The End of Canned Lion Hunting

DirtyOldSix

DirtyOldSix

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Durbanville, South Africa
I believe this applies, because most lion hunters were dollar paying customers from the Western world.


End of road for canned hunting

Elise Tempelhoff
Vanderbijlpark – It is the end of the road for South Africa’s 123 lion breeders and 3 000 canned lions.

This follows a verdict in the Free State High Court in Bloemfontein on Thursday that these semi-tame animals may only be hunted 24 months after being set free from their breeding cages.

Judge Ian van der Merwe concurred with the government that biodiversity must be protected, and that the breeding of lions in captivity with the sole purpose of canned hunting, did not aid their protection.

The lion breeders’ request that the period of 24 months in the regulations be changed to “a few days”, was dismissed with costs.

Verdict welcomed

Albi Modise, spokesperson for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, said the government welcomes the verdict.

“This means that the reprehensible practice of canned hunting has most certainly come to an end.”

Carel van Heerden, chairperson of the South African Predator Breeders Association, which took the government to court, said it was a tragic verdict.

“It feels like someone has kicked me in the stomach.

“The practical implications of the verdict are devastating to our industry and to all the people involved in the industry. It means that 5 000 breadwinners will soon lose their jobs, and about 3 000 (semi-tame) lions will have to be put down.”

The financial implications on members of the association, and the damage it will cause to the hunting and tourism industry in South Africa is incalculable, said Van Heerden.

“We operate a perfectly legal business and will continue to seek justice.”

According to Van Heerden, the association’s legal team will now study the verdict in its entirety, and then possibly apply for leave to appeal the verdict.

Apparently, some of the farmers on Thursday threatened to sue the government due to the loss of income they will suffer due to the legislation.

Multi-million rand industry

Van der Merwe said in his verdict that lion farmers, who are currently keeping a multi-million rand industry afloat, are just worried about money and the economic losses they will suffer if the semi-tame lions must first spend two years roaming free in nature before they can be hunted.

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, former minister of environmental affairs and tourism, was taken to court by lion breeders about two years ago, when he apparently wanted to “crush” their industry with regulations regarding threatened and protected species.

According to the regulations, a lion which has been bred in captivity, must be self-sustaining for 24 months (in other words, hunt for prey), before it can be hunted.

The lion breeders said in court papers that it would mean their downfall if the animals had to remain free for that long. They called the decision irrational.

Furthermore, Modise said that while hunting makes a substantial and positive contribution to conservation management and the country’s economy, the government also needs to protect a valuable resource and ensure that the industry has a sustainable future.
“We need a clean hunting industry, free from unacceptable behaviour which could damage the country’s image.”
 
Naturally the government of the RSA has come up with a solution without a plan of how to get from here to there. Lion hunts should be conducted in fair chase wilderness situations, but simply passing a law to ban the practice of canned hunts does not address the problem of thousands of lions that cannot realistically be released into the wild. Never learning to hunt, they would become man killers shortly after missing their first meal. Since they no longer generate an income there will be no feed for them. So in one simple stoke of the pen, Big Brother has taken a ethically questionable situation and created a disaster from it. Nicely done.
 
Boomer said:
Naturally the government of the RSA has come up with a solution without a plan of how to get from here to there. Lion hunts should be conducted in fair chase wilderness situations, but simply passing a law to ban the practice of canned hunts does not address the problem of thousands of lions that cannot realistically be released into the wild. Never learning to hunt, they would become man killers shortly after missing their first meal. Since they no longer generate an income there will be no feed for them. So in one simple stoke of the pen, Big Brother has taken a ethically questionable situation and created a disaster from it. Nicely done.
Click to expand...

x2,
You got the animal, not unlike all of us with pets, its yours for the long haul...
Is their an SPCA for lions?:D
Lion hunts should be conducted in fair chase wilderness situations , remove should, replace with Must.
 
Maasai to the rescue!! :D

How naive of me- I had no idea there were that many canned lion hunts in South Africa. Good that they ended it, bad that they did it without a proper plan. Considering the cats fate otherwise (before and after this decision), euthanization isn't unreasonable.
 
Levi Garrett said:
x2,
You got the animal, not unlike all of us with pets, its yours for the long haul...
Is their an SPCA for lions?:D
Lion hunts should be conducted in fair chase wilderness situations , remove should, replace with Must.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%.

I also think you should have to use traditional methods like the Masai!

Unlimited tags if you are using a spear!

So what about bear beating and tree stands etc. in Canada?

You guys consider that fair? I am not commenting, but asking.
 
Baiting is considered a reasonable and legal hunting technique not only in North America for bears, but also in Africa for the wilderness hunting of big cats. While is might be argued that the baited game has less chance than one that is not baited, the amount of time a hunter can remain in the field is limited, and baiting compensates to some degree for the limited time one is able to spend in the field. The hunter's success also depends upon his patience and ability to be quiet. If he is fidgety his probability of success drops significantly. The hunter is the one who decides if he takes the shot on any animal, and he may choose to wait until a better specimen presents itself. In so doing, this decision might result in getting skunked, just as could be the case if a similar decision was made when still hunting. This is in sharp contrast to the canned hunt where a game animal is in a small enclosure and is subsequently shot with little opportunity of escape, and a specific animal is allocated to a specific hunter.

Canned hunts should not be confused with ranch hunts where hunting areas can be as large or even larger than some wilderness areas. It is unclear to me from the article if ranch hunting is affected by these regulations, although it does appear that the private ownership of lions for the purpose of hunting is no longer legal.
 
Oh I can go Primitive , but what of all the money spent on toys for our most awesome time of year? and the limited time some have does require prior scouting, a guide maybe, thats employment , and certain tools of the trade, calls, bait, stands, high power very accurate, to the 1" and halfer, rusted up lever for the evergreens..
Razor blades in flight, also have a following :D
How you kill the animal is much less important than what you do after the shot.
We are meat eating, ### loving guys with a dose of common sense..
Even this canned hunt, if high dollar was offered up, heck take the money and run, use it to help !
But who am I to question their methods, we got enough crap to deal with here.
 
Boomer said:
Baiting is considered a reasonable and legal hunting technique not only in North America for bears, but also in Africa for the wilderness hunting of big cats. While is might be argued that the baited game has less chance than one that is not baited, the amount of time a hunter can remain in the field is limited, and baiting compensates to some degree for the limited time one is able to spend in the field. The hunter's success also depends upon his patience and ability to be quiet. If he is fidgety his probability of success drops significantly. The hunter is the one who decides if he takes the shot on any animal, and he may choose to wait until a better specimen presents itself. In so doing, this decision might result in getting skunked, just as could be the case if a similar decision was made when still hunting. This is in sharp contrast to the canned hunt where a game animal is in a small enclosure and is subsequently shot with little opportunity of escape, and a specific animal is allocated to a specific hunter.

Canned hunts should not be confused with ranch hunts where hunting areas can be as large or even larger than some wilderness areas. It is unclear to me from the article if ranch hunting is affected by these regulations, although it does appear that the private ownership of lions for the purpose of hunting is no longer legal.
Click to expand...

Well I guess some people just consider a hunt to be pulling the trigger...

You said baiting is considered "reasonable" and mentioned the need to be patient, and ones ability to be quiet... None of those issues seem to attest to a hunter's skill in tracking, outdoor skills, understanding of his prey, fitness, etc, nor does it attest to "fair chase wilderness situations ".

Convenience, which seems to be the reasons for the baiting, scouting, and having a guide are exactly the same reasons that people use to defend the canned hunt.

" the amount of time a hunter can remain in the field is limited, and baiting compensates to some degree for the limited time one is able to spend in the field."

It also compensates for a lack of all the things I stated above.... So with the firearms, baiting, telescopic sights, vehicles, guides, etc, I don't see how that is "fair compensation".

However, anyone who stalks or tracks game on foot and takes it iron sighted, unsupported is "Fair" game I would say. Having a PH and porters for safety and security is also fair, but multiple trackers, flushing or baiting the animals, etc. move it from man vs. animal, and fair to a serious advantage in favour of the "inconvenienced hunter".
 
yyyyy said:
Well I guess some people just consider a hunt to be pulling the trigger...

You said baiting is considered "reasonable" and mentioned the need to be patient, and ones ability to be quiet... None of those issues seem to attest to a hunter's skill in tracking, outdoor skills, understanding of his prey, fitness, etc, nor does it attest to "fair chase wilderness situations ".

Convenience, which seems to be the reasons for the baiting, scouting, and having a guide are exactly the same reasons that people use to defend the canned hunt.

" the amount of time a hunter can remain in the field is limited, and baiting compensates to some degree for the limited time one is able to spend in the field."

It also compensates for a lack of all the things I stated above.... So with the firearms, baiting, telescopic sights, vehicles, guides, etc, I don't see how that is "fair compensation".

However, anyone who stalks or tracks game on foot and takes it iron sighted, unsupported is "Fair" game I would say. Having a PH and porters for safety and security is also fair, but multiple trackers, flushing or baiting the animals, etc. move it from man vs. animal, and fair to a serious advantage in favour of the "inconvenienced hunter".
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with your assessment. We should hunt to our own ethical standards, and bring up our children to do likewise, but we should not publicly criticize others who hunt legally.

I happen to think it is more ethical to hunt with a scope sighted rifle than one equipped with iron sights, as most hunters shoot better with a 1X scope than they could with irons, in other words, the use of a scope sight simply reduces the chance of a game animal being wounded compared to shooting with irons. But I don't criticize those who choose to use irons as their primary sighting system, nor do I expect them to criticize me for choosing a scope.

An individual who still-hunts will never experience the sight of a lion that comes to the bait. He will never know what it is like to hear the leaves crackle under his paws and to see the grass wall of his blind shake as a 450 pound lion only inches away explores it. Hunting is about experience, and choosing not to hunt baited game may very well rob you of a wonderful experience. But if those are your ethics, it is not up to me to criticize. By the way, to bait a lion you must manage to shoot something that you have not baited to bait him with. The follow up on a lion is perhaps one of the most intense hunting events anyone could experience, and this has nothing to do with how the lion is located.

Patience is singularly the most important ingredient to a successful hunt, regardless of the method employed. If you run around aimlessly looking for game because you can't sit still, or can't stalk an animal you have miraculously located, you will only succeed by accident. If you are not dogged in you determination (patience) to climb one more hill, or cross one more swamp, even though you are exhausted, you will not succeed. If you rush the shot you will not succeed. If you fail to mark the spot you last saw the animal at the shot, you will not succeed. An individual must learn patience in order to acquire skill.

Tracking becomes a very important skill set for the bait hunter once an animal is shot and runs off. Anyone who has hunted has experienced this, regardless of the game they've shot, the distance they have fired from, or the method used to locate the game. The shot that provides the best chance of success, the lung shot, almost guarantees that the animal will run off, and must be tracked to be found.
 
Boomer said:
I completely disagree with your assessment. We should hunt to our own ethical standards, and bring up our children to do likewise, but we should not publicly criticize others who hunt legally.

I happen to think it is more ethical to hunt with a scope sighted rifle than one equipped with iron sights, as most hunters shoot better with a 1X scope than they could with irons, in other words, the use of a scope sight simply reduces the chance of a game animal being wounded compared to shooting with irons. But I don't criticize those who choose to use irons as their primary sighting system, nor do I expect them to criticize me for choosing a scope.

An individual who still-hunts will never experience the sight of a lion that comes to the bait. He will never know what it is like to hear the leaves crackle under his paws and to see the grass wall of his blind shake as a 450 pound lion only inches away explores it. Hunting is about experience, and choosing not to hunt baited game may very well rob you of a wonderful experience. But if those are your ethics, it is not up to me to criticize. By the way, to bait a lion you must manage to shoot something that you have not baited to bait him with. The follow up on a lion is perhaps one of the most intense hunting events anyone could experience, and this has nothing to do with how the lion is located.

Patience is singularly the most important ingredient to a successful hunt, regardless of the method employed. If you run around aimlessly looking for game because you can't sit still, or can't stalk an animal you have miraculously located, you will only succeed by accident. If you are not dogged in you determination (patience) to climb one more hill, or cross one more swamp, even though you are exhausted, you will not succeed. If you rush the shot you will not succeed. If you fail to mark the spot you last saw the animal at the shot, you will not succeed. An individual must learn patience in order to acquire skill.

Tracking becomes a very important skill set for the bait hunter once an animal is shot and runs off. Anyone who has hunted has experienced this, regardless of the game they've shot, the distance they have fired from, or the method used to locate the game. The shot that provides the best chance of success, the lung shot, almost guarantees that the animal will run off, and must be tracked to be found.
Click to expand...

I'm online with most of this, but the choice of equipment being an ethics issue, it clearly is not, commitment to the sport is, and make the best use of the best gear you have , some are limited
Know the game animal you hunt, and enjoy , once the enjoy part is gone, quit.
 
Back to the lions...

I've never understood how someone could consider it a real hunt to have a lion released "a few days" before they show up and then sally forth to shoot it. Now, were they bred or allowed to breed on a ranch (ranches in RSA are pretty large affairs) and were wild on the land that would be a different thing.

I can't decry this as a bad decision, but there should be some plan to keep the industry running.
 
Iron sighted was just a stripped down comparison and throwback reference to the Roosevelt and Capstick and Hemingway Days when it was about the man and the wild. Not about the gear, or the limited time one has to get a kill, making it OK to tip the odds even further against the lion for the sake of convenience.
 
A "canned hunt" is not something that I personally would ever want to engage in but I am always cautious about feeling good when any type of hunting (even those that I would never do) is stopped because it is the grand plan of the anti hunting and PETA types to divide and conquer.

If science (not emotion) can show that a particular type of hunting should be stopped then I can see the reasoning and get behind it but I am very catious about playing into the hands of PETA type people.

Hunting will be ended by the same methods gun ownership is being eroded, split the group up and destroy them one at a time.
 
I watched a hunting show on WildTV not too long ago, in which the hunter was sitting in a blind watching a nice poplar ridge. He was all excited about all the deer running this ridge and beginning to rut early, but anyone that knows anything at all about deer would immediately realize that the damn deer were simply coming to a pile of oats (Sask whitetail hunt).

If he had simply said, "We got a pile of oats over there and let's see what kinda deer we might get...", then I would have had no issue with the show. But the way it was presented was phoney.

I have no issue with the baiting, but the hunter was BSing the viewers by acting like this was a natural setting, when it was a pile of grain that was causing all the activity.



Pfftt...
 
I have hunted and guided over bait, baited for trapping and baited animals for research so I might have an opinion on this too. :D
I'm wondering if you are confusing ethics with challenge though. Baiting definately increases the odds of harvesting an animal, otherwise people wouldn't do it. It doesn't guarantee a harvest though. Food is a great motivator, but it doesn't cancel out an animals senses or flight instinct, it just gives them a reason to come around and hopefully stick around in your chosen spot. For every deer that will eat out of your hand or bear that lays down in the doughnut pile, there are two that only come in after dark or shy away at the slightest fidget or puff of wind. Using bait to lessen the time in the field only works in the context that you have some other guy (the guide) baiting for you and can show up later when an animal is coming in regularily. This is more a product of guiding in that good guides can take you out to see animals not coming to bait too, since they spend endless hours out scoping and learning what lives in their territory. Nothing replaces time spent in the field.

How you choose to hunt is personal, and should be as long as its legal AND the harvest is done in a humane manner. I think most people would agree that not all challenging hunts are ethical and not all ethical hunts are challenging. Back to the OP though- I'd personally be much more proud of baiting in a wild lion than shooting a free ranging one that was raised.
 
Ever try to catch a fish on a bare hook?

Bait/spoon/lure works much, much better. How is this different from other animals we harvest? Keep in mind your ethics are not necessarily those of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom