Congrats to my Father in Law for winning what I think is the Nobel Prize of hunting.

bearkilr said:
Strange thing is, I have all the SCI record books and it doesn't specify if the animals were taken behind a high fence or not. Care to share where you're getting your info from?

Better yet, don't derail a thread of this guy's father in law getting a well deserved award by your misinformed rhetoric. I suggest you start with reading which high fence hunt entries SCI actually allows,here:
http://ww w.africahunting.com/content/2-sci-releases-standards-hunting-behind-high-fences-361/
Click to expand...

Just checked out your link. Not sure what it was supposed to prove? First, it applies only to North American hunting. My question was in regards to an animal taken in Africa. Second, it specifically outlines how SCI allows 'high fence' hunting - which equates to captive animals that are not free range.

What is our disagreement here?

I claim that SCI allows animals that were taken in canned hunts in their record books. Are you disputing this?

And just out of curiosity, have you ever shot a captive animal for sport?
 
Canned is a word with pretty broad meaning to some. No doubt there are some operators of ill repute that offer fish in a barrel hunts but many high-fence operations in South Africa and Namibia cover tens of thousands of acres. The fence does not play into the hunt but it certainly plays into the management and sustainability of wildlife in some countries. In countries like South Africa and Namibia many species would cease to exist if it were not for fenced hunting. Thankfully, we live in a bit of a bubble here in North America and enjoy relatively low human population, extensive quality habitat and a high standard of living. In countries where they don't enjoy those luxuries, wildlife takes a backseat to humans and without the existence of high-fenced ranches, much of the wildlife could cease to exist. Certainly hunting behind a fence may not be for everyone and that's understandable but to call all high-fenced hunts "canned" does demonstrate a lack of understanding on a broad scale basis. SCI does recognize animals taken behind high fence for their record book just as the recognize the value of these operations to wildlife worldwide. There are good operations and bad ones...it's important to make the distinction as SCI attempts to in the link above.

BTW, to the OP...congrats to your Father in Law.
 
sheephunter said:
Canned is a word with pretty broad meaning to some. No doubt there are some operators of ill repute that offer fish in a barrel hunts but many high-fence operations in South Africa and Namibia cover tens of thousands of acres. The fence does not play into the hunt but it certainly plays into the management and sustainability of wildlife in some countries. In countries like South Africa and Namibia many species would cease to exist if it were not for fenced hunting. Thankfully, we live in a bit of a bubble here in North America and enjoy relatively low human population, extensive quality habitat and a high standard of living. In countries where they don't enjoy those luxuries, wildlife takes a backseat to humans and without the existence of high-fenced ranches, much of the wildlife could cease to exist. Certainly hunting behind a fence may not be for everyone and that's understandable but to call all high-fenced hunts "canned" does demonstrate a lack of understanding on a broad scale basis. SCI does recognize animals taken behind high fence for their record book just as the recognize the value of these operations to wildlife worldwide. There are good operations and bad ones...it's important to make the distinction as SCI attempts to in the link above.
Click to expand...

That link only applies to North American canned 'hunting.' I can't seem to find anything on SCI's website in regards to their stipulations for canned 'hunting' in Africa.

My opinion is pretty straight forward: if there are fences it is a canned hunt. This is consistent with B&C and P&Y.

Anyone that enjoys hunting should be able to see how organizations like SCI are hurting the sport. They encourage the hunting of endangered species, reward canned 'hunters' and contribute to a culture that supports the genetic modification of 'game' farmed in canned hunting operations. IMO genuine hunters should be concerned with these trends. And the sad part is that the majority of the participants in these 'hunts' are a really tiny minority of ultra-rich 'hunters' and not indicative to true outdoorspeople. Real hunters should distance themselves from these types as well as canned hunting.
 
Last edited:
P&Y and B&C are just other record keeping organizations with their own rules, just as SCI has their own rules. None of them dictate ethics nor law nor definition of words, other than within the bounds of their own organizations so really it's not that straight forward.

As for hunting "endangered" species, you would be well served to educate yourself as to the benefits of sport hunting to some of the species at risk. Without sport hunting, some would likely be extinct. Sadly, in most of Africa, if something doesn't have a monetary value, there is no place for it. Hunters give wildlife a value to the local economies and a reason to manage them responsibly. If you want to watch a disaster in the making, watch what happens in Botswana now that sport hunting has been abolished.

I truly appreciate your passion but you be well served to do a little research...I suspect you'd at least open your eyes if not change your opinion on many things African.

**** Just noticed your edit.....you seem to throw the word "real" hunter around like it has some universal meaning. To me it means a hunter that doesn't trash other hunters without knowing all the facts, regardless if they do things differently.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
P&Y and B&C are just other record keeping organizations with their own rules, just as SCI has their own rules. None of them dictate ethics nor law nor definition of words, other than within the bounds of their own organizations so really it's not that straight forward.

As for hunting "endangered" species, you would be well served to educate yourself as to the benefits of sport hunting to some of the species at risk. Without sport hunting, some would likely be extinct. Sadly, in most of Africa, if something doesn't have a monetary value, there is no place for it. Hunters give wildlife a value to the local economies and a reason to manage them responsibly. If you want to watch a disaster in the making, watch what happens in Botswana now that sport hunting has been abolished.

I truly appreciate your passion but you be well served to do a little research...I suspect you'd at least open your eyes if not change your opinion on many things African.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but can you point me to some scientific studies that suggest killing endangered species actually saves them? And quotes from profiteers of the system or the shooters at canned hunts will not suffice.

To me it is a sad state of affairs when hunters are only concerned with animals that they can kill, but it is as equally sad when some genuine hunters can be duped into supporting their unethical practices.
 
Perhaps you could let me know what "endangered" species are being hunted and then I could better answer your question. BTW, this is a trick question.
 
sheephunter said:
**** Just noticed your edit.....you seem to throw the word "real" hunter around like it has some universal meaning. To me it means a hunter that doesn't trash other hunters without knowing all the facts, regardless if they do things differently.
Click to expand...

Two components of a real hunter are ethics (fair chase = no fences) and a genuine concern for conservation (ie no killing of endangered species). If shooters at canned hunts are so concerned with endangered species they could easily donate their money to local economies instead of requiring some sort of repayment in the form of a 'trophy' kill.
 
travis_ said:
Two components of a real hunter are ethics (fair chase = no fences) and a genuine concern for conservation (ie no killing of endangered species). If shooters at canned hunts are so concerned with endangered species they could easily donate their money to local economies instead of requiring some sort of repayment in the form of a 'trophy' kill.
Click to expand...

How much money do you donate to these local economies? I never said they hunted specifically to help wildlife but it certainly is a nice benefit. Let's face it, none of us are going to just send the money that we'd spend on a hunt to some village in Africa but offer us an opportunity and we'll part with our cash in a hurry and if parting with that cash ultimately benefits wildlife.....where's the problem again?
 
sheephunter said:
How much money do you donate to these local economies? I never said they hunted specifically to help wildlife but it certainly is a nice benefit. Let's face it, none of us are going to just send the money that we'd spend on a hunt to some village in Africa but offer us an opportunity and we'll part with our cash in a hurry and if parting with that cash ultimately benefits wildlife.....where's the problem again?
Click to expand...

I have no information that suggests that cash for canned hunts benefits wildlife. I am sure the canned hunt operators and their wealthy clientele claim this. But, of course, they have incentive to make such claims. It is a rationalization that does not stand up to critical scrutiny.

As for endangered species, perhaps the right term would have been threatened as it applies to many more animals (elephants, lions, etc) being shot at canned hunts. Although endangered animals (black rhinos) are also still hunted by these same types people. Within my lifetime lions among others will become endangered. So, yes I find it disconcerting that people kill them for pleasure.
 
Wrong Way said:
Holy fu$&. Nice thread hijack Travis.... Just breeze in and #### on what *should* be a positive and congratulatory thread. If my name was in blue I'd infract your ass.
Click to expand...

I just asked about the method of hunting? Seemed pretty important to me as I am a hunter and in a hunting section of a firearms message board...

After that I just responded to comments made.
 
travis_ said:
What is our disagreement here?

I claim that SCI allows animals that were taken in canned hunts in their record books. Are you disputing this?
Click to expand...

This is what our disagreement is about.

travis_ said:
Not trying to hate, but SCI recognizes animals killed in canned hunts. Was the Eland harvested free range?
Click to expand...


travis_ said:
I guess part of the reason I thought canned hunting was so prevalent is actually SCI itself. Basically all of their records are stacked with 'hunters' who have taken fenced animals.
Click to expand...


My last post on this, start another thread if you wish to debate SCI's policies.
As a final word, you may want to brush up on your "knowledge" of Africa and its wildlife practices before stirring up a debate.

As Mark Twain said "It's better to be thought of as a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
 
Last edited:
Travis....It's unfortunate that you are so readily buying into the eco babble about "endangered" species. The Greenpeace types look at one isolated population of a species that is in trouble and then paint the entire worldwide population with the "endangered" brush despite the fact that it's total myth. You seem like a very intelligent and passionate guy and it breaks my heart to see you drinking this Kool-Aid. This is what the anti-hunters depend upon...these fractures among our own ranks. No question some species like lions and elephants have disappeared throughout much of their range but not as a result of hunting but as a result of that range being converted to agriculture and urbanization. In areas where this conflict doesn't exist, say Botswana elephants for example, they are quite literally overrun with elephants. Stopping hunting won't halt the destruction of habitat and the ultimate demise of some of these species, quite the opposite in fact. Hunt them in a sustainable fashion and you bring enough money to the local economy to stop the land conversion and ensure the future of the species. It's pretty simple.

I am aware of one black rhino being killed in Namibia this year. It was a very old male that for management reasons was going to be removed from a park by the government. Rather than just kill it themselves, they offered the opportunity to hunt it. If I'm not mistaken it will bring about $200,000 to wildlife management and the local economy in Namibia. This was an animal slated for execution anyhow.....why not allow a hunter to hunt it and raise money for further rhino research and management? There are usually two sides to every story and if you really are concerned. it is worth getting both sides.

The hunting of "endangered" species is closely regulated by the worldwide CITES agreement and it ensures that "endangered" animals are indeed not hunted to extinction.

While I may not agree with all of the SCI policies, I feel that overall they are a very beneficial organization to hunters and wildlife worldwide and that's why I support them. Actually the same could be said of all the hunting/conservation organizations that I belong to.

Travis, I'm all for informed debate but it's not constructive to call other hunters names and judge them based on very little knowledge of a situation. Something to consider.
 
bearkilr said:
This is what our disagreement is about.







My last post on this, start another thread if you wish to debate SCI's policies.
As a final word, you may want to brush up on your "knowledge" of Africa and its wildlife practices before stirring up a debate.

As Mark Twain said "It's better to be thought of as a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
Click to expand...

You forgot to answer my question inquiring about whether you have ever shot a fenced in animal for sport, son.
 
bearkilr said:
This is what our disagreement is about.








My last post on this, start another thread if you wish to debate SCI's policies.
As a final word, you may want to brush up on your "knowledge" of Africa and its wildlife practices before stirring up a debate.

As Mark Twain said "It's better to be thought of as a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
Click to expand...

THIS ^^^ Start a new thread for debate, this thread was to congratulate a man for a significant achievement in the hunting world and had nothing to do with canned hunts and SCI ethics and rules.
Which if I haven't said it before Congrats to your father-in-law, I have looked seriously at this hunt in CAR and I KNOW there is nothing fenced or canned about CAR hunts.
 
sheephunter said:
Travis....It's unfortunate that you are so readily buying into the eco babble about "endangered" species. The Greenpeace types look at one isolated population of a species that is in trouble and then paint the entire worldwide population with the "endangered" brush despite the fact that it's total myth. You seem like a very intelligent and passionate guy and it breaks my heart to see you drinking this Kool-Aid. This is what the anti-hunters depend upon...these fractures among our own ranks. No question some species like lions and elephants have disappeared throughout much of their range but not as a result of hunting but as a result of that range being converted to agriculture and urbanization. In areas where this conflict doesn't exist, say Botswana elephants for example, they are quite literally overrun with elephants. Stopping hunting won't halt the destruction of habitat and the ultimate demise of some of these species, quite the opposite in fact. Hunt them in a sustainable fashion and you bring enough money to the local economy to stop the land conversion and ensure the future of the species. It's pretty simple.

I am aware of one black rhino being killed in Namibia this year. It was a very old male that for management reasons was going to be removed from a park by the government. Rather than just kill it themselves, they offered the opportunity to hunt it. If I'm not mistaken it will bring about $200,000 to wildlife management and the local economy in Namibia. This was an animal slated for execution anyhow.....why not allow a hunter to hunt it and raise money for further rhino research and management? There are usually two sides to every story and if you really are concerned. it is worth getting both sides.

The hunting of "endangered" species is closely regulated by the worldwide CITES agreement and it ensures that "endangered" animals are indeed not hunted to extinction.

While I may not agree with all of the SCI policies, I feel that overall they are a very beneficial organization to hunters and wildlife worldwide and that's why I support them. Actually the same could be said of all the hunting/conservation organizations that I belong to.

Travis, I'm all for informed debate but it's not constructive to call other hunters names and judge them based on very little knowledge of a situation. Something to consider.
Click to expand...

Sheephunter, thanks for your responses. Although we disagree I think you have made some worthwhile points. I still can't support canned hunting or SCI, however.

Wrong Way, you need to learn to communicate a wee bit better and use less profanity. It is unbecoming, pappy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom