chrisjpainter Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Quite a few of the commentators are naive concerning Africa and would not last very long on the continent, even when guided by a professional hunter, they would not be able to handle it emotionally, physically and psychologically. The reality is Africa is a harsh place. It is survival of the fittest and the weak, well you can guess what happens to them. Now if you find sport hunting of this nature offensive, then consider the natives who do not have the luxury of a high powered rifle, but rely on spears and bows & arrows to take down their quarry. So for a hunter to take the challenge as the locals would do with a bow and arrow and to take down an animal is neither inhumane nor savage. I have seen far worse ways of killing animals in Africa by the natives, which include trapping with barb wire where in most cases the animal suffers and either bleeds to death or dies of thirst since they could not be bothered to check the traps often. Many cases the animal will chew off its own limb to escape the trap. And as a previous poster said, nothing goes to waste in Africa – and that is true. I Just find some comments totally naïve without insight or understanding, just blowing off hot air. or, they just don't agree with you! just because we don't agree with what you're doing doesn't mean we can't hack it, that's an absurd response. We are allowed to have differing opinions, and we're equally allowed to voice them. It's got nothing to do with manliness. Obviously, gin traps, big game snare wires etc... are far worse than arrows, but I'd rather do the job properly, limiting the amount of suffering, which doesn't include this 'have a bash bow hunting' mullarky that's resulted in a hippo having to be hit 4 times. And before you say I'm one of those who can't hack it, I've worked in the Namib, climbed in the High Atlas, Parc des Volcans and obviously Kili and could be going back to work on vulture studies in South Africa next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.w. Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 It's a shame that some people on this thread have made comment about these sporting pics in a distasteful way, the antis must feel they have made great in roads with some of you guys because of your comments it would be wise to say nothing, if you feel so strong about what you see the next time you pull that trigger think on someone out there thinks you are a cruel ****** . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I understand everything you are saying here and accept that in a few areas of Africa this is the norm. It is a fact of life. However that does not make it right and acceptable if it is not necessary to survive. They have little choice to put food on the table. We do, that's the only point I would like to make. The other point I would add to that is that I also find many comments about this type of sport shooting been inhumane downright hypocritical. I bet most of the folk on this forum have eaten a kebab or some Halaal meat for example at some point in time. Go look into how “humane” Halaal slaughter is and how the animals are treated and think about that before eat your next Halaal certified meal. – pot, kettle, black springs to mind. If there is concern about animal welfare start cleaning up your own house before blowing off hot air and telling someone else how to run theirs…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 or, they just don't agree with you! just because we don't agree with what you're doing doesn't mean we can't hack it, that's an absurd response. We are allowed to have differing opinions, and we're equally allowed to voice them. It's got nothing to do with manliness. Obviously, gin traps, big game snare wires etc... are far worse than arrows, but I'd rather do the job properly, limiting the amount of suffering, which doesn't include this 'have a bash bow hunting' mullarky that's resulted in a hippo having to be hit 4 times. And before you say I'm one of those who can't hack it, I've worked in the Namib, climbed in the High Atlas, Parc des Volcans and obviously Kili and could be going back to work on vulture studies in South Africa next year. So by your logic then - you would not hunt with a bow and arrow if it was the only tool you had for survival, because it is "inhumane". Explain what the difference is between what the animal feels whether it is been hunted for food or for sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 The other point I would add to that is that I also find many comments about this type of sport shooting been inhumane downright hypocritical. I bet most of the folk on this forum have eaten a kebab or some Halaal meat for example at some point in time. Go look into how “humane” Halaal slaughter is and how the animals are treated and think about that before eat your next Halaal certified meal. – pot, kettle, black springs to mind. If there is concern about animal welfare start cleaning up your own house before blowing off hot air and telling someone else how to run theirs…. Feisty little thing aren't you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Feisty little thing aren't you!! nooo, that's the wife.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodeer Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) I've found in life most people who complain/ criticise fellow sportsman are jealous of other people. God if love to go and hunt an elephant or lion, but sadly I don't have the funds too. Edited September 22, 2014 by dodeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Quite a few of the commentators are naive concerning Africa and would not last very long on the continent, even when guided by a professional hunter, they would not be able to handle it emotionally, physically and psychologically. The reality is Africa is a harsh place. It is survival of the fittest and the weak, well you can guess what happens to them. Now if you find sport hunting of this nature offensive, then consider the natives who do not have the luxury of a high powered rifle, but rely on spears and bows & arrows to take down their quarry. So for a hunter to take the challenge as the locals would do with a bow and arrow and to take down an animal is neither inhumane nor savage. I have seen far worse ways of killing animals in Africa by the natives, which include trapping with barb wire where in most cases the animal suffers and either bleeds to death or dies of thirst since they could not be bothered to check the traps often. Many cases the animal will chew off its own limb to escape the trap. And as a previous poster said, nothing goes to waste in Africa – and that is true. I Just find some comments totally naïve without insight or understanding, just blowing off hot air. Sorry, but the above is just total rubbish and totally irrelevant to some of the objections some respondents to your pic's have. First of all, life is harsh for any wild creature regardless of which continent it's on, and 'survival of the fittest' applies equally. The natives of Africa may not have 'the luxury of a high powered rifle' but equally they don't kill for 'sport', only those who know where their next meal is coming from do this. To deliberately inflict a slow and painful death on an animal simply because you want to see if you can kill it with a bow, when you have the choice to hopefully make it quick and relatively painless is just very hard to understand in my opinion. I have no objection to anyone killing anything for 'sport', but we owe it to that animal to make it as quick and as humane as possible given the choice. To claim that those who object to your post don't have the physical, psychological or emotional fibre because of that objection is laughable. It's canned hunting for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I've found in life most people who complain/ criticise fellow sportsman are jealous of other people. totally agree - 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Sorry, but the above is just total rubbish and totally irrelevant to some of the objections some respondents to your pic's have. First of all, life is harsh for any wild creature regardless of which continent it's on, and 'survival of the fittest' applies equally. The natives of Africa may not have 'the luxury of a high powered rifle' but equally they don't kill for 'sport', only those who know where their next meal is coming from do this. To deliberately inflict a slow and painful death on an animal simply because you want to see if you can kill it with a bow, when you have the choice to hopefully make it quick and relatively painless is just very hard to understand in my opinion. I have no objection to anyone killing anything for 'sport', but we owe it to that animal to make it as quick and as humane as possible given the choice. To claim that those who object to your post don't have the physical, psychological or emotional fibre because of that objection is laughable. It's canned hunting for crying out loud. the natives don't kill for sport??? you really are clueless mate....and if you don’t know what you are speaking about you should rather keep quiet. I think the majority of hunters do not want the animal to suffer, however no one shoots a perfect shot every time and under such circumstances extreme measures are required to put the animal down as quick as possible. I said it took 4 shots and gave no further details, as such you are jumping to conclusion and trying to fill in the gaps with your own twisted logic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 So by your logic then - you would not hunt with a bow and arrow if it was the only tool you had for survival, because it is "inhumane". Explain what the difference is between what the animal feels whether it is been hunted for food or for sport? no, where is that in my logic? The have a bash with a bow hunting was directly aimed at the guy killing the hippo with a bow, for sport and making a hatchet job of it. Was it the only weapon he could have chosen? No. was he doing it to survive? no. There is a difference between that and tribes hunting with bows for necessity. The difference between it is the unnecessary suffering. A decent shooter kills an animal with 1 shot, with the right tool for the job. not needing four shots to kill it over a prolonged period of time, just to see whether he could do it. That's cruel and unusual for no good reason. the natives don't kill for sport??? you really are clueless mate....and if you don’t know what you are speaking about you should rather keep quiet. I think the majority of hunters do not want the animal to suffer, however no one shoots a perfect shot every time and under such circumstances extreme measures are required to put the animal down as quick as possible. I said it took 4 shots and gave no further details, as such you are jumping to conclusion and trying to fill in the gaps with your own twisted logic... okay. give us details. right now the conclusion is easily jumped to: he didn't make a clean kill with the first, so had to resort to a second, third then fourth. what other conclusion is there? It's pretty obvious the four shots were hit. Or is he a worse marksman than we thought? As quick as possible? or do you mean 'as quick as possible, but still having a crack with the bow because I want to'. As quick as possible is, the bolt goes in, it's not been clean, grab the rifle and finish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Sorry, but the above is just total rubbish and totally irrelevant to some of the objections some respondents to your pic's have. First of all, life is harsh for any wild creature regardless of which continent it's on, and 'survival of the fittest' applies equally. The natives of Africa may not have 'the luxury of a high powered rifle' but equally they don't kill for 'sport', only those who know where their next meal is coming from do this. To deliberately inflict a slow and painful death on an animal simply because you want to see if you can kill it with a bow, when you have the choice to hopefully make it quick and relatively painless is just very hard to understand in my opinion. I have no objection to anyone killing anything for 'sport', but we owe it to that animal to make it as quick and as humane as possible given the choice. To claim that those who object to your post don't have the physical, psychological or emotional fibre because of that objection is laughable. It's canned hunting for crying out loud. Well said Scully.. Question for the OP,.... is this canned hunting.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.w. Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Well said Scully.. Question for the OP,.... is this canned hunting.? Well if the answer is yes then it's like every phesant shoot in the country CANNED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I think this thread needs to calm down a bit. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it, without being criticised. Clearly this style of hunting may not appeal to everyone, but it does appeal to many, is lawful and serves a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 the natives don't kill for sport??? If the natives are killing for sport then they're obviously not starving nor doing it for the sake of survival of the fittest, as the two contradict each other. you really are clueless mate...I am neither clueless nor your 'mate'. and if you don’t know what you are speaking about you should rather keep quiet. I have a good idea of what I'm talking about; it's canned hunting, not some greast white hunter on safari. I think the majority of hunters do not want the animal to suffer, Very true, but in the case of the Hippo, it would seem the animals sufferance was of little or secondary consideration given the hunters (Hunter?) choice of weapon. however no one shoots a perfect shot every time and under such circumstances extreme measures are required to put the animal down as quick as possible. Agreed, as I stated in a previous post. I said it took 4 shots and gave no further details, as such you are jumping to conclusion and trying to fill in the gaps with your own twisted logic...I'm not trying to fill in any 'gaps', I don't need to. It is you who now appears to be trying to twist logic in an attempt to justify the bow shot Hippo by citing native hunting methods and ridiculing the capabilities of those who don't agree with the choice of weapon. The Hippo was shot with an arrow, are you now claiming it was killed outright with the first arrow? If not, was it put out of its misery with a rifle shot, or shot again with another three arrows, making a total of four? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Well if the answer is yes then it's like every phesant shoot in the country CANNED. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 no, where is that in my logic? The have a bash with a bow hunting was directly aimed at the guy killing the hippo with a bow, for sport and making a hatchet job of it. Was it the only weapon he could have chosen? No. was he doing it to survive? no. There is a difference between that and tribes hunting with bows for necessity. The difference between it is the unnecessary suffering. A decent shooter kills an animal with 1 shot, with the right tool for the job. not needing four shots to kill it over a prolonged period of time, just to see whether he could do it. That's cruel and unusual for no good reason. okay. give us details. right now the conclusion is easily jumped to: he didn't make a clean kill with the first, so had to resort to a second, third then fourth. what other conclusion is there? It's pretty obvious the four shots were hit. Or is he a worse marksman than we thought? As quick as possible? or do you mean 'as quick as possible, but still having a crack with the bow because I want to'. As quick as possible is, the bolt goes in, it's not been clean, grab the rifle and finish it. “limiting the amount of suffering” – I asked what difference does an animal feel if it is been hunted for food or for sport? So let me write it this way for you - What difference in limiting the amount of suffering is there between a native hunting with a bow and arrow and a professional sportsman hunting the same weapon as both may do it for sport? None. You are also very wrong if you think a decent shooter will always kill an animal with the first shot and drop it dead on the spot…. Have you ever been hunting? If so can you truthfully state that you have killed every quarry on your first shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 the natives don't kill for sport??? If the natives are killing for sport then they're obviously not starving nor doing it for the sake of survival of the fittest, as the two contradict each other. you really are clueless mate...I am neither clueless nor your 'mate'. and if you don’t know what you are speaking about you should rather keep quiet. I have a good idea of what I'm talking about; it's canned hunting, not some greast white hunter on safari. I think the majority of hunters do not want the animal to suffer, Very true, but in the case of the Hippo, it would seem the animals sufferance was of little or secondary consideration given the hunters (Hunter?) choice of weapon. however no one shoots a perfect shot every time and under such circumstances extreme measures are required to put the animal down as quick as possible. Agreed, as I stated in a previous post. I said it took 4 shots and gave no further details, as such you are jumping to conclusion and trying to fill in the gaps with your own twisted logic...I'm not trying to fill in any 'gaps', I don't need to. It is you who now appears to be trying to twist logic in an attempt to justify the bow shot Hippo by citing native hunting methods and ridiculing the capabilities of those who don't agree with the choice of weapon. The Hippo was shot with an arrow, are you now claiming it was killed outright with the first arrow? If not, was it put out of its misery with a rifle shot, or shot again with another three arrows, making a total of four? the natives don't kill for sport??? If the natives are killing for sport then they're obviously not starving nor doing it for the sake of survival of the fittest, as the two contradict each other. So hunting a lion that is attacking your cattle is not sport? You dont need to eat it but you need to kill it..... survival of the fittest Like I said clueless - Go look up Maasai Boys Hunt Lions In Initiation Rite..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Canned hunting - I believe it encompasses this, but also involves culling on reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdsallpl Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 “limiting the amount of suffering” – I asked what difference does an animal feel if it is been hunted for food or for sport? So let me write it this way for you - What difference in limiting the amount of suffering is there between a native hunting with a bow and arrow and a professional sportsman hunting the same weapon as both may do it for sport? None. You are also very wrong if you think a decent shooter will always kill an animal with the first shot and drop it dead on the spot…. Have you ever been hunting? If so can you truthfully state that you have killed every quarry on your first shot? I'm a bit confused now and am truly not trying to be confrontational. Are you saying natives do hunt like this for sport or they have to hunt like this for survival? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan7510 Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I'm a bit confused now and am truly not trying to be confrontational. Are you saying natives do hunt like this for sport or they have to hunt like this for survival? They entertain both - see previous post : Maasai Boys Hunt Lions In Initiation Rite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Maybe it's time to agree to disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdsallpl Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 They entertain both - see previous post : Maasai Boys Hunt Lions In Initiation Rite So they hunt like this as part of their cultural rituals as well. Is that a way to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 So hunting a lion that is attacking your cattle is not sport? You dont need to eat it but you need to kill it..... survival of the fittest Like I said clueless - Go look up Maasai Boys Hunt Lions In Initiation Rite..... Sorry, but you're clutching at straws now and not making much sense, and insulting me wont make your posts anymore logical nor relevant I'm afraid. In the case above the lion is killed from necessity or 'need' as you put it, whether with a spear or a bow, because as you claim, the natives don't have the luxury of powerful rifles,so therefore have no choice, unlike your hippo shooter. I've seen Massai Initiation Hunts, what relevance does that have to this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 “limiting the amount of suffering” – I asked what difference does an animal feel if it is been hunted for food or for sport? So let me write it this way for you - What difference in limiting the amount of suffering is there between a native hunting with a bow and arrow and a professional sportsman hunting the same weapon as both may do it for sport? None. You are also very wrong if you think a decent shooter will always kill an animal with the first shot and drop it dead on the spot…. Have you ever been hunting? If so can you truthfully state that you have killed every quarry on your first shot? I can hand on heart say that I have mucked up shots, and have followed up with a second - lethal - shot immediately. I have never had to have four goes with an unsuitable weapon. The animal doesn't know if it's been hunted for sport or necessity, of course, but that's no justification for wilful barbarism. And I would happily criticise anyone hunting hippos if there are other animals available that are more suitable to the weapon available. If you're going to hunt for sport - whether native tribe or paying customer - you have a duty to the animal to limit suffering, because you hunt in the knowledge that the animal doesn't have to die and its death isn't required for food. If I am being unfair with how I've described the hippo kill and that it took 4 shots, then you need to give a few more details. In my head I have, chap with bow hits the hippo four times and it's only killed after the fourth goes in. Or, did he miss with the first three and hit with the fourth? Either way it seems to be pretty shoddy marksmanship, with an unsuitable weapon when there is clearly a better choice available? or is there a third way that makes sense? I can appreciate culture and history. But that doesn't give us the right to doll out unnecessary suffering just for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts