What Is Canned Hunting Of Lions

Nope!

But same difference!


TheMuppetsGroupshot2011.jpg
 
Who wants to be the most scary at Halloween ....
elite-daily-lion-costume-800x400.jpg
 
I think what pisses me off most about "Cecil", is the anti's keep bringing up how a "rich, successful, dentist" purchased a hunt to kill a lion.
They make it about killing and money. What they should realize is that they bring nothing to the table....absolutely nothing that benefits lions or wildlife in Africa in general. And how dare people keep tearing down people for building a economic future for themselves. The dentist just didn't get successful by receiving a hand out, he worked for it. Something most people forget about these days.
 
@enysse , I wonder who's making money off Cecil selling the costume??
 
I had a terrible tooth ache for 20 years, I paid a number of dentist to fix the problem. Not one fixed it until this last year, young dentist from Marquette University finally solved the problem. Part of the problem, is the technology is getting better every year and this guy had all the toys. I was happy to pay him.
 
Hank, did you read my follow up comment to TMS about my "mea culpa" with regard to baiting lions? I stated that I overlooked the baited inclusion which has been a very long established tradition when it comes to free range lion hunting.

I have a personal position and preferences when it comes to hunting. I won't apologize for that. Furthermore, I've not beat a drum, written any articles or attempted to organize any following to my way of thinking. But if you think my personal beliefs with regard to free range hunting fall into the category of being "a way to kill our sport", so be it. You are certainly entitled to that position and any other personal beliefs you may have on hunting or anything else for that matter.

Good hunting to you and everyone else here . . . I say that even in spite of my personal belief and preferences when it comes to free range hunting.
I did see the mea culpa with respect to the baiting, but I wasn't referring to baiting when I made my comment.

Since you didn't do a similar mea culpa about fenced hunting, I thought it was fair to assume you thought fenced hunting of lions was "canned hunting" and by extension, fenced hunting of any animal would be canned hunting. That's what I was referring to when I said "a way" to kill our sport. It's a pretty slippery slope when we start going in that direction.

I understand - and appreciate - your comment that you wish good hunting to those who may not hunt in a manner you agree with. I am the same - many of the practices that are common with respect to deer hunting in the US, for example, are illegal in Canada, and I was brought up to believe they were unethical, and not practised by "true hunters." I have "matured" win my views, I hope, and now share your position. I may not agree with it, but I will not knock it. We do need to stick together.
 
Why are you insulting the muppets?
That's a very good question. Perhaps as a child Wayne was once scared by Ernie? The Cookie Monster? This could be a very deep-seated problem . . .
 
Animal_Icon.jpg

Still scares me.
 
Wayne there's one picture that scares me a lot more...
 
I did see the mea culpa with respect to the baiting . . . . you didn't do a similar mea culpa about fenced hunting

You are correct, I made no mea culpa with regard to fenced hunting. I will once again say; "I have a personal position and preferences when it comes to hunting." I remain firm on that. I therefore feel no need to offer a mea culpa for maintaining a personal belief on what I consider free range hunting. And since I did not disparage any opposing viewpoint in my previous post, I will not be offering any mea culpas or apologies in that regard either.

As stated previously, I remain of the belief that you are entitled to maintain whatever position or preference you choose when it comes to sport hunting or anything else. I remain firm on that too.

Once again, good hunting to you and all others here.
 
I think there is a fair amount of (perfectly reasonable) wiggle room in the statement "prevented from escaping the hunter, either by physical constraint, such as fences,". I think everyone would agree that an animal in an 8x8 foot cage is prevented escape. In a fenced area of 100000 acres? The important part of the statement is "prevented from escaping the hunter" and I think that everyone, irrespective of their views on fences agrees that there should be some chance for the animal to escape. It is not at all clear to me from the regulation that the mere presence of a fence renders a hunt "canned".

I also believe that they were rather insightful when they included "by mental constraint, such as familiarity with humans.". Again, the critical portion is "prevented from escaping the hunter", not the exact means by which the animal is prevented from escaping. Mental constraint is a far more subtle means of constraint than is physical constraint but no less real.
 
You know, I enjoy everyone's angle on the document I posted because one thing we can all agree upon is that it is wrought with consequences and extrapolations that lead to further implications.

The thing that really troubles me is that I do not believe anyone is doing a very good job of explaining what the principles are for them to say something is ethical or unethical in their worldview. It seems that Ted Nugent (he had a piss poor debate in his interview with F&S on his positions) and the antis hold something in common...emotion and not reason to their "we won't give an inch" attitude. It seems very unreasoned.

In a pretty credible poll recently the question was posed to hunters whether they supported high fenced hunting. 58% said no. 12% were unsure. 30% were in favor. I'd wager that 99% of those respondents would not be able to create a system, philosophy or creed that would consistently support their opinions in the matter.

My professor of ethics once said "the key to winning a debate is to be prepared by being able to articulate your opponents position better than they can". I'd like to challenge the readers here to respond with the best arguments you can for BOTH SIDES of this issue of Fence vs. NoFence.

Let me take a stab at both to start and you can amend or shoot holes into both positions:

The reason a fence is to be shunned regardless of size is:

1.) Animals cannot select a mate with the proper biodiversity (inbreeding and linebreeding)
2.) Animal routines and patterns are more consistent because of unmovable barriers on all sides
3.) Stress to the animal may be higher due to unnatural competition for supremacy of a herd or pack since the animal behavior may not tolerate splitting packs or harems over the size of the fenced area
4.) New genetic infusion into the breeding stock requires human intervention
5.) Fences encourage bifurcation of wild stocks and eventual alteration of wild genes (e.g. color alterations of Springbok that are unnatural, breeding of Cape Buffalo for horn size at the expense of weakened TB resistance)
6.) Success will always average higher than unfenced hunting statistically because probability of an animal existing in the area inside a fence is 99.9% whereas in an unfenced area it is uncertain the targeted species is even present.
7.) Fences prevent the full predator/prey relationship from culling the sick and the weak so there is less natural Darwinian "pruning" of prey species.
8.) Holding capacity of fenced areas is greater than unfenced areas because they are managed for optimal food and water to support the resource. This leads to disproportionate quantities of game that leads to:
a.) Higher disease transmission rates
b.) Poorer natural selection to eliminate inefficient feeders
c.) congestion of resources into the areas most heavily managed for food and water (since management is never equal across the area)

The reason a fence is to be supported is:

1.) Without them many species would be extinct
2.) Study of captive herds has provided insights into the wild resource
3.) Fenced resources drive private economic benefit at higher rates than public land unfenced
4.) Animals of superior size can be created or groomed inside of fences
5.) Poachers are at a disadvantage when it comes to depleting the resources
6.) Reasonable accommodation for children, the infirm and the disabled is much easier inside fenced areas
7.) Less resilient species can be managed for their survival by culling stronger species to maintain ratios inside of fences.
8.) Fenced properties typically provide greater economic opportunity as they usually have
a.) More employees
b.) More clients
c.) Higher overall revenue generation per acreage
 
In a pretty credible poll recently the question was posed to hunters whether they supported high fenced hunting. 58% said no. 12% were unsure. 30% were in favor.

I gave a group of hunters a simple multiple choice survey once. It had quite biased questions in it.
1. Is hunter education a good thing?
2. Should violators have to take a hunter education course?
3. Should first time hunters have to take a hunter education course?
4. Should all hunters have to take a hunter education course?
The first three questions got an overwhelming 100% YES response while the last one got the exact opposite.
Evidently, hunter education is for everyone else!

If you would support high fences as a general question without context I would say NO. That answer was predicated on the assumption that the question related to where I hunt at home.
We have huge public and private spaces. Private ownership of game/wildlife is illegal. There is no hunting behind a high fence.
We do not have a threat to our wildlife like they do in Africa. Poaching and over population. We have a degradation of habitat due to resource use in some areas, but nothing matching Africa.
I live in a first world country that can afford to set aside huge tracts of land that are larger than many countries in the world. We are lucky.
It is also illegal to bait deer species here. You can use dogs to hunt cats and you can bait Black Bears.
Now change the circumstances and become educated about the country you are about to hunt in.

  1. For illustration:
    The sum total area of South Africa that has 55 Million people in it is
    1 221 000 km² of which 4% is parks.

    1 026 682 km2 is PROTECTED AREA in Canada. Nearly the entire country of South Africa can fit inside our protected areas where we have ZERO hunting.
    It equates to about 10.3% of our land mass, never mind the marine parks. So we have 2.5 times more protected area on a percentage basis. Nice to have a first world problem where you can set aside such huge tracts of land.

    Canada has 9 985 000 km2 to work with a grand total of 35 million people.


    As much as is possible want to hunt in large areas that are self sustaining, with or without a fence.

    I won't be hunting behind a fence at home, there is no need.


I'd wager that 99% of those respondents would not be able to create a system, philosophy or creed that would consistently support their opinions in the matter.

Of course the world only has one religion now, so I won't take your bet on consensus of philosophy.



The reason a fence is to be shunned regardless of size is:
1.) Animals cannot select a mate with the proper biodiversity (inbreeding and linebreeding)

10 acre bomas (breeding camps are not 7000 Hectare farms.
Animals can quite easily live out a completely natural self sustaining life cycle within a large fenced property.

2.) Animal routines and patterns are more consistent because of unmovable barriers on all sides.
Animals can quite easily live out a completely natural self sustaining life cycle within a fenced property and never encounter the fence.
As far as old migration patterns are concerned, that is a done deal unless we pack everyone back onto a boat and send them back to whence they came. People are part of the equation now. LOTS of people.

3.) Stress to the animal may be higher due to unnatural competition for supremacy of a herd or pack since the animal behavior may not tolerate splitting packs or harems over the size of the fenced area

Again, size matters. Animal home ranges can easily fit within a large property. Eliminating size of property is a fundamental error.

4.) New genetic infusion into the breeding stock requires human intervention
Unless we pack everyone back on the boats humans are going to be intervening.

5.) Fences encourage bifurcation of wild stocks and eventual alteration of wild genes (e.g. color alterations of Springbok that are unnatural, breeding of Cape Buffalo for horn size at the expense of weakened TB resistance)
PROFIT encourages genetic manipulation. I'd suggest we blame gasoline engines for this. It is a tool that is central to all transport of wildlife. That will be a good parallel generalization.

6.) Success will always average higher than unfenced hunting statistically because probability of an animal existing in the area inside a fence is 99.9% whereas in an unfenced area it is uncertain the targeted species is even present.
Game counts are done in any hunting area. The Outfitter will know what product is present.

7.) Fences prevent the full predator/prey relationship from culling the sick and the weak so there is less natural Darwinian "pruning" of prey species.
Humans are natural predators and quite naturally hunt these animals. Cull, Biltong, trophy, rations. The folks who head to SPAR for their food don't seem to grasp this connection.

8.) Holding capacity of fenced areas is greater than unfenced areas because they are managed for optimal food and water to support the resource. This leads to disproportionate quantities of game that leads to:
a.) Higher disease transmission rates
b.) Poorer natural selection to eliminate inefficient feeders
c.) congestion of resources into the areas most heavily managed for food and water (since management is never equal across the area) ..............

Only if the property is managed as a farm and not a self sustaining ecosystem. ie. breeding camp vs reserve

EVERY AREA is managed for optimal game production for that area and the chosen conservation management model.
With a fence or without one.

There are several Outfitter areas in Zimbabwe/Botswana that I can think of, off hand, that have introduced water wells and this ensures that the Elephants are able to spread out and not destroy their entire habitat.
The wells actually provide for a dispersion of then population reducing disease, etc. It is still production manipulation.
It also allows for the natural predators to hunt the Elephant.
 
Brick I think that maybe the response on hunter ed is that many don't feel that making a hunter who has hunted for a lifetime and now regs come in and require a hunter ed class of a few hours by some young guy that has a paper and knows all. I wanted a SA PH to hunt with me here in Idaho but they wouldn't sell him a license as he didn't have Idaho hunter ed. I also see many TV shows including Shockey's of them baiting whitetails in Canada, so it must be legal in some provinces?
 
I've hunted whitetail over feeders in Texas and never thought twice about it. Hunted cut corn fields in Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin for whitetail and never though twice about it. Bear in Alaska, elk and pronghorn in Wyoming - all free to roam as they want. Zimbabwe for buffalo, kudu, bushbuck and impala along the Zambezi river - all free to roam as they want. Last year in New Zealand I hunted tahr in the mountains - free to roam as they want.

Also last year in New Zealand, started out stag free-range. After several days of not seeing any decided to move into the estate - felt the urgency to 'get an animal' and get to the tahr hunt and continue our trip. I told the outfitter/guide the max I wanted to pay for was 360. 1st day in the estate, 2 1/2 hour stalk - difficult / up and down the mountain, an hour watching a stag and then shot it once it got out of its bed. It felt right, it felt ok, I was excited. Then they measured it and miraculously it measured 359 1/2. The antlers are sitting in the work room and I really don't know if I'll put them up. Something didn't feel right to me at that point and still doesn't.

I've said on other threads that I support anything that is legal. And, I do. But for me personally, I doubt I'll hunt behind a high fence ever again.
 
Brick I think that maybe the response on hunter ed is that many don't feel that making a hunter who has hunted for a lifetime and now regs come in and require a hunter ed class of a few hours by some young guy that has a paper and knows all. I wanted a SA PH to hunt with me here in Idaho but they wouldn't sell him a license as he didn't have Idaho hunter ed. I also see many TV shows including Shockey's of them baiting whitetails in Canada, so it must be legal in some provinces?

Saskatchewan lets you bait deer. Do it here and you in big trouble.

The number of hunters I get asking silly questions that are in the updated regulations amazes me.
Once past the bar, until you break the law you don't have to go back to school.
Which is fine.
My comment was more about the question and the manner you ask it and thus, the product you obtain.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,624
Messages
1,131,371
Members
92,681
Latest member
Charlessdiuse
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top