I recently had the chance to sit and chat with a Professional Hunter and an ex game warden who now runs a private hunting concession. The subject very quickly turned to canned hunts etc. All of us expressed a distaste for canned hunts or for any hunt that an animal is effectively held captive for the sole purpose of being shot. During the discussion I pointed out that every hunter had their own preferences and that many felt it was ok to participate in such activities as long as they didnt claim the animal as free ranging game. The ex Game warden had a very interesting point which I thought I would share with you and get some feedback on.

He pointed out that on "normal" hunts , where animals are pursued across fairly large areas and can escape , a fairly large amount of the money paid by the client contributed toward the perpetuation, protection, research etc etc of the animals in that area. He further stated, that very little money from canned hunts ever went toward the same causes. He stated that in his experience, the vast majority of Hunters were devout conservationists who enjoy the fact that their money plays a positive role in conservation. He asked the question as to what percentage of money, if any, generated by canned hunts, ever went anywhere other than private individuals pockets(or toward buying additional animals to make even more money off)

As none of us knew , or even had the faintest idea, I wondered what AR members take on this would be, and if in fact anyone out there could perhaps provide details or even a differing view point.

quote:

large amount of the money paid by the client contributed toward the perpetuation, protection, research etc etc of the animals in that area. He further stated, that very little money from canned hunts ever went toward the same causes.

This brings forward socio-economic agruements, all centered around whether a government or the private sector BEST benefit the ALL the participants .

I'll take the private side always.

One cannot deny the positive impact ranch hunting has had in ZA. The ranchers, the local citizens, the animals....all have and continue to benefit.

Our ZA members should provide some views on what it might be like without private enterprise having taken the lead.

Bobgrow
I certainly agree that pvt enterprise is and will always be the only way to effectively manage Africas wildlife. I also certainly dont consider ranch hunting to be canned hunting by any stretch of the imagination. Whilst animals are fenced, most ranches are fairly substantial and populations are bred to create a take off number of animals every year.

I think the point that we are trying to get some feedback on is simply how big or small is the contribution to general wildlife by operators who offer canned hunts. Obviously you would have to use your own definition of canned . AS I said in my first post, this is a genuine attempt to get more information and opinion rather than a judgement of anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
I think the point that we are trying to get some feedback on is simply how big or small is the contribution to general wildlife by operators who offer canned hunts.

Intentional????.....little if any.
Unintended?.......arguably present.....

Brett

To some degree I would suppose the same argument could be made as to beef, swine or poultry farming. (In fact I think the anti’s make it all the time!) “…Private sector use and alleged abuse of animals for personal gain……!!!!”

The flip sides might consider that any monies infused into a region support the regional stability necessary for the tolerance of wildlife.

Best regards
Mike Ohlmann
Mike's Custom Taxidermy Inc.
4102 Cane Run Rd.
Louisville KY 40216
502-448-1309
Mike@mikescustomtaxidermy.com
www.mikescustomtaxidermy.com[/url]

The problem being what is a canned hunt and can anyone define EXACTLY (Chapter and Verse) what constitutes a canned hunt.

Is hunting at a waterhole a canned hunt !!

Does SCI the worlds largest hunting club have a legal definition of a canned hunt.

There are many questions and many opinions and one mans canned hunt is another mans trophy success.

I believe the phrase (canned hunt) is bandied around to create a negitive connotation in a lot of cases and the press just love it.

Cheers, Peter

the canned lion product may be many things, it may even be beneficial, but it is NOT hunting. you will find that the local hunters stronghly dissaprove of this being called hunting. if you want to take a lion in this manner then do so but be true to the hunting spirit dont call this hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
I also certainly dont consider ranch hunting to be canned hunting by any stretch of the imagination.

I would agree that ranch hunting is not canned hunting, but to a large extent is does have the same economic effect(or lack thereof).

In open hunting areas, whether private unfenced ranches or government wildlife area, game tends to thrive and overflows into surrounding areas.

In localities with high fenced ranches the game tends to be found only inside the fences.

Driving through Namibia you see a lot of game along the roadside in the unfenced farm regions, but you will see very little in the high fenced areas.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Balla Balla:


Is hunting at a waterhole a canned hunt !!

Not canned - unethical and in most places illegal

Does SCI the worlds largest hunting club have a legal definition of a canned hunt.

SCI accepts trophies taken on canned hunts - one assumes therefore that the term canned does not exist in their code of ethics.

There are many questions and many opinions and one mans canned hunt is another mans trophy success.

Absolutely - question of ego and lack of ethics.

I believe the phrase (canned hunt) is bandied around to create a negitive connotation in a lot of cases and the press just love it.

What kind of reaction would you expect when the Lion is being shampooed and blow dried one day, having some clown fondle its balls the next and on the third day gets blasted into eternity?

I think one must consider the historical significance of wildlife's fate speciaifcly in South Africa (since this is where most such activities exist) and the difference between say thirty years ago and today. Most game and buffalo specificly were nearly completely extripated in favor of agriculture in many areas where game thrives today even if only behind fences. With a growing (world wide) population agriculture will not diminish in importance. If wildlife/hunting is able to co-exist as an industry, actually competeing with normal agriculture on a Rand for Rand basis then it will. That cannot be a bad thing from the overall conservation persepctive!
The comparison between wildlife ranching and animal husbandry is valid. While the wildlife ranch is not as hands-on or regimented as a swine farm the ultimate result is the same - producing animals that can be sold at a profit. The size of the ranch, the way the animals are produced (natural reproduction on the land vs. put and take) and even the way the "hunt" is conducted all play a role in one's determination of the "ethicalness" of the operationa dn hunt. Some aspects make an operation immeidiately suspect but others tend toward the proverbial slippery slope. American Bison "hunts" are frequently conducted in much less ethical fashion than even most S.A. Lion shoots but we hear little outcry about that!

Oupa- Extremely well said. +1000

Yeah no one seems to care about shooting bison, but hey, they are not Iconic African Species, my thought it is no one cares about ANGUS cattle, hell have you heard what they are doing, people raise them in pens, and then run them into a shoot and kill them...just to eat. Can you believe that? And they call it food...

I was in South Africa in Oct. I saw an area that raises lion for hunting. They said it is law that the lions have to be "chipped" and let in the wild for 6 months before being hunted. IS that the rule or hearsay?

It is unfortunate that at least here in the States various wildlife agencies that wish to ”stem the diversion of funds” and thus protect their funding sources and subsequent jobs by creating a monopoly have defined the term "Hunting" in statute to include any form of shooting or pursuit of certain species. For instance Indiana DNR has defined nearly all animals other than cows as wildlife whether they ever existed in the wild in the state or not and prohibited pursuing them or shooting them by other than the land owner. Oh they did exclude the noble American Bison as that alternative livestock group has a strong lobby!!!!

I agree that pen shooting of animals should not be called hunting and believe that this Carte Blanche accepting of the animal rights (anti’s) terminology is probably the crux of the issue. Instead of us taking their bait and wrestling with the so called “ethics” I think we hunters would be wise to stick to arguing the grammatical issue, as I see no winners in one animal use group throwing another under the bus to save themselves.

To say it is “ethical” to shoot a wild and free creature and not ethical to shoot one imprisoned in a pen would probably not win in the courts of wide public opinion any quicker than saying killing in general is cruel but catch and release (via hook and line) would be a humane alternative or any of the other diatribe they concoct to create a debate with the sole purpose of whittling away at the edges of the entire animal use arena.

Best regards
Mike Ohlmann
Mike's Custom Taxidermy Inc.
4102 Cane Run Rd.
Louisville KY 40216
502-448-1309
Mike@mikescustomtaxidermy.com

eyeman, 6 apeal judges overuled all that early Dec.

Why the existance of the lion farming industry in the first Place. This is partly due to the global demand for lions but more the cost of sustaining a lion or pride under natural conditions.

If we want a 6year old < lion to hunt, as we all do, this lion has to eat alot to get there. Lets say 1 blesbuck size animal (150pounds) per week @$150/buck. Thats $46,000 of meat to get just one male to a trophy size.
If you add 1 or 2 females that have to eat, but wont get shot, you can be heading for a $100,000 meat bill for say 1 male and 2 females from cub to 6-8years old.

In the wild, say the selous, no one is adding up the cost of the meat, because it is a renewable resource and you cant grow cattle there instead.

On smaller private land, you are competing with other land use alternatives that wont cost you 52 blesbuck to put a year on a not quite mature lion.

So why do we have lion farming if it does not appear to be profitable? well you need cheap meat, and if you look where many lion farms are in SA, there are many beef feedlots and cattle ranchs in the areas (Northwest and Freestate). A dead cow or 2 can feed a few lions for a while and this may often be for a nominal cost.

This may be why some of the lion breeders are opposing the 2 year release period into a large area where they may often need to catch their own food (104 x blesbuck =$15,000). Hence them saying it would be unprofitable.
Without a steady supply of cheap meat, there really would not be a lion breeding industry to this extent.