quote:

Originally posted by nickh:
Thanks for clarification Martin, that is exactly what has been explained to me by my PH's and outfitter when hunting Tuskless ele.

It's pretty clear really, if you can see ivory it ain't a Tuskless !

Cheers

Nick

Same goes for me. I got this explanation during my safari in October. The PH told that he just once during all his years of guiding had experienced a bull as tuskless as the bull did not have any Ivory that was visable.

Morten

Martin's explanation is exactly what I have been told as well.

If I was Sam, I would be pissed off with the operator.

Well done Martin on the accurate explanation regarding tuskless and ration animals.
I also agree 100 % with Saeed's comments regarding the transfer of quotas. This has been and continues to be a big problem in some of the Parks concessions . It is still on going and needs to stop. Due to this practise some areas are ruined and others on there way.

Is this yet another example of operators from the RSA breaking the law in Zim?

I would be seriously pissed if I was Sam.

I'm pissed at the way this has turned out here. You people act like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. I deleted the post because I didn't like all the crap being said. No one PMed me and asked me what happened. I just felt it best to delete and move on. Maybe I used the wrong term Tuskless, Ration, PAC, Non trophy. I don't know and don't care anymore. To my knowledge nothing was improper and if so why would a huge tuskless be passed up because it had a calf? Don't count on me posting anything else on this site!

Sam

Sam,

not my intention to be negative. I was surprised today finding the article was deleted. I started to read the following discussion and just wanted to confirm my understanding based on what Martin said. This matches what I was told in camp.

Morten

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Is this yet another example of operators from the RSA breaking the law in Zim?

I would be seriously pissed if I was Sam.

Let me be clear that I was not questioning whether the hunt itself was legal. There was nothing posted to lead one to believe that the hunt was not conducted by a ZIM PH. I was simply wondering if this is another example of an RSA company doing other things that were not in accordance with the law similar to the shooting in Hwange . Please note I said "wondering". If my comment came across otherwise , I apologize.

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
I'm pissed at the way this has turned out here. You people act like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. I deleted the post because I didn't like all the crap being said. No one PMed me and asked me what happened. I just felt it best to delete and move on. Maybe I used the wrong term Tuskless, Ration, PAC, Non trophy. I don't know and don't care anymore. To my knowledge nothing was improper and if so why would a huge tuskless be passed up because it had a calf? Don't count on me posting anything else on this site!

Sam

Not sure that you have anyone to be upset with other than possibly yourself or the outfitter. You made a statement that seemed extremely odd on its face and were questioned about it. The question was simply intended to get an explanation, not an attack. You answered the question reinforcing the original statement. Couple of related points. One, I have a hard time believing that someone really does not know what kind of elephant hunt they are on, tuskless, ration, PAC or trophy bull, and therefore does not know how to characterize the hunt. Two, a huge tuskless with a calf should be passed up if the calf is a dependent calf.

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
I'm pissed at the way this has turned out here. You people act like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. I deleted the post because I didn't like all the crap being said. No one PMed me and asked me what happened. I just felt it best to delete and move on. Maybe I used the wrong term Tuskless, Ration, PAC, Non trophy. I don't know and don't care anymore. To my knowledge nothing was improper and if so why would a huge tuskless be passed up because it had a calf? Don't count on me posting anything else on this site!

Sam

If you're so dumb/ignorant that you think shooting a bull with small tusks is permissible under a tuskless permit and then, adding insult to injury, post story of same with pics in front of a crowd that has, collectively, many years of elephant hunting, then not posting again is certainly in your best interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
I've said it before and I'll continue to do so, if someone see's something in a hunt report that seems odd or perhaps even illegal, a PM might be an appropriate response rather than the usual, GOTCHA.

The hunt report section just died.

I sadly agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

quote:

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

Exactly!

As Martin Peters has posted, a TUSKLESS is an elephant with NO tusks.

Anything else cannot be classified as tuskless!

Gents,

Okay, I know what a tuskless elephant is (I took one in Dande in 2008). I know what a PAC animal is and what a trophy bull is.

But, can someone tell me specifically what a ration elephant is? In Zimbabwe.

Thanks,

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
Gents,

Okay, I know what a tuskless elephant is (I took one in Dande in 2008). I know what a PAC animal is and what a trophy bull is.

But, can someone tell me specifically what a ration elephant is? In Zimbabwe.

Thanks,

PH error?

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
Gents,

Okay, I know what a tuskless elephant is (I took one in Dande in 2008). I know what a PAC animal is and what a trophy bull is.

But, can someone tell me specifically what a ration elephant is? In Zimbabwe.

Thanks,

Paul, the Zim PHs may be able to answer better than me but from what I understand National Parks will set aside a limited quota of elephant to be taken as rations for National Parks staff. Ration elephant are, as I understand it, to be cows (tuskless or tusked) or non-trophy bulls (broken tusks, etc.).

That is my understanding as well Mike. They are non exportable.

We have a fantastic archive of hunting reports here on AR. Most of you have contributed to these. The writing styles and abilities vary but I still enjoy going back and reading them. The reports add to our collective enjoyment and wisdom. Thank you.

The problem, as we know, the hunting reports have declined to a trickle. Many people won't post for fear of criticism. I am one of those people. Am I to soft skinned.......probably. Am I afraid of saying something that would put me on the other side of the Lacy Act or a foreign government's laws.....definitely!


There are two types of criticism that I see in hunting reports that discourage future reports:

1. Soft boss / 5 year old lions / RSA lions etc. Some people feel the need to criticize. It is unfortunate that we can't help celebrate a hunters accomplishment's without someone being critical. Should soft boss, 5 year old rule, raised lions, etc. be discussed. Yes, just in another thread. It seems we are doing better at not being as critical with the above topics but has the damage already been done? I hope not.

2.Criticism like we have seen in this report. Which I don't consider real criticism. The questions originally raised were legitimate questions. The original poster wrote something as he understood it, explained to him by his PH/Outfitter and took the PH at face value. The statement made was either incorrect or a gray area activity.

My problem is I could see myself doing something similar if the PH said it was okay. For many of you PAC, management, ration, non-trophy, etc. elephants have distinct meanings. For me they are fairly synonymous. I do understand some differences but these definitions can vary from country. Also, some PH's use the term PAC for all of the above since they have been using the term PAC all of their lives.

An elephant that goes into a Campfire area and raids crops is no longer a PAC elephant in Zimbabwe since they changed the rules. It is now a management/ration/non-trophy elephant with all the paperwork from the District Council to prove it.

MJines, you mention that we should know the laws and rules. You are correct. We probably should. The problem for me is that if I haven't read it here I probably won't know the laws and will rely on my PH/outfitter. I am glad there are detailed people in the world like you to help people like me out! Hopefully I won't be calling you from some African country one day.

How do you deal with criticism in point number two above? PM's have been mentioned. This may be a good way to help the OP edit his post to "proper" language. Again, I don't consider the comments in this thread to be critical.


Will I be posting a hunting report in the near future. Probably not. But I sure hope you do! Yes I'm a hypocrite.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
I'm pissed at the way this has turned out here. You people act like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. I deleted the post because I didn't like all the crap being said. No one PMed me and asked me what happened. I just felt it best to delete and move on. Maybe I used the wrong term Tuskless, Ration, PAC, Non trophy. I don't know and don't care anymore. To my knowledge nothing was improper and if so why would a huge tuskless be passed up because it had a calf? Don't count on me posting anything else on this site!

Sam

Not sure that you have anyone to be upset with other than possibly yourself or the outfitter. You made a statement that seemed extremely odd on its face and were questioned about it. The question was simply intended to get an explanation, not an attack. You answered the question reinforcing the original statement. Couple of related points. One, I have a hard time believing that someone really does not know what kind of elephant hunt they are on, tuskless, ration, PAC or trophy bull, and therefore does not know how to characterize the hunt. Two, a huge tuskless with a calf should be passed up if the calf is a dependent calf.

Mike,

Thanks for asking a sensible original question in a perfectly civilized manner, the answer to which is of benefit to many of us. I don't see it as any form of "gotcha" or personal attack on Sam but it is always a shame when people are upset and withdraw from posting. I hope he gets over it in time.

Please keep asking questions. It reduces the "grey area" factor and helps to prevent hunters being badly advised or misled.

Milo.

Sam man up and simply tell us all to fuck off if you think any here have offended you. You took on an elephant with a double in wild Africa and yet you cannot face a simple question from one of us?

How bloody boring will it be if we are confined to a few simple words of congratulation.

As a PH who hunts with many AR members I am fully prepared to take the rough with the smooth and this has proved to be no nonsense hunting forum that has no comparison on the internet.

In the final analysis this is pretty simple to me. Perhaps everything was copacetic with the hunt and the terminology used was just in-artful. If that was the case, then when the question got asked initially simply clarify what was intended. On the other end of the continuum, if there was an issue regarding the propriety of the hunt then someone damn sure ought to call that out so that others are aware of the issue and do not repeat the same mistake. In this situation, to get all tied up in knots over whether someone gets their feelings hurt makes no sense to me. If the choice of words was wrong and this was not a bull hunted under a tuskless license just explain the situation when the question was originally asked and be done with it. As it stands right now, no one knows what in the hell the situation was other than the original description would not appear to comport with the regulations in Zim . . . hence the initial question. To me this is nothing akin to calling out someone for a young lion, a soft bossed bull, or some other trophy-related issue.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
In the final analysis this is pretty simple to me. Perhaps everything was copacetic with the hunt and the terminology used was just in-artful. If that was the case, then when the question got asked initially simply clarify what was intended. On the other end of the continuum, if there was an issue regarding the propriety of the hunt then someone damn sure ought to call that out so that others are aware of the issue and do not repeat the same mistake. In this situation, to get all tied up in knots over whether someone gets their feelings hurt makes no sense to me. If the choice of words was wrong and this was not a bull hunted under a tuskless license just explain the situation when the question was originally asked and be done with it. As it stands right now, no one knows what in the hell the situation was other than the original description would not appear to comport with the regulations in Zim . . . hence the initial question. To me this is nothing akin to calling out someone for a young lion, a soft bossed bull, or some other trophy-related issue.

Of note is the fact that the South African PH is a poster on here and has offered hunts in the "Offerred/Discounted hunts" section before. Wouldn't take much to clear up any verbiage misunderstanding.

Many times it's been said that posters on AR are guilty till proven innocent and I personally have squawked loudly when a hunt report has gotten "shit on".

In this case it seemed a question about how a pair "Tuskless" had tusks was more a question of confusion as opposed to a defecation on the report.

.02
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
In the final analysis this is pretty simple to me. Perhaps everything was copacetic with the hunt and the terminology used was just in-artful. If that was the case, then when the question got asked initially simply clarify what was intended. On the other end of the continuum, if there was an issue regarding the propriety of the hunt then someone damn sure ought to call that out so that others are aware of the issue and do not repeat the same mistake. In this situation, to get all tied up in knots over whether someone gets their feelings hurt makes no sense to me. If the choice of words was wrong and this was not a bull hunted under a tuskless license just explain the situation when the question was originally asked and be done with it. As it stands right now, no one knows what in the hell the situation was other than the original description would not appear to comport with the regulations in Zim . . . hence the initial question. To me this is nothing akin to calling out someone for a young lion, a soft bossed bull, or some other trophy-related issue.

Of note is the fact that the South African PH is a poster on here and has offered hunts in the "Offerred/Discounted hunts" section before. Wouldn't take much to clear up any verbiage misunderstanding.

Many times it's been said that posters on AR are guilty till proven innocent and I personally have squawked loudly when a hunt report has gotten "shit on".

In this case it seemed a question about how a pair "Tuskless" had tusks was more a question of confusion as opposed to a defecation on the report.

.02
Jim

Exactly Jim and this is not a shit on report but rather a query.

Gotta be careful what one reports here especially if others are watching.

This was clearly useful information. It is a matter of opinion as to whether the way the issue was raised was proper. I don't personally believe Mike was trying to dump on Sam. Others may feel differently.

It will be a shame if Sam leaves. He has been a valuable contributor here on AR particularly on double rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

Hi Andrew,
My ONLY point here is, IF, again IF there is even a remote chance of illegal activity, we owe it to "One of Us" to privately inform another "member" before he exposes himself to any problems on an open internet forum.

I would hope we are all gentleman enough to have a desire to keep one another free of un-known illegalities while on a hunting vacation. If we can't count of our outfitter/ PH to steer us straight, who then?

I think it's completely unreasonable to know or even try to know the game and hunting laws of all the countries we hunt. If it is my responsibility, fuck it.

Mike hunts Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe only (I think)many of us hunt all over Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Asia, Canada and South America. It isn't possible to understand all the rules.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

This resource (Hunt Reports) are and will always be a value. Read only is the fix. If you want to comment on it, PM the guy and tell him you think his RSA lion is a sham.

My .02c

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

So we agree. If it sounds like BS, we have an obligation not to rely on the outfitter but check it out and make due inquiry. Would you accept on its face an explanation from a outfitter that a tuskless license includes bulls with little tusks? I doubt it.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

Hi Andrew,
My ONLY point here is, IF, again IF there is even a remote chance of illegal activity, we owe it to "One of Us" to privately inform another "member" before he exposes himself to any problems on an open internet forum.

I would hope we are all gentleman enough to have a desire to keep one another free of un-known illegalities while on a hunting vacation. If we can't count of our outfitter/ PH to steer us straight, who then?

I think it's completely unreasonable to know or even try to know the game and hunting laws of all the countries we hunt. If it is my responsibility, fuck it.

Mike hunts Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe only (I think)many of us hunt all over Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Asia, Canada and South America. It isn't possible to understand all the rules.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

This resource (Hunt Reports) are and will always be a value. Read only is the fix. If you want to comment on it, PM the guy and tell him you think his RSA lion is a sham.

My .02c

Hi Steve,

Nice to see you back.

You and I have discussed the hunt report defecation topic in depth telephonically. I think we agree about the fact and reason why some posters will not post hunt reports.

In reality, concerning this report, I suspect if a PM was sent the result of the pictures and description being pulled would have been the same.

Having never hunted Elephant in Zim, I would not know if a "tuskless" actually meant tuskless vs. a tusk less than ________Kg. But like your example of the Bolivian Fishing Guide, I certainly would have doubted it.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

So we agree. If it sounds like BS, we have an obligation not to rely on the outfitter but check it out and make due inquiry. Would you accept on its face an explanation from a outfitter that a tuskless license includes bulls with little tusks? I doubt it.

Mike, yes we agree. Where we don't agree is that PMing a guy to keep his ass out of trouble isn't too much to ask from "One of Us".

What if this were a Lacey Act issue? wouldn't you think a PM would be pretty cool, delete the entire mess before people get busy quoting it?

Not suggesting we engage in a "cover-up" either. We can still discuss the outfitter not doing things right. We need to take care of our own.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

Hi Andrew,
My ONLY point here is, IF, again IF there is even a remote chance of illegal activity, we owe it to "One of Us" to privately inform another "member" before he exposes himself to any problems on an open internet forum.

I would hope we are all gentleman enough to have a desire to keep one another free of un-known illegalities while on a hunting vacation. If we can't count of our outfitter/ PH to steer us straight, who then?

I think it's completely unreasonable to know or even try to know the game and hunting laws of all the countries we hunt. If it is my responsibility, fuck it.

Mike hunts Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe only (I think)many of us hunt all over Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Asia, Canada and South America. It isn't possible to understand all the rules.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

This resource (Hunt Reports) are and will always be a value. Read only is the fix. If you want to comment on it, PM the guy and tell him you think his RSA lion is a sham.

My .02c

Hi Steve,

Nice to see you back.

You and I have discussed the hunt report defecation topic in depth telephonically. I think we agree about the fact and reason why some posters will not post hunt reports.

In reality, concerning this report, I suspect if a PM was sent the result of the pictures and description being pulled would have been the same.

Having never hunted Elephant in Zim, I would not know if a "tuskless" actually meant tuskless vs. a tusk less than ________Kg. But like your example of the Bolivian Fishing Guide, I certainly would have doubted it.

Cheers
Jim

Hi Jim!
Not really "back" just passionate about this particular subject.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

So we agree. If it sounds like BS, we have an obligation not to rely on the outfitter but check it out and make due inquiry. Would you accept on its face an explanation from a outfitter that a tuskless license includes bulls with little tusks? I doubt it.

Mike, yes we agree. Where we don't agree is that PMing a guy to keep his ass out of trouble isn't too much to ask from "One of Us".

What if this were a Lacey Act issue? wouldn't you think a PM would be pretty cool, delete the entire mess before people get busy quoting it?

Not suggesting we engage in a "cover-up" either. We can still discuss the outfitter not doing things right. We need to take care of our own.

Steve

+1

It probably wouldn't hurt to have a couple of friends/members edit a hunting report prior to posting. Not only for typooo's but for language that could be translated differently by the Lacy Act......or other AR members.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

So we agree. If it sounds like BS, we have an obligation not to rely on the outfitter but check it out and make due inquiry. Would you accept on its face an explanation from a outfitter that a tuskless license includes bulls with little tusks? I doubt it.

Mike, yes we agree. Where we don't agree is that PMing a guy to keep his ass out of trouble isn't too much to ask from "One of Us".

What if this were a Lacey Act issue? wouldn't you think a PM would be pretty cool, delete the entire mess before people get busy quoting it?

Not suggesting we engage in a "cover-up" either. We can still discuss the outfitter not doing things right. We need to take care of our own.

Steve

actually i think this is a Lacey Act issue. as i understand the law, a hunt conducted in violation of the host country's hunting regs leaves one open to a Lacey Act charge. i have no idea if that is what has occurred here but it is food for thought going forward.....at least in US courts, ignorance of the law in the US is not a valid excuse.who knows how a US court would rule concerning ignorance of foreign laws.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think this "too much faith in the operator" can be taken too far. If the operator tells you that you can shoot a bull and count it as a tuskless, does that take you off the hook? Wouldn't someone have an obligation to say, that does not sound right let me understand how that works? Maybe Sam did just that, who knows. I just think that the excuse that the operator said it was okay will only take you so far. Sure, there are lots of aspects where we have to trust the operator implicitly. But if the operator tells you something that does not add up on its face (e.g., you can shoot a sable and we can put it on the TR2 as a kudu), I do not believe the hunter can wiggle off the hook by claiming ignorance or blaming the operator. Again, I have no idea what Sam was told, what questions he asked, or most importantly, whether it is actually permissible to treat certain bulls as tuskless. That is why I asked the question. Apparently, others had the same question/reaction.

That's reasonable enough. Still doesn't change the fact that a PM to Sam asking if he might like to take this down prior any issues. But, that's just me. I have no issues with others doing what they've done. Just a shame a resource like this will become toxic. The only reports we see will be PG hunts from RSA.

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

Such a change of rules by the operator is going to raise questions and the public should be aware of such digressions.

I think Sam did well to delete his post and look forward to seeing an edited version once he has clarified the issue with the operator.

I fished in Bolivia a couple years ago. I asked the outfitter if I needed a fishing license. His response sounded legit; "No, you fish under my outfitting license in Bolivia". It sounded like bullshit to me, I checked it out when I got home, it was BS.

So we agree. If it sounds like BS, we have an obligation not to rely on the outfitter but check it out and make due inquiry. Would you accept on its face an explanation from a outfitter that a tuskless license includes bulls with little tusks? I doubt it.

Mike, yes we agree. Where we don't agree is that PMing a guy to keep his ass out of trouble isn't too much to ask from "One of Us".

What if this were a Lacey Act issue? wouldn't you think a PM would be pretty cool, delete the entire mess before people get busy quoting it?

Not suggesting we engage in a "cover-up" either. We can still discuss the outfitter not doing things right. We need to take care of our own.

Steve

actually i think this is a Lacey Act issue. as i understand the law, a hunt conducted in violation of the host country's hunting regs leaves one open to a Lacey Act charge. i have no idea if that is what has occurred here but it is food for thought going forward.....at least in US courts, ignorance of the law in the US is not a valid excuse.who knows how a US court would rule concerning ignorance of foreign laws.

This is for general Lacey Act information. Lacey act gets thrown around a lot on this forum.

http://www.arnoldporter.com/re...tion%20-%20Asner.pdf

The post has been deleted. There are no facts to speculate what has happened. Please let this thread end.

Mike

I thought that the Lacey act came into effect only if you tried to transport an illegally taken trophy or tried to sell illegal hunts.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sam did neither.

Hi guys! Wow! I don’t believe what I am reading here today. I thought I will just stay quiet and see where this goes but shit I need to say something in fairness of my good friend Sam Rose. I am not going to get into an argument with anyone but just want to state a few facts and clear my name. Looks like some of you put me in the same category than other South African operators who is conducting hunts in Zimbabwe the wrong way. Yes I am the one who put this hunt together.
Before I get to the Elephant issue let me first tell you who I am and what I do because the wrong picture was drawn about me on this post. I run a small Hunting Company here in South Africa and my main goal is to organise hunting safaris for my clients in good well managed areas where everything is legal and ethical. I am not in this business just for the money I have other ways in South Africa where I make my living. I conduct these hunts in Zimbabwe mainly because of the love for hunting big game. I grew up in the hunting industry and my passion from a very young age was to hunt big game.
I have never and will never bribe any government official to hunt something that is illegal. When I am booking a hunt for one of my clients in Zimbabwe I am actually just a booking agent. I accompany my clients on all the hunts, I meet them at the airport I help them with the rifles and I make sure that they start their safari without any problems. The Zimbabwean operator who I work with for the past 10 years is licensed and is legally the owner of the concession where I take my clients. He is the PH and Outfitter in Zimbabwe. I don’t have booths in the States and I don’t travel 2 months a year in the States to get clients, the few clients I get is by word of mouth and through Sites like the AR. All the AR members that booked hunts with me through this site have had successful hunts and most of all had a great time. All their trophies have arrived safely and without any issues at their homes. The only problem we had was when the trophies were stolen in Harare Last year. But that was out of my hands and all of you know what happened there. This particular hunting area has earned a lot of money because of the business I have brought to them. This year we were all surprised by how the Elephant numbers and Buffalo numbers have increased in the area. I would like to think that I have made a small contribution to this.
I feel very bad that Sam had to face all this after he had such a good hunt and wonderful adventure. There is a reason why this particular animal was taken but this site is not the right place to give you that explanation. For you who really wants to take this further and want to satisfy your desire to find out why this animal was shot can get in touch with the local authorities in Zimbabwe and to the Zimbabwean operator and ask them directly why this animal was shot. You can call me directly also if you wish to do so. Sam came on a late season hunt where other game was available to hunt and this elephant came available so he took up the opportunity. To the best of my knowledge and to Sam’s nothing was done illegal.
I have a million other things I would like to say but let us leave it here.
By the way there is still another Trophy Elephant on quota if anyone is interested.
Andrew

Andrew,

What you say is plausible and may very well be how it went down. The fact of the matter as we know is what the hunter posted in his words,
That this particular animal was deemed to fit into the category of Tuskless ele.
This was written into the hunt report that has now been deleted.

This is what guys on this site whom have hunted Tuskless ele in Zim question, as I do.
If the Tuskless was changed to a ration animal( feasible) or trophy bull( which I doubt) then just come out and say it and all is kosher.

I am certainly not having a go at Sam , you,or anyone else. I just found what was reported at odds with what I know about Tuskless ele in Zim, having done a few myself.

Disappointing if Sam leaves the site over this, I value his work and input into double rifles, and have benefitted greatly from his studies on monolithics and regulated loads etc.

Cheers

Nick

More shameful attacks. And some wonder why more folks don't post hunting reports.

Andrew,

Who gave Sam shit? The line of questioning was simply to query the tuskless decision made by the operator/PH? And to point out the irregularity.

If there had been a discrepancy of which Sam was unaware of then it certainly would be wise to ring a few bells.

As you are the Agent why don't you simply tell us what is going on as 'To the best of my knowledge and to Sam's nothing was done illegal'

Fairgame,

I did not say anyone gave Sam Shit and I am talking about the people who suggest I was another South African operator braking the law in ZIM.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for clarification. This thread is similar to the thread about the booking agent who wrote about a canned lion hunt as if it was a Tanz 21 day affair. It is of interest of everyone to know the real deal.

I can honestly say if my PH said "elephant x" qualified for my permit, I would whack it. I don't spend time reading the rules of every place I hunt when I am with a guide. Of course, I know more now as a result of this thread. If someone were to post a hypothetical question, it would not get nearly the attention this post did - unless it turned out to be true.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Is this yet another example of operators from the RSA breaking the law in Zim?

I would be seriously pissed if I was Sam.

Let me be clear that I was not questioning whether the hunt itself was legal. There was nothing posted to lead one to believe that the hunt was not conducted by a ZIM PH. I was simply wondering if this is another example of an RSA company doing other things that were not in accordance with the law similar to the shooting in Hwange . Please note I said "wondering". If my comment came across otherwise , I apologize.

Andrew:

Did you miss this?

I didn't see this as an attack on his hunt report, I just read the whole thread and what I saw was clarification on a tricky situation with all the rules and regulations. I myself find this thread extremely useful and that's what's great about AR, it gets the truth out. I'm contemplating a PAC elephant hunt in the future and this shows me I need to do my homework and not just believe what my PH tells me.