This is the last straw!! It is unkind to call me lardass. Insults are raining down and I am going to CHANGE. I am going on a diet in April!!

I think the reason for all the fat hunters is because as others have said older poeple are the ones that have the time and money to go to Africa and other expencive hunts and they have probably earned their right to be fat if they choose to be so I have no problem with it. But I have no use for fenced hunts at all. Even though due to a car accident I am now in a wheelchair I would never hunt in a fence accept maybe to hunt an exotic species because I doubt I will ever be able to afford Africa. Being in a wheelchair I still was able to shoot two deer an elk and a bear and a bunch of grouse that's no excuse to hunt in a fence. I just had to spend a lot more time and effort for success than most people would have had to but the thrill of success is that much more thrilling.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I've not had one animal check my body mass before I shot it. It's a good thing though, as they probably would have said I'm too fat.

Mike

The way I understood BDM's point was that the fat guys were just the icing on the cake for fenced hunting, and shooting from vehicles. Not that being overweight procludes you from ethical hunting or putting in the"hard yard's" as they say in NZ. It's just that all three are often seen together. There is a certain sort of hunter/shooter that wants a certain sort of trophy and is prepared to pay for it in preference to getting out and earning it.
Inevitably if one pays for the privilege of hunting a certain animal in a certain place, a degree of success is hoped for, or even expected. That's why we have guides/PHs. But there is a balance, and individuals are different, with differing abilities.
In New Zealand hunting there is a BIG debate about touring hunters/shooters shooting Thar and other trophies after being dropped off at the top of the mountain by helicopter, having already spotted the animal, and then often flying over to where they shot it.

Kinda like watching a car crash or train wreck or something ain't it...

Mama always said fatty is as fatty does....

quote:

Originally posted by 40-65: Being in a wheelchair I still was able to shoot two deer an elk and a bear and a bunch of grouse...I just had to spend a lot more time and effort for success than most people would have had to but the thrill of success is that much more thrilling.

Congratulations on your accomplishments! I wish you many more enjoyable and successful hunts in the future.

I hunted feral hogs once in Texas behind a high fence, about 2 section worth. At one time in the hunt I was looking for a hole in the damn thing. Those mesquites just weren't that high enough. Pigs have no ethics at all. Overweight scum that they are. I figure they deserve killin.

Interesting that we're on page two and Mr. Bulldog has yet to respond. I tell ya, it's stressful. I think I'll go have a Twinkie so I'll feel better.

quote:

Originally posted by yellowstone:
I hunted feral hogs once in Texas behind a high fence, about 2 section worth. At one time in the hunt I was looking for a hole in the damn thing. Those mesquites just weren't that high enough. Pigs have no ethics at all. Overweight scum that they are. I figure they deserve killin.

Interesting that we're on page two and Mr. Bulldog has yet to respond. I tell ya, it's stressful. I think I'll go have a Twinkie so I'll feel better.

I believe Mr. BULLdog is busy. He found a soulmate on this threat with daleW. Why, at this very moment, they are probably holding a "Deliverance Reinactors" meeting.

Some people have great genetics. Others don't. Some people have the gift of great health their entire lives, while others deal with various diseases and afflictions. Some people live stress free lives, while others deal with more than their share of turmoil and strife.

I have found that it is foolish to prejudge a person unless you have walked a while in their shoes. And if you judge a book by its cover, you will be wrong 99% of the time.

As far as ethics goes, anything other than legal restrictions ends up being purely personal. Guys in some states hunt deer with dogs, while guys in other states would shoot a dog chasing a deer as their ethical obligation.

I get the sense that Mr. Dog got a full blown case of jelousy when he opened the latest SCI magazine and saw pictures of hunters knocking off game he has only dreamed of hunting. The small mind must find some rationale for such an injustice, Mr. Dog certainly came up with his. How dare someone not meeting his physical standards shell out their hard earned and saved cash to bag the kind of game that gets featured in a magazine. Must be something unethical going on.

While I may not agree with the overall tone or the semantics of the original post, I do agree there is a point being made that most are overlooking. You can learn a lot about an organization like SCI from the magazine they produce. You see incredibly little emphasis on the ethics of the hunt in their magazine. If you are interested in the biggest set of horns by any means short of illegal poaching, they are your group. By definition, some see the route to the "biggest" as simply opening their check book and buying it, even if it is on a very small "estate".
I agree that the overall emphasis seen in the SCI magazines is offensive. I no longer belong for this and other reasons. This doesn't mean they don't do some good. On balance, they don't do enough good to earn my dues. I choose to belong and contribute elsewhere.

Recognizing the image that a publication portrays about its membership shouldn't be rocket science. So however poorly conveyed, I agree with the sentiment behind the original post.
Bill

LP - Maybe you, Dale W. and Bulldog can start a whole new, perfect orgainization and publish the perfect magazine?? When your membership reaches the size of SCI and Dallas Safari Club we will all join (except the fat folks) and live happily ever after!! Don't simply bash the best we have out there without providing at least some form of alternative.

Larry Sellers
Life Member SCI

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
While I may not agree with the overall tone or the semantics of the original post, I do agree there is a point being made that most are overlooking. You can learn a lot about an organization like SCI from the magazine they produce. You see incredibly little emphasis on the ethics of the hunt in their magazine. If you are interested in the biggest set of horns by any means short of illegal poaching, they are your group. By definition, some see the route to the "biggest" as simply opening their check book and buying it, even if it is on a very small "estate".
I agree that the overall emphasis seen in the SCI magazines is offensive. I no longer belong for this and other reasons. This doesn't mean they don't do some good. On balance, they don't do enough good to earn my dues. I choose to belong and contribute elsewhere.

Recognizing the image that a publication portrays about its membership shouldn't be rocket science. So however poorly conveyed, I agree with the sentiment behind the original post.
Bill

Interesting! The original poster made 3 points, however, only one of these really stirred up the hornets nest, the comment about fat boys. The other two have frequently been raised on this forum by others, but I guess thats OK. This guy isn't "one of us" yet so he can't raise it. Yet I have rather frequently seen post about people "getting in shape" for their African hunt. Obviously many of us are aware that we are not in prime condition. What's the problem? We don't like being called on it? Several folks have explained why. Personal injury, age etc. Perhaps the real reason is that it is just not high enough up on our priority list. Whats wrong with that? We all make value choices. And then, to show our class we say "Get lost asswipe". Nice touch!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
While I may not agree with the overall tone or the semantics of the original post, I do agree there is a point being made that most are overlooking. You can learn a lot about an organization like SCI from the magazine they produce. You see incredibly little emphasis on the ethics of the hunt in their magazine If you are interested in the biggest set of horns by any means short of illegal poaching, they are your group. By definition, some see the route to the "biggest" as simply opening their check book and buying it, even if it is on a very small "estate".

The key here is the word "INTERNATIONAL" in SCI's title! What is ethical in one part of the world is not considered ethical in another!
Like you there are many things I agree with BulldogMaster about, to one degree or another, but SCI doesn't have that privilege, because they must be the INTERNATIONAL club that caters to all cultures! That means if an animal was taken by legal means where it was taken, then it qualifies, for one or the other of the categories! You or I, don't have to agree with it, but if it is legal and you don't want to participate, then don't, but don't think thatthey have to agree with your, or Mr. Bulldog’s or my ethics, either.

Anyone who thinks their ethics should be the rule for everyone, is the same kind of person who thinks a person shouldn't be allowed to hunt because he is fat, or Black, or in a wheelchair! In other words a bigot!

quote:

I agree that the overall emphasis seen in the SCI magazines is offensive. I no longer belong for this and other reasons. This doesn't mean they don't do some good. On balance, they don't do enough good to earn my dues. I choose to belong and contribute elsewhere.

And that is your right, and is the tact Mr. Dog should have taken, rather that bad mouth every person his bigoted mind saw as repulsive to his eye!

quote:

Recognizing the image that a publication portrays about its membership shouldn't be rocket science. So however poorly conveyed, I agree with the sentiment behind the original post.
Bill

I don't think anyone here disagrees that many of the things he mentions in his post, are repulsive to one degree or another, but it is not my or his right to be an outright bigot, simply because he disagrees based on a person's physical conditioning, with any method that is legal, . Though this man is to owner of some ethical ideas, that fact is overshadowed by his bigotry, killing any real support anyone here has for any cause he will promote in future!

HIS POST WAS THE RAVING OF A "DO IT MY WAY OR DON'T HUNT" BIGGOT! No other way to say it!

Now, I'm off this thread! ........BYE

Mac37,
I don't mind the comments, and while I may generally agree that the post can be read as bigoted, the title of the thread IS a Rant. I think it is very interesting that many respondents are overly focused on the delivery, or perceived tone, rather than the central points. When someone labels their own post a rant, I don't expect it to be a balanced representation of even their own view. I can argue the other side of this and many issues, because few are entirely black and white. On balance, delivery aside, I may agree more with the original post than some others here.

--
And while I am known to others as far from a supporter of SCI, in a more "civil" thread I usually find myself in good company on AR. Yes, there are always the few that support SCI "right or wrong" because they are "the best", I just happen to disagree somewhat strenuously. And for those who always seem to want examples, two organizations I support strongly are NRA and RMEF. I am also happy to support DSC. I have been a member of SCI, but unless I see a drastic change in that organization (unlikely), I will never belong again. Not a big deal, there are other groups out there more closely aligned with my philosophy. And the magazine is a fair way to help identify those differences in philosophy.

I find the reference to "Internation hunting" and ethics particularly interesting. I am pretty much willing to live and let live in terms of what others percieve as ethical. I've tried a variety of hunting methods over the years, and know (to a degree) where my personal boundaries are. While I have no interest in being the "Ethics Police", whitewashing the choices some make just because it is "legal" is an injustice. To use a current example (blown out of proportion, BTW), should internet hunting be condoned, where you actually click your mouse to pull the trigger and shoot an animal half way around the world? What about letting your guide shoot your animal, while you wait in camp or even back in town. It IS legal in some international locations, you know. I don't expect agreement on even these two issues among all hunters (egregious though they are in my view), but to say we (or SCI) can't even discuss them because they are "legal" is disingenuous.

I don't know the original poster and don't support all his statements. I was rather amazed at the overwhelming backlash, however. I have come to generally expect better from AR. Although I frequent this site almost daily, I don't usually post a whole lot, because a fair number of threads serve only to imflane, rather than educate. I'm sorry if I have contributed in that vein on this thread. I did feel this thread needed a bit more balance, but I can be happy to let it alone.

Bill

Folks I just want to take a minute and apologize for my part in this rant. I had a very long 16 hour day with a lot people who think the world owes them a living. I was tired, frustrated and had a pounding headache. Then I came to one of my favorite places to relax at night before going to bed. Low and behold I find more of the type of attitude I had just put up with all day. On top of that I let this guy push my buttons because he hit a sensitive issue with me. Believe me when I say I understand the problem too well. I struggle with it every day. The safety of the internet emboldens one as this to say things they would never say in person.Bad for the health you know. Besides a true gentleman would never behave in such a manner.You just do not have the right to treat people in such a manner. The problem lies with the fact that anyone thinks the have a right to do so. At any rate I apologize for my part in this discussion. It was the delivery of the message in a manner Ifound to be very offensive that set me off. Actually I agree with a lot of his points. He lost me as a supporter because of the nature of that delivery. You are all willing to concede that apperances are important even if they often have no basis in fact. Therefore perception is everything and the delivery often means more than the message itself. It is often not what you say but how you say it that gets one into an uncomfortable situation. Now having said that I will relate a story of a thin short oriental get who wanted to hunt rhino in RSA We went along as observers and to take photo All the way to the farm where the beast was to be shot this guy was as nervous as a cat with his under a rocker.Finally got out of the interpretor tha this guy was carrying a day pack full of money to pay the landowner with. Then once we get there the landowner decides he dosnt want any cameras so we are told to stay back there when the others leave.We watched on spotting scopes it was quite interesting.The guy we called "Phred" after a viet cong charachter in a Doonesbury book. Anyway whe goes and promtly procedes to blow the shot and know we have a wounded rhino taking out for parts unknown. He could run quite well because "VC Phred" had shot him in the leg.Next thing I know Phred and his interpretor are back at camp. It seems they didnt want to go after te wounded rhino. "Let the phs do it is their job afterall" So Two young phs who I respect and like greatly have to track this thing down and dispatch it. It took the a day and a half to do so. All the While the mighty "phred"sat back in camp cooling his heals with a couple sundowners. Finally he got so impatient he and his inerpretor whent over to the land owner pulled out another satchel of money and arrange to go after a second rhino with one of the other phs. The guy succeeded somehow mostly do to the skill of the ph and a good dose of old fashioned blind ass luck. Then he didnt want anything but the horn. That also holds true for the one he wounded and the buys followed up and put down . Once that was done this guy couldnt wait to get out of the place FRankly the feelings were pretty much mutual all around It was on of the worst most irresponible acts in hunting I have ever witnessed in hunting.So it would appear that size or shape are not what is important in portraying ourselves it is how we conduct ourselves period. This is the worst example I know of personally so it is the one I used for my point. I am sure there are others much worse depending on whose ethics we are usingto measure them. So once again how something is percieved makes the judgement, the only difference is how it is recieved. You had some very good points but trashed it all with your delivery by alienating a lot of people who would have supported you had you not come across so offensive
Mike

Im already 7days into my 30day diet and if lost 3days so far

Howdy,

Very interesting discussion - I visit this site often, enjoy the various opinions however I rarely post.

I belong to SCI, don't attend the "convention" however enjoy the magazine because of the various stories, articles, and "mix" of people that write them and certainly the international flavor.

The posts at this thread are actually what I would have expected.

I personally think the hunting world would be much worse off without SCI than with it and I will continue to send in my 50 or 60 bucks a year so I get the magazine.

I'm curious to see how SCI deals with the "shooting Sheep and Moose out of the helicopter in Russia story" - is there going to be any type of formal response by SCI - are all entrys in the record book by the people (more than one) involed going to be removed? Perhaps this has all been taken care of and I missed it.

Adios

Sport

quote:

The other two have frequently been raised on this forum by others, but I guess thats OK. This guy isn't "one of us" yet so he can't raise it.

Sure he can, but his first comment is so outrageous why bother? Regardless, I'll comment:
On the last day of our hunt, my hunting parter had the only shot he was going to get at a kudu at over 350 yards and he was moving.

In order to save time, the PH allowed him to use the Toyota's roll bar as a rest and he made a hell of a shot.

Some places is Africa have lots of high fences, but they can cover areas in excess of 100K acres, so ostensibly that can be called "high fence" hunting.

The initial post was way too all-encompassing and poorly stated, so the rant {sic} was apropos. He's still a jackass on the way he addressed the weight issue.

Off to get another donut. jorge

/

quote:

The worst was an article about a wannabe sheep hunter who went knowing full well what was expected. He makes a long shot, then struggles back to camp because he is getting tired and dehydrated, letting the guide recover the sheep.

I feel that this is a fair subject for a "rant". If you are fat, and can complete the hunt, knock your self out, if you want your guide to do it, well......

well, i think we need to hear exactly what he said on the fat hunter statement. he was irritated that the hunter was so fat he couldn't follow up on his trophy. i think i'll take it as a given that he was not irritated at the idea of a hunter having a guide following up on a handicapped hunter's trophy or an elderly person's trophy that can't pursue it. lord knows i'll be hitting up africa with a very dependent and handicapped hunting bud in a couple short years. i sure don't need people being judgemental on him and help he'd require, but i think bulldog misspoke, i think fat isn't the term, but should've been said as needlessly out of shape. you can be in shape and a larger member of society.

that said, it was a rant, but this hard hunting no fence thing gets to me after awhile. sorry, but i don't plan to run around the mountains during elk season with yahoos from all over repeatedly shooting guides horses because they were large and brown and sound shooting, with my two young sons in tow. you can bet we hit private land or go to a ranch in our home state of texas, fence or not. i'm primarily an archer and i sure don't like some gun hunter telling me i have no business telling me i shouldn't hunt with a bow, out of ignorance. my part in this is to not tell anyone else how to hunt. if you want to shoot off of a truck, fine, do so. if you're too out of shape to walk and want to sit over bait or water......fine. have at it. i'll hunt my way and you hunt yours and we can all strengthen hunting in both numbers, money, and politically which will allow both of us to pursue game as we see fit. all the while, we'll all be appalled at the PETA and HUS hypocrites eating dead animals bought at the store.

As far as sheephunting goes, that is usually done at an altitude at which most people are not acclimated. And add the lower levels of oxygen to the fact that dehydration occurs quickly at altitude. Even a hunter in good shape can have trouble hunting at a higher altitude. People vary on how long it takes them to get acclimated, with age and physical condition among the factors.

The "rant" was by no means an intellectual analysis - it was a reaction to pictures in a magazine with more than a few assumptions thrown in; those assumptions spelled out very clearly on how he approached the issues in the first place.

He rants about a shot taken off the hood of a truck as a rest. In a desert. Not many rests in no man's land, and we don't know if the opportunity quickly presented itself or whether they ran the animal down in the truck and finished it off. If a quick target of opportunity, is the hood rest any worse than having a pair of shooting sticks thrown up to use?

Ranting is one thing. Jumping on a topic by name calling in the first few words is pure ignorance.

Howdy,

Well, I did not get the Jan/Feb issue of the SCI Magazine yet but I do have the last two previous copies.

I quickly looked through both issues to refresh my memory - here are my "observations" -

1. Father/Son international hunting stories.
2. Husband/Wife international and domestic hunting stories.
3. Unique(at least to this "middle class chubby hunter") international hunting stories - New Zealand and "big" Sheep for example.
4. Not a single photo (2 issues) of a "hunter" that was what I would classify as being "obese".
5. Excellent articles on knives and medical issues related to travel-both domestic and international.
6. Reasonable articles about a few rifles and an article about non-magnum cartridges.
7. No obvious hunt stories that I would consider unsporting or "canned".

My point - perceptions of SCI based on one single issue of the SCI magazine is not good judgement in my opinion - get a years worth of magazines and the "SCI newspaper" then make a judgement of the organization.

Adios

Sport

quote:

The "rant" was by no means an intellectual analysis

You should work for Webster's.

I have to admit that Bulldog's reaction to his first SCI magazine was similar to mine (animals of a size that one doesn't commonly find in the wild taken under circumstances that seem all too easy). I come from a background of open land western U.S. big game hunting and a lot of hard miles for some elk and deer of modest proportions but all very much free roaming. Right or wrong, I tend to view the hunting world through the lens of my own experience. The magazine, particularly the ads, often seems to feature a number of high fence, guaranteed hunts and animals (particularly red stag) that look more like genetically modified freaks than nature's own. (No, I have never hunted red stag in NZ or elsewhere so feel free to excoriate me for falsely assuming that wild stag don't usually have antlers the size of goalposts.) I have come to learn that there is a wide variety of experiences represented in the magazine, from extraordinarily demanding true wilderness hunts to experiences that have little appeal to me but legitimately might to many others. I read what interests me and ignore what doesn't. In any event, without wading into the merits, or lack thereof, of high fences, road hunting or personal fitness, I can only assume that Bulldog's initial reaction, and mine, are not unique. Pictures may not always tell the full story but they can say a lot of things, sometimes not the message about hunting we would all hope for. If the magazine is inadvertently conveying the wrong message, then maybe the organization needs to make changes that would more effectively convey what SCI stands for.

quote:

What will be left for me then since the Dinosaurs are no longer walking around

Sorry christer, I guess you are doomed to carry the cooler box.

Mike Smith,

quote:

quote:
What will be left for me then since the Dinosaurs are no longer walking around

Sorry christer, I guess you are doomed to carry the cooler box.

Happiness is a warm gun

Excellent, I hope Christer gets this one and since we will be hunting in a more rugged terrain with hills and valleys this year it should be quite a work out.

Should I buy a smaller coooler box Christer?

Like I said before.

[quote]You cannot assume that the big people cannot walk and stalk succesfully.
Rather take it out on that specific person in the mag than the rest of the hunters who will do anything work long hours and extra jobs just to get to Africa again. If it means that they don't have time to be super fit it's not the end of the world the end of the world would be not to come to Africa again. [quote]

I was doing some poking around onlne as this thread really seems to have stirred people up. At the end of the day, BullDogMaster seems to be complaining about a right and wrong way to do things (in this case hunting). He brings up a particularly interesting point in item number 2 of his post (Ethics). My read is that this is the heart of the matter. So, let's focus on it.

Ethics, as defined in the dictionary I consulted says: The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

Clearly, the particular group here is hunters. Admittedly, the hunting traditions I have been taught are non-codified; i.e. they are an oral tradition. Yet, most of us have receieved some of the same instructions from our mentors e.g., do not shoot unless assured of a killing shot. This is not written down anywhere yet is universally agreed upon by hunters.

Perhaps BDM's post points to a more troubling conclusion: in our sound-byte, me-centric culture, ethics are now values of a system of 1, freely applicable to the individual on a basis which suits him and his agenda, rather than their original intent which is to bind together a particular class or group (in our case, hunters).

If this is the case, then maybe an agreed upon, codified hunting ethic is prime fodder for discussion as a way to more closely define ourselves and our pursuit.

What do you think?

Couple points here. My main problem with any thread like this is sportsmen taking shots at other sportsmen. bulldog...we have enough opponents out there taking shots at us. We don't need to fire shots at one another....high fence vs. free range, compound bow vs. traditonal archers or cross bow hunters. It is silly and most definitely ignorant to think anyone who doesn't do it your way is doing it the wrong way. Ethics??? What is better....say you walk your butt off all day with blown stalks...hop in the rover and half way back to camp you see a 57 inch kudu standing 80 yards in the bush...you don't want to shoot from the truck so you dismount start your stalk and your bull gets nervous then you rush the shot you wound a magnificent beast who is eventually lost but slowly dead. Would you have been more ethical to cleanly kill him from the truck?
BTW I am 250 lbs. and a former college football player and amateur boxer. I am a goose guide now and carry load after load of gear through marsh and field every weekend. I have been hunting since I was old enough to tag along with my father... I always get a kick out of newly buff guys...you know the fellas who started working out in the last few years..riding mountain bikes, eating granola when they can barely get out of bed on day 2 of a hunt. It does not matter if it is field or mountain, lowveld or desert....the outdoors is not your stairmaster at the gym. Getting in shape is smart but don't disparage those who can't or choose not to...and don't assume every fat guy smiling behind a recently deceased trophy couldn't wear you out every day of the week.

Bulldogmaster,
Im not here to slash you,
Youve got to remember some Americans will get in their suv to go through the fast food drive through just a few hundred yds away..and some want the same lazy ass luxury when they hunt...walking is a strange pastime for many these days....except when they spend the occassional 15 frustrated minutes looking for the remote, when they could have gone directly to the tv and done it in 10 seconds.
I dont believe its restricted to FatBoys, Im sure Skinny folk have shot their SCI Thar with their special purpose built 6lb muzzlebraked 6.5/300weatherby wildcat at an amazing 500yd!.. from the helicopter drop off point.
Just have to accept that SCI has that portion of folk that will pay and do what ever they have too, to secure supreme bragging rights at the next convention.

For you guys who don't know Christer, he is only slightly smaller than a state (and Rhode Island ain't really a state).

I think he has consumed several species. He should only hunt krill.

I'm just glad that he likes me, 'cause he could mash my head like a pimple.

Time and tide wait for no man, except for The Viking! He creates them... and I've seen little people get sucked up in his wake when he passed by... kind of like a planet aquiring a moon. And you betcha that he's one of the good guys.

Dear Bulldog,

Repeat after me -

"I promise not to stir up "poop" whether on purpose or not for all of 2008"

Ok, you are forgiven (by some of us).

hmmmm...

too many jokes...

Darwins "survival of the fittest" did not put gunpowder in his formula.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
For you guys who don't know Christer, he is only slightly smaller than a state (and Rhode Island ain't really a state).

I think he has consumed several species. He should only hunt krill.

I'm just glad that he likes me, 'cause he could mash my head like a pimple.

Time and tide wait for no man, except for The Viking! He creates them... and I've seen little people get sucked up in his wake when he passed by... kind of like a planet aquiring a moon. And you betcha that he's one of the good guys.

I sure would have liked to be in Dallas and Reno this year to mess around, but I will have to next year.

Good desciption btw Judge, couldn't have said it better myself.

Hey Bull your my kind of guy don't hold back on your feelings or opinions and be ready to get full fledge fire in return. I found this out over the weekend. You see I am opinionated also, eh. In this case I don't agree with you. I am fat (down 50lbs and working), old and have a new knee so I din't go fast enough for your standards. Oh yes by the way the Judge snores strong enough to shake the whole Comfort Inn

I read this post before I went to the Dallas Safari show and it was discussed among some of us AR members while there. I wrote several posts before going and several after and did the proper thing by deleting them before I sent them. I had a great time meeting new friends at the AR events while there. Yes we ate and drank too much, yes we may have lost a few steps, yes we may not be the physical specimens we were years ago but there were a great many folks there I would love to share a campfire with. I am not obese but as like most could shed a few pounds, at least 20, and be in much better shape. At 52, I can not do what I could do at 22, regardless of my level of exercise and training. Take into the fact that playing football destroyed my right knee and running or jogging is out the question, my last major knee surgery was 6 months ago. My passion for hunting is a strong as it ever was, and now that I have worked to become cash liquid enough to go on trips such as to Africa, I will continue to do so regardless of what someone thinks I look like. Saying that, it is my responsibility to be able to physically endure the hunt. I talked to several outfitters about a buffalo hunt and I did ask what the average daily trek would include. I do become more active prior to hunting and train to some degree for the hunt. Walking the treadmill is not the same as walking in soft sand around thorn bushes for hours in the heat and fighting the elements. My PH needs to know my physical limitations before I sign on to the trip and he needs to be honest with me what will physically be required of me as well. I look forward to my next trip in August and am planning 09 as well. Many of us who are a little weathered on the edges are still pretty good in the bush so don't judge us just by appearances.

It is interesting to follow the reactions of members responding to a particular "forum" regarding issues in the hunting world and simultaneously in another forum there will be contradicting opinions related to the same topic.
There is a new forum on AR entitled "Canned Lion Hunts Legal?" written by "Ropes." Bulldogmaster and Ropes have nearly identical ideology, and yet there dynamic opposing views on the same topic. Therefore, it would fair and righteous that those who trash Bulldog, also equally attack Ropes.

In addition, if certain members of the forum state an opinion, there seems to be a "lemming reaction" to that view point.

And equally interesting that a whole host of new posters came out of the woodwork as if by immaculate conception to fuel this thread....jorge

THe other interesting thing was that of the three "rants", the one that drew fire was about the over-weight guys. I did not see where Bulldog says he does not like hefty people, just that part of the hunting experience is preparing by getting shape.

I personnally was riled up by the guy shooting out of the truck in Namibia. The article seemed to indicate that the hunter was not disabled but that the way they liked to hunt was to drive over dunes and shoot at oryx or springbok. I see no sport in that and do not see how SCI can publish a "shoot report" (did not seem to be a "hunt report") like that. Not for me, but I am not that "guy" doing it.

Oh well.... I need to get on the treadmill...

quote:

I personnally was riled up by the guy shooting out of the truck in Namibia

To re-iterate, this thread's fraught with generalizations as far as I'm concerned.

I've related this before but it bears repeating:
On the last eveneing of the last day of our buff/PG hunt, my friend Todd had been stumped by the "grey ghost". So just at last light a very nice 55" decided to briefly stop on top of a ridge at a measured 352 yards. Our PH allowed him to take the shot from the back of the truck using the roll bar as a rest as he was afraid the kudu would bolt.

In my view that was FAR from unethical, hence,"ALL"shooting from trucks being unethical is a gross generalization. jorge