College Student Looking For Passionate Hunter

PHOENIX PHIL said:

Because I suck at golf....

Click to expand...

And let's also not forget that a golf course is really nothing but a waste of land that could have been used for a long distance rifle range!

So onward with #3. The third and fourth pictures from the bottom of my last post are of an elephant being butchered by the local community and after the meat was piled up, it was portioned out to all who showed up. The next day there was much celebration and happiness in the village, they had the meat hanging to dry as that is their only way of preserving it... Interestingly, everyone has a cell phone! And led lighting and speakers for music played off their phones or ipods. They use solar panels and car batteries.
I shot a buffalo and we delivered the meat to one of the headman's home where he would distribute it.... However the local fellow who worked on the hunting crew very practical.. He knew that meat would go to supporters of the Headman, so before we went there, we drove all over the village delivering portions to widows and places that had orphans, and other needy people... About half ended up at the Headman's house. The kid in the picture above was at one of the places we detoured to You can see if a disenfranchised youth, is well fed and healthy. But this was in a hunting area.....


Nothing is wasted.... This is what was left after the village took the meat from that elephant... More precisely, The stomach contents, spine, hips, a couple ribs, some skin off the head, and the penis. The leg bones make quite the soup bones, and the rack of ribs looked like a real Fred Flintstone moment going home in a donkey cart.


Now this is a wild communal area in Zimbabwe. In an organized place like South Africa, the animals are owned by the owner of the property... So he processes and sells it. It is an active and robust market, but the meat provides a more economical source of protein than cattle. The wildlife in South Africa is so prolific under private ownership that there are professional culling operators in the meat business. Hunters do not take enough off to maintain the populations at sustainable levels, culling often needs to be done to reduce numbers. There is way more wild life in South Africa than when the first White people landed on the continent... The same as the Whitetail deer population in North America.

#4... Very distant cousin?


I think I covered #5 and 6 above but to continue in my next post.....

Katie,

I applaud you're effort at getting both sides of the story to a very hot and unnecessarily controversial topic currently. If you're after information on African hunting, and why hunters choose to hunt her, then you've come to a great place. The breadth of knowledge on this forum from those who have hunted on the dark continent, as well as those who make their living hunting in Africa, is varied and deep. It is a great resource. You'll find that if you're truly after information, and trying to gain a different perspective on hunting Africa that what is currently portrayed by the main stream media and anti-hunting crowd, this forum, and the posters who frequent it, are very charitable in their giving of their unique perspective.

To try and answer your questions:

1) What motivates you to practice hunting in Africa?

The same thing that motivates me to hunt anywhere. It's, as another poster stated, in our DNA as human beings. It always has been, and always will be. Humans are predators plain and simple. They have forward facing and stereoscopic eyes, they're omnivores who can digest animal protein (whether you choose to is another story), and they are conditioned to hunt. When you were a child, why was the game hide and seek such a fun endeavor? I would argue because it was part of the human make-up to seek prey. It is a predator and prey relationship that has been engrained into a human being's DNA, being, soul, and psyche. Over the course of human evolution, our brain has been our biggest asset, and strength, and thus, has allowed us to develop tools (weapons), techniques, understanding, and methods to help us succeed at the hunt. It also has allowed us to develop and refine agrarian techniques and methodologies that have relegated hunting to a more historic necessity. Not everywhere, but certainly in 1st world and even 3rd world cultures. Simply put, we don't have to hunt anymore because we can raise on our food and animals. But in many people, that desire and need to hunt still exists strongly. Others, because of various reasons, have decided to repress that desire, and don't feel the strong pull, and that is OK. Hunting is not for everyone. I have even heard it explained as, for those that feel the need to hunt, it being as strong as some women's desire to have children. I can't comment on that accurately because I'm not a woman, but I can say that it is as strong and as base a desire as any that I have ever had. I have to hunt to feel complete. For many of us, it's also part of our heritage. It is tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation, and something that parents do with their children. As far as the US goes, it was and is a very important part of who we are as a nation.

I provided a wonderful video here that summarizes why we do what we do as hunters. It's not hunting in Africa per say, but the video does a great job expressing what it means to be a hunter.
For me, and Africa specifically, I have felt a draw to her for as long as I can remember having the desire to hunt. When I was old enough to read and appreciate the books by the hunters of yesterday such as Selous, Roosevelt, and Bell, and by their contemporaries such as Ruark, Hemingway, and Capstick, I voraciously consumed them, and in those books I found the desire to go. The romance of the safari is certainly a big part of it, and Peter Capstick could describe that aspect as good as anyone. But it's more than that. The flora and fauna are different than anywhere else in the world. The iconic animal species reside there as well. It is the cradle of civilization and the place where hunting started thousands of years ago. Having visited Africa many years ago for different purposes, I find the people and culture fascinating. And some of the best hunters in the world reside there. I have yet to experience it, but the native trackers and their bushcraft skills are an awesome sight to behold. The desire to hunt Africa in particular is mulifactorial, but a huge pull none-the-less, at least for me. I only wish I could have experienced it during the golden age of safari.

2) When it comes to conservation, how does hunting fit in?

There is so much to say about this, but may I suggest a wonderful book written by Glen Martin, called "Game Changer: Animal Rights and the Fate of Africa's Wildlife". I sound like a broken record, because I'm always touting this book, but it is a fascinating portrayal of the reality on the ground in Kenya when it comes to wildlife and the struggle to save it. Kenya at one time was a jewel in Africa, and was the jumping off point for a lot of hunters starting their safaris. In 1977, hunting was banned in toto and has been an unmitigated disaster for Kenya's people and wildlife. Do yourself a favor and purchase a copy. It provides a wonderful synopsis of why hunting is so important in modern Africa.

(http://www.amazon.com/Game-Changer-Animal-Africas-Wildlife-ebook/dp/B0079JK63Q).

Hunting has played a key role in conservation throughout modern history. Teddy Roosevelt, a very accomplished hunter in his own right, is one of the father's of modern conservation. The national parks system in the US owes it's very existence to President Roosevelt and hunters, who fund the vast majority of the parks budgets through the Pittman-Robertson act. And furthermore, did you know the only places that wildlife has actually thrived in the world are North America and South Africa, who modeled a lot of their current management strategies on the North American model. There's a saying, "If it pays, it stays", and in Africa, there is no more pertinent saying. A lot of the argument against hunting in Africa champions the cause of Eco-tourism to provide that value. The theory goes, "Why shoot an animal with a rifle only once, when you can shoot it many times over with a camera?" And on the surface, that sounds legitimate. Most hunters wouldn't argue the benefit of Eco-tourism, as there are no bigger "Eco-tourists" in existence. However, if someone were to take an objective look at Eco-tourism, one could see it has it's own major problems associated with it. Mr. Martin in his book I suggested above talks about this a lot. Eco-tourism if it is to thrive must take place near national parks where vast concentrations of game resides and there is a significant infrastructure investment. However, the vast majority of land that game resides on is outside of the national parks and in areas not very accessible to humans. Most non-hunting tourists are not willing to go a whole day without seeing a lot of game, especially the Big 5. They are also not willing to walk vast distances off the beaten path to photograph those animals. To further that point, the lodge developments bring in a lot of native people to support it, and thus it has a huge impact on the environment. Another knock against the Eco-tourism industry is that most of the companies that set up operations in Africa are foreign (European) entities and the vast amount of profits that are made go back to the foreign companies and countries. This provides no value to the people and thus no incentive for them to protect these animals in the long run, especially if those animals are trampling their crops (elephants) or eating their livestock (lions), or worse yet eating their family.

3) What is done with the animals afterwards?

Nothing goes to waste in Africa. The animals are eaten in camp by the staff and other hunters. A lot of the meat is given to the villagers. In fact in Zambia, it's a requirement that the game management areas the animal is taken from be given a certain percentage of the meat. As an aside, the people of Zambia cannot hunt for the most part. There was an article written recently by Mrs. Diana Rupp, a hunter, and the editor of Sports Afield, that outlines a study detailing this very thing in Zambia, and the impact it has on a protein starved country. It is true that hunters do take trophies home usually, but that is a small part, at least in most African hunters I know. You can find that article here:

http://www.sportsafield.com/content/something-chew

4) What is your relationship to the animal?

I agree the word Primal is an appropriate word to describe it. It is a relationship that all predators and prey understand I suppose. But it's more than that. I would venture to say that most hunters have a love and understanding of the animals they hunt that is deeper than the vast majority of the non-hunting public. In the pursuit of the animal, the hunter strives to understand, and relate to his quarry better in order to pursue him better. In that pursuit of understanding, the hunter develops a vast amount of respect for the animal he chases. As far as dangerous game, when it comes down to it, I suppose it's the chance of getting killed in the pursuit of the animal that drives most who hunt them. Peter Capstick, a hunting author talks about this a lot. When done properly, dangerous game (elephants, lions, Cape buffalo, etc.) is hunted up close and personal giving the animal every opportunity to stand it's ground and potentially kill the hunter in it's escape.

Steven Rinella is an author and hunter, and hosts a show called MeatEater. In this video, he discusses the concepts of animal utilization as well as the relationship hunters have to the animals they pursue:


In the end, the relationship I have to the animal is so much more complex that what I've attempted to describe. However, suffice it to say, I care deeply about all of the animals I hunt. As such, not only am I, as well as most hunters, willing to pay large amounts of money to pursue them, but also give money annually to organizations that promote conservation as well as African organizations that fight against poaching, etc.

5). What can you say about the effectiveness of game management?

I echo my comments above regarding the places where wildlife is thriving. North America and South Africa to be exact. I reinforce what the poster code4 said. The biggest threat to African wildlife is the massive population explosion occurring there. To be blunt, humans are encroaching on and overrunning the natural habitat where wildlife lives. As the squeeze continues, animals have less area to roam, and unchecked population growth amongst megafauna such as elephants can be very detrimental to all the flora and fauna inside the national parks and wildlife areas. Those species that the general public love to hold on high like elephants and lion have to be managed just like other species that are not as lauded. Hunting can be a part of that management strategy if done in a scientific and ethical manner.

6) What are the locals opinions of hunting?

Most African people don't understand all of the hub-hub over animals when so many of their people are starving to death. They are hunters as well, and have been for generations. Hunting in many of these communities provide jobs for the locals. Hunting controls the local animal populations, especially the dangerous ones (elephants and lions), and hunting gives the local people's incentives to not kill off that wildlife for necessity (protection or food) by programs such as Campfire in Zimbabwe.

7) What would you say to the people against hunting?

Mostly nothing because a vast majority of the rabid anti-hunters won't listen to logical pragmatism. Their arguments are ruled by blind emotion and not reason. I would say to those who are open minded, hunter/conservationists have the same goal as the animal protectionists. We all want the same thing in the end. Hunters are willing to work with non-hunting organizations to achieve that ultimate goal, but an the reverse always be said? If hunting is ever banned outright across all African countries, that will be the end of these iconic species as we know them. You might be able to see them in zoos and national parks if you're lucky, but the animals roaming free across the vast savannahs will be a thing of the past and that will be a very sad thing. As a "for instance", Lion hunting has been very controversial as of late in large part because of the Cecil incident, but most would argue that hunting lions if done in a scientifically grounded and ethical manner has a role in maintaining their value. Recently, Botswana banned hunting on government concessions in favor of Eco-tourism. Where as lions were doing very well prior to this, reports are starting to trickle in that poaching and killing of these lions are on the rise. Farmers are protecting their families and livestock, and lions are now viewed as a dangerous nuisance. Whereas before, farmers were encouraged to protect the lions because they were getting large sums of money from hunters to be able to hunt the lions, now they are resorting to killing them. And it's not just single lions. The preferred method is poisoning where a a carcas is laced with strychnine or arsenic, and when the whole pride comes to feed (males, females, and cubs) they are all extirpated. This TED talk video outlines exactly what I'm talking about:


And it's no different for elephants, etc. They are viewed by the native people as a dangerous nuisance that jeopardizes the local farmer's livelihood, at the very least, and possibly his or his family's lives. In this case, the wildlife is always going to lose.

In the end, it is each indivuals choice to hunt or not hunt. However, what most hunters wish the non-hunting public to acknowledge is that hunting has a vital role to play in managing wildlife in the modern world, and if given the chance, can be a wonderful tool to do so. It may not get to the core of why someone hunts, but it certainly is a huge ancillary benefit derived from that pursuit.

I wish you luck on your project. Like I said, there are many here and on other forums that have way more knowledge and eloquence than I have. I think you'll find that most will be more than willing to give their perspective to someone who honestly is seeking their viewpoint in an unbiased and non-judgmental way.

@ActionBob and @sandman0921 I take my hat off to you...what a great effort you have put into answering Katie.

I think society gets uncomfortable with controversial animals like cats and elephants. In my case, I think that animals have intelligence and I can't imagine taking someone's life.

Click to expand...

I like how people attach "Disney" feelings to animals.

They are intelligent...I guess we can't hunt them. Then I guess we shouldn't hunt whitetail deer because once they get 3.5 years old, they get very intelligent. People seem to take things from their pets or favorite movies and attach them to things in nature that they don't understand.

Katie,

Another resource for you to provide a hunting perspective as it relates to conservation is John Jackson's Conservation Force:

https://www.conservationforce.org/index.html

You will find a plethora of articles as it relates to hunting and conservation at this website. His organization has also posted many articles on this forum under the Articles section. They are great reads.

I don't know John personally, and have never met him, but I know his reputation to be impeccable. He represents the hunter/conservationist side of the equation very well. He might be another resource to contact, although I'm sure he is very busy. That would be a great interview I'm sure as he has forgotten more about conservation related causes and issues than I could hope to ever learn.

Anyway, just a thought........

Katie,

Here is my personal view to answer 2) When it comes to conservation, how does hunting fit in?

Most national parks in Africa are short on funds to run their operations. Including securing the boarders. Most places in Africa have hunting concessions surrounding the parks. Many times these hunting concessions in total are 2x or 10x the land that resides in the actual park. By providing these buffer zones for hunting several benefits accrue to the national park:

A) Additional land is set aside for wildlife. If these lands were not designated as hunting concessions, then the next best usage would be adopted. Typically that is domestic cattle. If the land were used for domestic cattle, they compete for the same food sources as the wild ungulates. And, do not do well with predators. You end up with less wildlife - prey and predator alike.

B) Deterrent to Poachers. The hunting concession operators remove snares and with their presence provide a deterrent to poachers. There have been operators that have taken over land that before was not a hunting concession and over several years removed thousands of poachers' snares. In addition, there are professional hunters and their staff that have captured poachers and have even given their lives in protecting the wildlife.

C) Provide funds to parks and communities. Most of us admit that their is corruption - both in Africa and elsewhere (the United States included). However, in most instances a portion of the funds generated by these hunting concessions flow to the operations of the national parks and to the local communities. These funds give wildlife value to the local communities that results in reduced poaching by the locals and improved services in the local communities resulting in support of wildlife by the community.

D) Reduced problem animal waste. When there is hunting, communities seek out the hunting operators in conjunction with wildlife management authorities when there are problem animals. This can be elephants that are raiding crops or lions that are killing cattle. Without hunting, the communities take it upon themselves to eliminate the problem animal. Unfortunately, they typically take the approach that all animals are bad. To get rid of elephants, the put poisoned crops out which indiscriminately kill any animal that eats it, the scavengers eat the dead animals and die, etc. Hunting provides the resources to go kill the specific problem animal and provides the funds to compensate the community for their losses. Thus, the hunting reduces the waste of countless wild animals.

John

katie if you can get hold of ron thomsons articles in african outfitter magazine they are very interesting and informative. here is his website http://www.ronthomsonshuntingbooks.co.za/ if you can try and get this book of rons

http://www.ronthomsonshuntingbooks.co.za/wildlifeheritage.html

I admire anyone who is courageous enough to answer. As much as I am willing to stand up for something I love, unless I know some real specifics (interviewer credentials, a real understanding of the article and its intention, some assurances that my information would not be turned on me or my fellow hunters) and can conduct it either in person or at the very least via phone, I would not be willing to talk to anyone in any sort of press. I have seen it all too often that pictures, quotes, etc. get turned around by any sort of journalist with an agenda. Just my $0.02. Also, I remember seeing a post marked "Why" that I believe was deleted that had an awfully similar tone.

Katie,

I am a professor who actually teaches people how to teach science, so I am going to respond as a teacher. Here is a screenshot from Google Earth that is from the Eastern Cape in South Africa. Please look at the first image and see if you can identify boundaries for two distinct land uses. Focus on the upper right of the image as there hopefully is an obvious transition that has an obelisk-like shape.




Do you have any ideas why there is a difference?

Now look at a second image from the same location.




So I have labeled the area below and to the left of the transition/boundary to be hunting and the area above and to the right as non-hunting. Why would there be a difference?

In this part of South Africa, farmers (we would call them ranchers in the US) historically raised a combination of goats and sheep (which provided meat, milk, milk products and even mohair !) due to the semi-arid conditions. Sheep and goats are well adapted to the lower water requirements and are less "picky" eaters. A fact that is reinforced in numerous Saturday morning cartoon depictions of goats and sheep eating everything. Sheep and goats are in effect, non-selective browsers and/or grazers ... if they are hungry will eat anything everything. To produce enough food and/or make enough profit to justify the cost of ownership of the land, the landowner has BOTH goats and sheep grazing at significant enough levels to see the impact on the vegetation density that we can see the impact from space ... or driving down the road in the top right of the image. Ultimately this will impact the lead to increased erosion which leads to less vegetation which leads to less animals on the land and ... in some cases ... total degradation to the land.

In the hunting land the owner still has sheep and goats, but at MUCH lower stocking levels (50% - 70% less). At this stocking level the goats and sheep become MUCH more selective in what they eat. You can see this in the second image and easily on the land. The green parts in the image have a beautiful multi-level, highly diverse, and native flora (vegetation) that supports both indigenous and introduced fauna (animals) (see image 3).




So this is perfect! All the landowner has to do is reduce the numbers of goats and sheep and the vegetation returns and all of the native animals return and everybody is happy! EVERY landowner in Africa should do this ... except, the landowner LOST 50%-70% of his income. You can't expect a landowner business person to lose money and even possibly not be able to feed his family. Hunting is ONE way to offset ... and in the perfect world ... increase the income from land ownership. One the flora is stable ... many wild species of indigenous and even non-indigenous African animals can THRIVE on the land. It is perfect habitat from a food and shelter perspective. Nearly every wild animal is a selective browser and/or grazer so that they eat a different primary set of plants and as long as the levels of domestic livestock and the wildlife are managed the property is sustainable. BUT the wild animals MUST be managed just like the domestic animals.

ONE way to manage the wild animals is to just shoot them for meat (all ages and all sexes) to eat and to sell and many landowners do. A SECOND way is selectively harvest trophy animals and charge hunters to do so. Fortunately for hunters, the second option is working in many locations and we are HONORED to help a local landowner manage his wildlife and his land. In many instances, the landowner/farmer has been able to expand his land ownership under this stewardship model and more and more land is returned to more natural condition. This particular family started offering trophy hunts to foreign hunters in the late 1970s and almost exclusively through that income have expanded their land holdings from ~20,000 acres to ~90,000 acres. All of it under strict land/wildlife/livestock management.

Hunters have a saying that hunting is conservation ... this example is from an area that I hunted in South Africa and that I know enough about both the hunting and non-hunting landowners to describe them to you. The same dynamics are in play across the entire planet. I could have shown the same images in your native state of Florida or my native state of Texas. Without hunting income it is becoming increasingly difficult to protect habitats for both plants and animals.

The facts and inferences to support why I hunt are scientific/ economic and incontrovertible (and by the way, I am a liberal), but I will acknowledge one major weakness that I can't address. There are many, who like you, believe that animals have souls and that it is wrong to kill them. One thing that I think most hunters would ask of those who believe that animals have souls, is that the non-hunters at least match the money that trophy hunters contribute to conservation.

Katie-I know this response won't be helpful to you, and it's not aimed at you either, just something I felt the need to get off my chest...

Because I enjoy it, it's legal, and I'm not infringing on anyone's rights or freedoms. Should I have to justify my actions more than anyone else who has hobbies? What about people who like to go for long drives, think of all the extra greenhouse gas they are producing. People really need to quit caring about what everyone else is doing with their lives, and just worry about themselves.

Eat what you want, Pray to who you want, and Sleep with who you want. Your life is none of my business and I expect the same common courtesy.

I love that last image @Scott Slough , with all the animals looking out from the foliage. Makes me want to go for a walk. Nice summary btw.

Pheroze said:

I love that last image @Scott Slough , with all the animals looking out from the foliage. Makes me want to go for a walk. Nice summary btw.

Click to expand...

I wrote the whole post so I could include it ! My daughter took the photo on burst mode and there are actually 3 pictures that were like 3.4 seconds apart and each of the three photos shows a different number of kudu. Sometimes I put them on split screens and just stare at them trying find out where all of the damn 600 lb. animals went to that were there 3.4 seconds ago!!!!

Thanks! I have been wanting to write something like this and Katie asked good questions in a respectable manner, so it seemed like the right time to dig in ... and I have several hundred online assignments to grade and answering her questions was more fun !

Where's Waldo?

There are allot of great posts here and would +1 the entire forum but there is one that really cracks me up and that deserves some credit

Bullthrower338 said:

Dammit,
I thought this was the start of the AH dating site!
Passionate, check!
Hunter, check!
Irresistible, not a chance, but on a forum, I could be. I could probably describe myself as looking like brad Pitt, only with Robert Ruark mentality and a Capstick flair! I enjoy long walks in the bush, cuddling up with a romantic reloading manual and good Scotch. I love spending quality time with large bore rifles, skinny cartridges are fine to look at and occasionally flirt with, but I like a real rifle. I'm looking for that one special rifle that really wants to be with just me. I'm sensitive(not to recoil), caring(clean and oil after each use) and loyal(I defend the M700 tooth and nail). Lol

Seriously Katie, good luck in your quest, post your questions if you would like some great, well thought out answers.
Cheers,
Cody

Click to expand...

I counted 7 kudu

I remember seeing a picture that displayed the distinct contrast that Scott has so precisely laid out in his post. There was a fence dividing 2 pieces of property. On one side was ranch property that was being grazed by cattle and on the other side, directly adjacent to that property, was a former cattle ranch that had been converted to hunting property. The contrast between the 2 was unmistakable. I'm not sure where the picture was from....South Africa or Namibia maybe? The flora on the hunting property was lush, green, and thick and represented great cover for the native wildlife. The cattle farm, in distinct contrast, was barren, stark, and desolate with very little grass, shrubs, or trees. It really illustrated the point Scott is making, and further demonstrates another positive benefit hunting can have on the environment.

In today's "eco-conscious" society, especially amongst members of groups that purport to care deeply about the Earth, I would think that a chance to save wild lands from over development, conversion to farm lands, infrastructure (roads, power lines, etc.), would be seen as a good thing. We've definitely seen the benefits here in the US from organizations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF), Ducks Unlimited (DU), and even Trout Unlimited (TU) that have purchased historic and native range lands, wetlands, and lands bordering native waterways as part of conservation trusts, so that they will be preserved for wildlife, as well as hunters and fisherman in perpetuity. It's certainly more complicated in Africa, but still a viable option to help combat the land encroachment and poaching that is so rampant there. This is effectively what outfitters and PH's do there, and by doing so, provide the bulk of land management strategies, as well as anti-poaching patrols, that are so desperately needed if African wildlife is to have a chance.

However, as is so often the case with these protectionist groups, the strategy of "My way, or the highway" most often prevails. Because of a singular focus on one animal, or one tree, or one whatever, the species and land as a whole often suffers. It's a definite "can't see the forest for the trees" scenario. One would think that with Africa being on the verge of going off a proverbial cliff as far as her wildlife and native habitat is concerned, all viable strategies would be considered. The role of hunting, if one is trying to be objective, has been demonstrated to be an effective tool in conservation by numerous organizations and research studies. And yet we as hunters, often hear in this emotional debate the argument from the fanatical anti hunters that they would be OK with a species' extinction, as long as hunting was abolished in toto. It is defined as an acceptable loss in the grand strategy of abolishing the so-called barbaric practice of hunting. Again, a "my way, or the highway" mentality that would seem unimaginable to most sane people, and yet it exists. I ask the question, "Who has the screwed up priorities?" In Africa especially, talk is cheap, but unfortunately bulls*%t is readily available. In fact, it's too bad you can't sell bulls%$t and rhetoric. It might be a great alternative revenue source to fund wildlife initiatives over there......

If anyone has that picture that I am talking about, it would be great to post on here to further illustrate the point that Dr. Slough has so wonderfully laid out. Pictures certainly can be worth a thousand words........

buck wild said:

I counted 7 kudu

Click to expand...

I counted over 15 in real time ... with at least 8 visible in the photo!

sandman0921 said:

If anyone has that picture that I am talking about, it would be great to post on here to further illustrate the point that Dr. Slough has so wonderfully laid out. Pictures certainly can be worth a thousand words........

Click to expand...

I will see my outfitter at SCI latter this week and will get him to take a photo on the exact site.

PS I am also going to get him to get me a photo of his "high fence" as it is significantly different than a high fence in Texas and will add that discussion as well!

Scott Slough said:

I counted over 15 in real time ... with at least 8 visible in the photo!

Click to expand...

Alright, you'll have to show me eight. I see dirt patches and 6 Kudu in that picture.