# South Africa to ban bowhunting



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

This needs a little more consideration. Yes it smacks of ARA’s MO of one step at a time, and eliminating bow hunting because it causes undue suffering is ludicrous. But Chuck Adams himself said he would not recommend hunting elephants with a bow and it should be outlawed due to the difficulty of insuring a good clean kill. This might be the case with the rhino too. But to outlaw all bow hunting because of undue suffering is just the first step to outlawing all hunting in SA. Who is to say that gun hunting causes any less suffering? 

But then we get to the canned hunting issue. One of my hot buttons, first we need to be careful when tossing around the term canned. What constitutes canned, is it high fences, is it the size of the enclosure, is it the condition of the animal, i.e. drugged, tame, just let out of a cage and confused? My idea of canned is a combination of all or some of the above. Letting an animal “fend for itself” for a time before a person can hunt it, is a good idea, but two years? There should be some limit (min) on the size of the area hunted behind high fences. And turning a animal loose the day before the hunters arrive, after it has been raised in a cage for years, well, to me, not a good way to portray hunting. 

This is a prime example of hunters not policing our own ranks. If we don’t we open ourselves up to outsiders, ARA’s, doing it for us. If we as hunters didn’t allow canned hunting, then we wouldn’t be giving the anti’s a foot hold for this kind of wider sweeping action against us. This IMO is what happens when we try to hide behind the big tent, just because someone wants to do it, and they call it hunting does not mean it’s good for us as hunters to allow them to do it. 

My suggestion would be to call for an all out boycott of any hunting in SA, see if the Anti’s will pony up and replace the money we bring into that country as hunters.


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

Oh don't even worry about it! It's just a "chicken agenda" it won't spread, WE have nothing to worry about! 

THAT is exactly the attitude , that I get when I mention EXACTLY what they're up to and their plans which this follows 100%!

So while you and a* few* others run around posting in various forums; saying that you have "bowhunting's best interests at heart" your very actions disprove that fact, far better to share what you don't even own than to give them more ammuniton to use against all of us, but you already have been told that fact many times! What actions do you and the other three or four do? Continue to "bounce around" trying to convince anyone that you can(few though they may be) the crossbow is the "end" , but still you're unable to prove it to most hunter's satisfaction! Because, it doesn't happen! 

Keep fostering the division guys, and WHEN it happens here, everyone will know you were warned and made fun of it, and some even went so far as to say we need to "grow some stones"......etc.

THIS is REAL; and does impact us all, "chicken" or not, I'd rather be called names and be bowhunting myself, guess some would rather not share and end up losing it all??


----------



## Matatazela (Mar 1, 2005)

*Thanks for the concern.*

There are two other threads at least dealing with this. It is biodiversity conservation legislation, regulating the hunting (all forms) of listed animal species. The list is on this thread. 

The kneejerk reaction has served to get the links to the legislation emailed to about one hundred of my contacts, though. A good thing that the interest in this is very high.

Once again, thanks for your concern. If you would like, you may still forward some comments to the contact at the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

Ace are you just posting here to stir things up? This has nothing to do with the division you started with your x-bow pushing agenda. And for you to use something like this to “TRY” and further your own little minded agenda is despicable at the very least. Go climb back in your big tent and let those of us that think bowhunting is special and worth saving handle this.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

FR and ACE, knock it off. This is about South Africa and the potential move to ban bowhunting. Hunters should step up and fight this one rigorously.

I'll do some reading and try to give my take on this. Kind of busy with a server install right now....

Again, keep the personal bashing out of it. Looks real solid to have two bowhunters bickering when we need to unite and stop this malarky from going on in South Africa. I know a couple outfitters there, one in particular, Numzaan Safaris, and I would hate to find out if we could have helped with this issue, but the BS bickering between bowhunters got in the way.

The end of bowhunting will come from the divided and elitist attitudes shared by many. This stops now. Savvy? We have bigger fish to fry beyond personal attacks......


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

See my first post.
Again IMO this is where the big tent mentality gets us. We hunters should stand together to protect, hunting, but to claim killing drugged, just released, chained, and or animals in small enclosures is hunting worth protecting, leads to this stuff. If someone wants to have a breeder, breed them an animal to kill so they can hang it on a wall. That’s fine but do it in a slaughter house and don’t call it hunting.


----------



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

Free Range do you only read a few words and then go off at the mouth in ervey thread? Try to read the whole article and do some research with more than one source before yo make yourself look the fool. A fenced enclosure in Africa may surround 500 miles and most all of the preserves are fenced in. Emotional potshots that keep happening in some of these threads serve no purpose and only take away from the issues. 

The threads in general have taken a much more mature reasoning on than this one has. I am glad we posted in more than one place. Have fun with your cat fight boys.


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

I read the whole article, and that is what you posted, you didn’t say, here read this then do a months worth of research and give us a complete theses about the good and bad of canned hunting. 



> loopholes that have allowed environmental thugs to get away with immoral activities like canned hunting," he said.


See he said canned, That is what I was talking about. 



> The report did not say how many of those hunts were "canned."


Nor did I, I was commenting on the canned hunts, not all bowhunting in SA, did you read my whole post or just a few words then spout off? 



> Breeders have used crossbreeding and genetic manipulation to make the potential trophies more appealing — by producing large numbers of albino lions, for instance.


You condone this? 



> The proposed laws would allow a protected predator to be hunted after it is released into the wild and has fended for itself for at least two years.


I assume this means that now they are being hunted, in some places, just after being released. You are all for this kind of “hunting”??? 



> Emotional potshots that keep happening in some of these threads serve no purpose and only take away from the issues.


What is the issue? To poke our heads in the sand and say “hey if some idiot wants to call his form of killing, hunting then we must be for it”? That is your idea of mature reasoning???


----------



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

I also posted as to how the article was written in an anti tenor. Go to the posts in the hunting section and get the whole story. i do appologize for jumping on you, but it seems most of the time when you and ace are in a thread the thread heads south real fast. The main issue gets cast aside and a crossbow thread is born.


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

No problem, and you are right, it does turn into a pi$$ing match whenever we get on a thread, however, my first post was completely on topic. I did see the Anti angle in that article. And like I said, I think a good ole boycott would change their tune real quick. I posted my opinion as to one reason this is happening, although the anti’s don’t really need a reason. 

We can handle the anti’s they are very small in number and don’t wield that much clout on their own. The reason we need to be ethical, and be consciences of our actions and the perception of us as hunters is because the middle will decide our fate. Those that don’t care one way or the other about hunting. Those are the ones the antis are pandering to with their photos of big eyed baby seals and lions being killed in a 10x10 pen by some idiot with a bow and to much money. 

Ace is right about one thing, we are our worse enemy, and it’s this kind of crap (canned killing) by so called hunters that is killing us.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Free Range said:


> Ace is right about one thing, we are our worse enemy, and it’s this kind of crap (canned killing) by so called hunters that is killing us.


Ace is correct. We are our own worst enemies. However, I will take offense to the use of the word "canned hunt" when these preserves that are fenced are many square miles in size. You see, the term "canned hunt" is akin with such wonderful terms as "assault weapon" and "cop killer bullets." These are liberal labels meant to invoke an emotional response that may be completely contrary to the truth. Yet we follow in the emotional deception, partly due to our desire to make certain we have a fair chase assured, and rightfully so, but also out of some deep-seeded fear that we will be labeled with the politically incorrect hogwash the liberals and anti's have successfully forced upon all of us. The knee-jerking we seem to have over this issue is a testament to the effectiveness the anti's have had, and this is very, very disturbing, indeed.

Case in point, and closer to home, NYS had a bill in the State Assembly, that passed due to Democrat control, which would have banned all "canned hunts" in NYS. A canned hunt was defined as hunting upon fenced property. On the surface, this sounded like a noble, protect the sportsman action, until, upon reading the language of the bill, we found that ANY land that had ANY fence on it, would be considered participating in a canned hunt. How many farms do we hunt that have old fence lines? Yep, the language would have prohibited hunters from pursuing game on just about every farm in the STate. Yet, it "felt" good to oppose the "canned hunt", but that is by NO MEANS the agenda and purpose of this proposed bill. Fortunately, the bill got killed in the Senate, as sense and reason and sportsmen, real sportsmen, discovered the truth, and the Republican led Senate killed it dead as the dodo, thankfully so.

I also find it rather hypocritical that these liberals will go after the "canned hunt" to the average Joe (fences on lands), yet not a peep over Ted Turner and his vast acreage of "game preserves", where he charges folks THOUSANDS for the priveledge to hunt his land. Being the largest property owner in the Nation, does anyone find it odd that not a peep from PETA or HSUS concerning these activities by good old Ted? And why would they? He gave them the Communist News Network, and has a good liberal Hanoi Jane as his wife.

Yes, we are our own worst enemies, but it has nothing to do with canned hunts. This although may rub some the wrong way, it becomes a matter of choice. Like products and programs we disagree with, we have the ultimate responsibility to fight this through choosing not to support those businesses. But to fight to ban them altogether, indeed we are our own worst enemies. What would be next? Banning the use of dogs for coyote hunting? Banning any baiting of bear and deer in the States which allow this? How about halting the deer drives altogether?

This is a slippery slope, and although we may disagree with some hunting methods/ opportunties, we cannot afford as a group to get into internal pissing contests over whose personal code of ethics is superior. That is stupid is as stupid does, and we all ought to be ashamed of ourselves in that regard. Get the facts, and do not be duped by the terms "canned hunt" or "high fenced hunts". There is always far more to the reality than catchy, emotion emoting phrases bantered about to illicit the reacvtion that they have successfully wanted to create.


----------



## KOhunter (Mar 17, 2006)

doctariAFC said:


> This is a slippery slope, and although we may disagree with some hunting methods/ opportunties, we cannot afford as a group to get into internal pissing contests over whose personal code of ethics is superior. That is stupid is as stupid does, and we all ought to be ashamed of ourselves in that regard. Get the facts, and do not be duped by the terms "canned hunt" or "high fenced hunts". There is always far more to the reality than catchy, emotion emoting phrases bantered about to illicit the reacvtion that they have successfully wanted to create.


AMEN BROTHER!!!:mg:


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

(even IF you "spin" that into something it wasn't and isn't, NOWHERE does THAT state "any season" at all! it says I'm all for it(after obvious editing no less.......I am quite certain I was speaking of the crossbow expansion, considering I went into GREAT detail that there was IN FACT a HUGE difference)...

Oh no you weren’t and there was no editing, you were saying you didn’t care if we went to one season, as long as the resource could handle it. Gee Ace I’ve been caught before not remembering what I posted, and didn’t try to squirm out of it like this. 


I'll see if I can drag up any more


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

KOhunter said:


> AMEN BROTHER!!!:mg:


I agree 100% with his *entire* post !

And will add, not only do they not bother "good ole Ted T." they get VERY upset at the mention of any of those things!) Like many in the "gun control lobby" who have armed "bodyguards" it's "OK" for US, just NOT for you mentality! 

Well, I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than to ride with Ted Kennedy! :darkbeer: :darkbeer: :darkbeer:


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> Yes, we are our own worst enemies, but it has nothing to do with canned hunts. This although may rub some the wrong way, it becomes a matter of choice. Like products and programs we disagree with, we have the ultimate responsibility to fight this through choosing not to support those businesses. But to fight to ban them altogether, indeed we are our own worst enemies. What would be next? Banning the use of dogs for coyote hunting? Banning any baiting of bear and deer in the States which allow this? How about halting the deer drives altogether?


You may be right, to a point.

But you are also wrong, to a point.

Hunters must accept the responsibility to police hunting, to keep it worthy of saving. Corrupt it by allowing anything and everything to be considered "hunting" and you will tarnish and ruin everything honorable about it.

There is no defense for shooting artificially high density animals in a pen and calling it "hunting."

What is wrong with you people?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> You may be right, to a point.
> 
> But you are also wrong, to a point.
> 
> ...


You missed the point, Source, somewhat. And you have also stated a brilliant reality in the same post! 

We hear about laws that prohibit "canned hunts" and we tend to knee-jerk over this term. What we as sportsmen need to do is, before we react predictably to these catch phrases, we had better get a good understanding of what the writer of a proposed law to ban "canned hunts" defines the "canned hunt" as it pertains to size of area and the like. I do not believe any hunter would want to support a 5 acre "pen" loaded with game animals, plunk down some cha ching and shoot the proverbial fish in a barrel. However, as was the case with the NYS fenced hunting bill, the language could prohibit hunting any farm land or range that happens to have an old fence on it. We must be dilligent and do our homework in understanding what is being proposed and is this indeed reality of a "canned hunt", or is this a large preserve that has a fence around it to keep tresspassers out? As was pointed out earlier in this thread, many of the SOuth African preserves are hundreds of square miles in size. Is that considered a "canned hunt"?

Further, the brilliant statement made is that we must police ourselves! Oh, so true. We have the power to not support any business that capitalizes on a real "canned hunt". This is the policing ourselves element you have touched on, but policing ourselves does not mean getting a knee-jerk law passed. We have the economic clout to take care of our own house, without tossing some hair-brained law that could be poorly written and end up restricting our opportunities erroneously or otherwise. We also must be cognizent of how these politicians work, and nothing would guarantee that a proposal rooted in protecting hunting wouldn't get amended to death in teh EnCon committees in Assemblies and Senates, to the point that elements are added that we may not be fully aware of, and again, sinking our own ship.

The answer doesn't always lie with new laws. In fact, the fewer laws we have, the better off we all are. Simply boycott those who offer a true canned hunt, and when they go out of business, we've won without riding the slippery slope of yet another law....


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

Doc, you are absolutely correct, IMO, we do need to define canned, and I, although I hate canned hunting even more then expanding the x-bow into archery season. I always try to caution people on other sites not to lump high fence and canned together. My comments earlier were directed at the article and what was written there. Knowing that there is probably much more to the story, and knowing the anti’s were probably behind it. But that doesn’t change the fact that in that article they said, in-breeding animals to get more white animals, lions I think. You can’t do this in the wild or even behind a high fenced 30,000 acre ranch. It most likely was done in pens, then the animal was released to be killed. They mentioned the law would force ranches to not hunt animals until they have been in the wild for two years. Safe to assume it is targeting operations that are turning animals out to be killed immediately. This IMO is the epitome of canned. I am all for getting rid of canned hunting, but would never support any law doing it before I was satisfied the law was narrow enough in scope that it wouldn’t be used to stop legitimate hunting opportunities. 



> Simply boycott those who offer a true canned hunt, and when they go out of business, we've won without riding the slippery slope of yet another law....


Good idea, but those of us that would boycott, don’t hunt on those operations anyway, I don’t see how it would have an effect.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Free Range said:


> Doc, you are absolutely correct, IMO, we do need to define canned, and I, although I hate canned hunting even more then expanding the x-bow into archery season. I always try to caution people on other sites not to lump high fence and canned together. My comments earlier were directed at the article and what was written there. Knowing that there is probably much more to the story, and knowing the anti’s were probably behind it. But that doesn’t change the fact that in that article they said, in-breeding animals to get more white animals, lions I think. You can’t do this in the wild or even behind a high fenced 30,000 acre ranch. It most likely was done in pens, then the animal was released to be killed. They mentioned the law would force ranches to not hunt animals until they have been in the wild for two years. Safe to assume it is targeting operations that are turning animals out to be killed immediately. This IMO is the epitome of canned. I am all for getting rid of canned hunting, but would never support any law doing it before I was satisfied the law was narrow enough in scope that it wouldn’t be used to stop legitimate hunting opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea, but those of us that would boycott, don’t hunt on those operations anyway, I don’t see how it would have an effect.


Yes, I agree with that assessment 100%. If indeed these animals are being in-bred to specifically be hunted, turned loose a couple days before a "hunt", you have nailed it and this is a practice that we as sportsmen must stop. In regards to the boycotts, we can certainly do our part individually, but more effectively is to hit them with any kind of sponsors/ supporters they may have. Use organizations such as Safari Club International to ratchet up the pressures to stop these types of operations. International hunting clubs can be very effective, but only is we as individuals get active with letter writing campaigns, and threatening to withhold dues. other contributions if this work to end these canned hunts are not followed through with.

I would much rather first get very well educated on the facts surrounding this move, and understand completely the legal angle being attempted here. Laws should ALWAYS be a last resort, as I think we have correctly identified. We can take care of our own business without the legal entanglements, and we should do this first. Pressure from International organizations can work wonders, but we, as sportsmen must shed the apathy and do this stuff ourselves. We can do it, if we become more united and determined to do so.


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

> Use organizations such as Safari Club International to ratchet up the pressures to stop these types of operations. International hunting clubs can be very effective, but only is we as individuals get active with letter writing campaigns, and threatening to withhold dues. other contributions if this work to end these canned hunts are not followed through with.


Yes good ideas, I guess I only think of not shopping at a place as boycotting, where do I sign up?


----------



## Benjamin Sawyer (May 5, 2006)

*ammunition*

More ethics on our part will aid in reducing the need for laws limiting my and your hunting opportunities. 
Laws that reduce hunting opportunities..... They put us inch by inch, law by law closer to having no hunting whatsoever. For instance, I am 100% against mountain lion hunting with a dog. But for me to take a stand on that and let there be a law against it, will do nothing for hunting. It will make just another piece of hunting go bye bye. Even though we should not do that type of hunting, it is not in my best interest to speak out to non hunters about it. And help a law get passed to regulate mountain law hunting or scale it back. Ahhh, this is where the common sense comes in. Let us not give the nonhunters any ammunition. So if I speak out about mountain lion hunting and support a bill to reduce it, I just cut off my nose to spit my face. We don't have to have a law passed to be ethical. Any law that limits any tyoe of hunting, however right or wrong it is, simply puts another bullet in the head of hunters. Everything we do is and will be held against us by nonhunters. So let us act as if each move is under a microscope and show the world by example that hunters are good people.


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

*Well said sir!*



Benjamin Sawyer said:


> More ethics on our part will aid in reducing the need for laws limiting my and your hunting opportunities.
> Laws that reduce hunting opportunities..... They put us inch by inch, law by law closer to having no hunting whatsoever. For instance, I am 100% against mountain lion hunting with a dog. But for me to take a stand on that and let there be a law against it, will do nothing for hunting. It will make just another piece of hunting go bye bye. Even though we should not do that type of hunting, it is not in my best interest to speak out to non hunters about it. And help a law get passed to regulate mountain law hunting or scale it back. Ahhh, this is where the common sense comes in. Let us not give the nonhunters any ammunition. So if I speak out about mountain lion hunting and support a bill to reduce it, I just cut off my nose to spit my face. We don't have to have a law passed to be ethical. Any law that limits any tyoe of hunting, however right or wrong it is, simply puts another bullet in the head of hunters. Everything we do is and will be held against us by nonhunters. So let us act as if each move is under a microscope and show the world by example that hunters are good people.


VERY well said! I agree 100% . Just because some don't agree it's a "good idea", why risk it all, for all of us? I especialy how you mention show the world by example that hunters are good people! My hat is off to you!
Great Post!


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

That's why I like this place so much, Where else can you find so many grown children arguing that there way is better than yours.


----------

