quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:


and don't forget:

You are just pissed they do't let you hunt with your F-18 any longer...

THAT most definitely would NOT have been ethically sporting!

quote:

Originally posted by McStern:
Dear all

many thanks for your answers!

your answers were exceptionally good. Having read them, I have concluded for myself that indeed it is a question of ethics. I want to be able to shoot so well that my quarry is killed reliably with the first shot and quickly. If an animal is wounded, I want to be able to spoor the animal, i.e. find the place where I hit it and then follow. At long distances especially the latter should be very hard. Thereby extending (potentially) the time until I can dispatch the animal and stop its pain.

thanks again for all your answers!

McStern

And remember that it only applies to YOUR ethics.

No one else's.

Ganyana,

I appreciate your post sir, well written and catches the "essence" of the ethical boundaries. One should be bound not only by the rules and laws, but by some inner sense of right and wrong. And that can, and should be different for everyone, and for some situations as well.

For example:

2nd DG hunt for buffalo - had the double in my hands, tracked for a couple days one particular batch of bulls, fully intending to shoot him up close and personal. Alas, only shot presented was almost 100 yards, moving, thru a small window, before the bulls went out into an open area, virtually impossible to approach. Made a good open sight shot, bull dropped, everyone agreed it was good. The tracker jumped about five feet high, said something roughly translated as " this SOB can shoot!!! ". Wrong tool for the job, but had the needed at-bats to know I had that shot, and was very OK taking it.

Next year, laying on belly with feet in Chobe River, waiting on herd of buff to cross in front of us, going from Namibia back to Bots. Had a scoped 375, had planned to pot the big boy about 80 yards out, but never got the opening. DID manage to get a shot about 15 feet away, with PH muttering it was time to do something, about 30 yards out. Again, wrong tool for the job, as the task developed, but was able to make it work. No less satisfaction in EITHER bull, both were worked for and pursued over several days time.

By the way, that baboon thing sounds like a marvelous idea! I'm good out to 600 off sticks sitting, or way beyond off a tripod. Got any openings?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
T here are a lot of ways one can classify hunting - non is necessarily right or wrong.

Take a bow hunter.

He is forced by his choice of equipment to get close to his animals.

He is unable to hunt at any distances that rifle hunters are able to.

He accepts that, as it was his choice.


Those who use open sighted rifles have similar disadvantages, and again, they do accept it as their choice.

Those who chose to use a rifle with a scope, are at a much less of an advantage, as the only limitation to them are are the gun they use and their own limitations.

Among all the above, there are those who really should never even GO hunting, as they are incapable of killing anything at any distance.

Bottom line is, if it takes your fancy, and it is legal, do it.

And don't pay a hoot to what anyone else says.

Just enjoy YOUR hunt

This!

A hunter or a shooter??

I am a hunter when I am tracking or stalking an animal.

I turn into a shooter to kill it.

So I am both, and proud of it

I hunt. I get as close as necessary. Closer is better, but things get in the way. When you are close enough, you take the shot or you go home.

Let's not debate the issue here. Let's not let this become like the political forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
A hunter or a shooter??

I am a hunter when I am tracking or stalking an animal.

I turn into a shooter to kill it.

So I am both, and proud of it

perhaps the best description I have ever heard--