quota swap not technically allowed under Zim law who along with his PH attempted to conceal evidence of the kill. How could anyone ever question whether that was all kosher?

I wrote a lengthly response and then deleted it...I realized we've been over the ground many times before. You can be right about Dr. Palmer...he's a d-bag from what I hear from my Minnesota brothers and besides..there is a more important fight to focus on. Hunting rights...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by muttleysgone:
Who among us will stand up and decry all killing of animals raised just to be killed? The Pennsylvania pigeon shoots, the raising of wildebeest to be targets of hunters, the raising of chickens and turkeys for the sole purpose of being eaten-------whoops. All of a sudden, the ethics get blurred a bit, don't they.

Stop muddying the water!

Don’t you realize that some believe using a scope to kill animals is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting a buffalo at 100 yards is unethical?

Do you realize that some believe shooting off the back of a truck in South Africa unethical?

I can go on and on and on.

Nowadays it seems some people think they can ram their convoluted form of so called “ethics” down everyone else’s throats.

Exactly my point, Saeed. There are those who believe that their personal view of things is the only possible rational view. Mostly I do not like to share campfires or bourbon with such folks.

Enough about lions, let's talk about the ethics of trapping...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Enough about lions, let's talk about the ethics of trapping...

Or ..... Leopard over dogs ....

How about baiting leopard and lions?

Let us not stop there now, as I can see the vegetable brained idiots are calling for all meat to be banned!

Their new moto is "if you love it, why kill it?"

A friend went with us hunting in Zimbabwe years ago.

He had a fantastic time, shot a few animals, and proudly displayed his trophy photos in his home office.

A little while later, they all disappeared!

I asked him what happened.

"My daughter insisted I remove them!"

"And you AGREED?"

A few days later, I met his daughter at a sailing club we both belonged to.

She was lying on the beach getting a sun tan, when a waiter appeared with her lunch.

A club sandwich!

"Are you going to eat that?" I asked.

"Yes, it is my lunch."

"Do you realize that egg in there is an unborn chicken. And that rasher of bacon belonged to a little piggy which was running round a farm a few days ago? They had to KILL it so you can enjoy your club sandwich. How about that tomato? It looks like it is still bleeding! May be it is still alive! Are you seriously going to enjoy all that after all the misery you have created by your choice of lunch?"

"OH SHUT UP! Go away! Why are you here to just BOTHER me?"

"I am not here to bother you. Just pointing out your own hypocrisy. And I am going to sit here and enjoy watching you munching on all that you hate others doing to animal. Go on enjoy your lunch! I am going to order roast chicken and join you. I remember when we used to kill our own chickens. They keep jumping up and down for ages after we cut off their heads"

She could not eat her lunch, and soon packed up and left!

Hehe .... that's would one might call a "Royal Ball Busting" over a club sandwich.