How dangerous is dangerous hunting?

[John Wasmuth]

It’s rather lengthy and has been edit by several different sources

cannibals and useful idiots
Cannibals and useful idiots Written by John Wasmuth The following is real, and it’s here. Joe Hunter goes to a cocktail party, nothing fancy, just a holiday gathering in Anytown, USA. A conversation begins with Bob Peta, it goes something like this; “Say Joe, didn’t you go deer hunting this year.” “Sure did Bob.” “Man that’s, uh, great, did you get one?” “Yep, sure did, nice 6 point.” “Uh, wow, hey that’s great. Say listen Joe, yer a true hunter, a ”Real” hunter are you not?” “Yes, I sure am.” “Say, I hear tell of a kinda huntin where people can go and kill animals in fenced in areas. You’ve never done that have you?” “No, no I haven’t.” “Well I wouldn’t call that “real” hunting, would you Joe.” “Well, that’s not the way I hunt.” “I know Joe, but there are people that hunt in fenced areas, I don’t think that’s “Really” hunting, do you Joe.” “Well, uh, I guess not.” “Great, say listen Joe, a bunch of us concerned “Real” hunters are trying to get that done away with, we feel that it is unethical. Will you help us Joe?” “Well sure, because that’s not the way I hunt, and I am a “Real” hunter.” “Say thanks Joe; here is what we need you to do. As a “real” hunter, the big boys in senate and congress will listen to you; they know that any “Real” hunter only hunts the way you do, and that’s the only “Real” hunting there is. So what we need you to do is get out there and get petitions signed, people will sign them because you are a “Real” hunter and know that only your way of hunting is the “Real” way.” So Joe diligently goes after the goal, to ban and outlaw any kind of hunting that Bob suggests is not “Real” hunting. He gathers signatures, petitions courts, makes meetings, he is really cleaning up this “unethical” way of hunting. Hell, he’s got a lot of support. He’s gathering “Real” hunters from all over, and finally, after much hard work, they get a legal way of hunting banned. “Joe, you did great and we sure appreciate your hard work, but hey, let me tell you what I heard about. There is another kind of hunting “We” think is not right. Do you think you can help us?” “Well, I guess so Bob, I don’t hunt like that, so it’s not “Real” hunting. How can I help?” “Well, here is what we need…….,” and it’s the same story. Odd how Bob seems to keep adding onto the list of what “Real” hunting is, but Joe goes at it hard and heavy, and in the end, he gets that type of legal hunting banned. Bob and his “Friends” are happy. Joe’s a “Real” hunter after all, and these other guy’s, well, they are not, because the way they hunt is different from Joe, and Joe does not like that type of hunting, so what’s the harm in getting rid of it? Joe’s a “Real” hunter you know. Not like those other guys. He even goes to Sportsman’s organizations and recruits from within, it’s easy because there are a lot of “Real” hunters there. Time passes and more and more legal forms of hunting are banned. Bob and his “friends” are happy with Joe. He’s been a big help. After it’s all just about gone, Bob and his “friends” decide that it is time to get Joe’s way of hunting banned, the final chapter. “Bob, uh, hey buddy, this is Joe. I know I helped you get rid of all those other forms of legal hunting, but now there is a move to get rid of the way I hunt.” “Well Joe, I know. My “friends” and I are spearheading that.” “But Bob, I thought you liked the way I hunt, that it was ok for me to do the type of hunting I do.” “Well Joe, no, any and all types of hunting are bad, the poor defenseless animals never have a chance, and we dislike, actually hate hunters.” “But I thought the way I hunted was “Real” hunting to you.” “Hell Joe, it was all “ Real” hunting, but we at PETA and HSUS Hate you, but thanks for all your help, we really appreciate it.” You see, what Joe became was a “Cannibal”. A “Useful Idiot” to the anti’s and PETA. They don’t give a rat’s backside how you hunt, what you hunt, or when you hunt. They just want all hunting done away with. They use hunters against hunters to gain support for their “Causes”. If you do not support any and all forms of legal hunting, and decide to pick and chose the ones you like and dislike, and voice any decent about the way someone else legally hunts, you are in fact, a “Cannibal” and a very very “Useful Idiot” for the enemy. There are plants even within the sacred walls of your favorite Sportsman’s organizations. Route them out, expose them, and rid the board of them. Hunting’s future depends upon it.

 

[375Fox]

I have shot sable and wildebeest on the same ranch as people were hunting CBL. I think the money went to the exact same places - the land owner, PH, trackers, ranch staff, breeder and then those people spend their money, some of it locally and some of it mail ordering something that isn't produced locally.

All wild free ranging animals should have some portion of revenues going to local communities, like Zimbabwe has done with their very successful CAMPFIRE program. The thing is, CBL cannot be released into the wild. They are necessarily released onto fenced properties and so the economics for them fallows the economics for all fenced ranches. Private property and land owner managed revenue streams. CBL on those properties are just like buffalo, sable and impala.

The sad reality is there isn't much in the way of free range anything in South Africa. If there was, it likely would be devoid of wildlife unless South Africa changed their conservation model to something more like Zimbabwe or North America, which are based on public ownership of wildlife and management via government oversight and regulation. That works well in the USA and Canada. It does not work well in Africa due to the level of corruption that prevents benefits from filtering down to the local level, which is why Zimbabwe had to create their CAMPFIRE program and cut so much of the corruption out. I have no delusions that South Africa would fare any better than Zimbabwe on corruption and anybody who has spent any time in RSA would almost certainly agree with me.

South Africa's model of private ownership for wildlife has been very successful there and also in large parts of Texas and Argentina. I think it is good to have multiple models to choose from as one size certainly does not fit all. Now, when a country wants to implement a hunting based conservation model, they have multiple options and can debate and discuss and then finally choose one that best fits their reality on the ground in their country.

We already see many hunters who look down on estate hunting. If it isn't free range, it isn't hunting is a belief that is deeply ingrained in many hunter's mindsets. Those are the hunters the animal rights people love - the ones that they can turn on the other hunters and shut down half of hunting. They have a long term goal and that goal is to end hunting for all people and force Veganism on the world. Many of the people in that movement don't even realize that is where they are being led, much like many people who support socialism don't realize where that road leads - they cannot think more than 1 move ahead in chess and just see the immediate benefit and are oblivious to the long term costs. Once CBL is dead and gone, the focus will be on CB something else and they will probably go with something iconic or charismatic. Probably not buffalo because they look too much like livestock to people who don't know better. Maybe they will try and stop the hunting of zebra and giraffe or maybe they will just wait until there is an opportunity to sieze. Perhaps you or a friend will accidentally, in our quest for pure wild unfenced hunting, shoot an animal that turns out to have a collar we couldn't see. Sure, it will be a legal hunt, but that animal will cease to be "research specimen LP-246-077B and will suddenly be renamed Louis. He will be given a back story and you will find yourself asshole of the world with people picketing your dental office or wherever you work, get death threats, lose your job because of the backlash your employer doesn't want to face or have your business run into the ground if you own your own company.

And when the press reaches out to the head of the country's conservation program and ask them about the death of Louis, the most famous Zebra Unicorn in Wakanda, he can say "Who? Never heard of him" and it still won't matter. The marketing machine will be running. And you will be running. And most of the hunters around will say, "Yeah, he is a dick. I am not like him - I don't believe in his form of hunting. Fuck that guy." We already saw people in the hunting community push one of their own under the bus. Don't kid yourself. If you fall into the ARA crosshairs, you are next. How many hunters will come to your aid and how many will just try to distance themselves from you? We are full of people who say we need to stand up to cancel culture. Then we kick CBL hunters in the nuts and shove them into oncoming traffic and think we are part of the solution when instead, we are just what Joseph Stalin referred to as useful idiots.

I don't mean to be attacking anybody here, but just trying to get them to realize that we need to follow the Reagan doctrine of "thou shalt not speak ill of any other conservative" and apply it to our own.

And back to the topic of how dangerous Dangerous Hunting can be? Go ask Walter Palmer.

You are correct that the money from your sable and CBL lion went to the same place. However, the post I replied to asked the difference between hunting CBL and wild lions. Your sable and wildebeest was likely from at least a partially self sustaining population if not fully self sustaining population. CBL lions are simply farming practice with a unique harvesting method. There is no intention of creating self sustaining populations simply stock lions 7 days before hunter arrives, kill the lion before it can cause damage or die, stock more for the next shooter to arrive and repeat process. There is no way to defend this practice to non-hunters if you call it hunting. The CBL lion shooting model should never have been allowed to occur. It’s sad PHASA split over issue and the South African government has to shut it down instead of hunters.

 

[Red Leg]

I have shot sable and wildebeest on the same ranch as people were hunting CBL. I think the money went to the exact same places - the land owner, PH, trackers, ranch staff, breeder and then those people spend their money, some of it locally and some of it mail ordering something that isn't produced locally.

All wild free ranging animals should have some portion of revenues going to local communities, like Zimbabwe has done with their very successful CAMPFIRE program. The thing is, CBL cannot be released into the wild. They are necessarily released onto fenced properties and so the economics for them fallows the economics for all fenced ranches. Private property and land owner managed revenue streams. CBL on those properties are just like buffalo, sable and impala.

The sad reality is there isn't much in the way of free range anything in South Africa. If there was, it likely would be devoid of wildlife unless South Africa changed their conservation model to something more like Zimbabwe or North America, which are based on public ownership of wildlife and management via government oversight and regulation. That works well in the USA and Canada. It does not work well in Africa due to the level of corruption that prevents benefits from filtering down to the local level, which is why Zimbabwe had to create their CAMPFIRE program and cut so much of the corruption out. I have no delusions that South Africa would fare any better than Zimbabwe on corruption and anybody who has spent any time in RSA would almost certainly agree with me.

South Africa's model of private ownership for wildlife has been very successful there and also in large parts of Texas and Argentina. I think it is good to have multiple models to choose from as one size certainly does not fit all. Now, when a country wants to implement a hunting based conservation model, they have multiple options and can debate and discuss and then finally choose one that best fits their reality on the ground in their country.

We already see many hunters who look down on estate hunting. If it isn't free range, it isn't hunting is a belief that is deeply ingrained in many hunter's mindsets. Those are the hunters the animal rights people love - the ones that they can turn on the other hunters and shut down half of hunting. They have a long term goal and that goal is to end hunting for all people and force Veganism on the world. Many of the people in that movement don't even realize that is where they are being led, much like many people who support socialism don't realize where that road leads - they cannot think more than 1 move ahead in chess and just see the immediate benefit and are oblivious to the long term costs. Once CBL is dead and gone, the focus will be on CB something else and they will probably go with something iconic or charismatic. Probably not buffalo because they look too much like livestock to people who don't know better. Maybe they will try and stop the hunting of zebra and giraffe or maybe they will just wait until there is an opportunity to sieze. Perhaps you or a friend will accidentally, in our quest for pure wild unfenced hunting, shoot an animal that turns out to have a collar we couldn't see. Sure, it will be a legal hunt, but that animal will cease to be "research specimen LP-246-077B and will suddenly be renamed Louis. He will be given a back story and you will find yourself asshole of the world with people picketing your dental office or wherever you work, get death threats, lose your job because of the backlash your employer doesn't want to face or have your business run into the ground if you own your own company.

And when the press reaches out to the head of the country's conservation program and ask them about the death of Louis, the most famous Zebra Unicorn in Wakanda, he can say "Who? Never heard of him" and it still won't matter. The marketing machine will be running. And you will be running. And most of the hunters around will say, "Yeah, he is a dick. I am not like him - I don't believe in his form of hunting. Fuck that guy." We already saw people in the hunting community push one of their own under the bus. Don't kid yourself. If you fall into the ARA crosshairs, you are next. How many hunters will come to your aid and how many will just try to distance themselves from you? We are full of people who say we need to stand up to cancel culture. Then we kick CBL hunters in the nuts and shove them into oncoming traffic and think we are part of the solution when instead, we are just what Joseph Stalin referred to as useful idiots.

I don't mean to be attacking anybody here, but just trying to get them to realize that we need to follow the Reagan doctrine of "thou shalt not speak ill of any other conservative" and apply it to our own.

And back to the topic of how dangerous Dangerous Hunting can be? Go ask Walter Palmer.

With respect to embracing the "legality" of the CBL, we are a pretty narrow opinion group - even small within the broader hunting community. Both of our major advocacy organizations, SCI and DSC, have determined that CBL hunting or shooting is unethical and harmful to our pastime. That is a position with which I personally agree. We may all be "useful idiots," but the idiots seem to be in the majority with regard to this issue.

And before we go too far down the rebuttal path that there is no difference between a CBL and fill in the blank, I also personally have no issue with the theoretical hypocrisy of embracing the notion that there is a difference between a pen-raised apex predator like a lion and a pheasant.

With respect to plains game, I would further argue that there is a significant difference between a self-sustaining population of plains game on a large property or conservancy and an advertisement, of a type too often posted here, to come shoot this 46" sable, or a particular buffalo, or the hippo in the stock tank. My immediate assumption is that each probably has a name.

I get it that these practices are perfectly legal. Lots of things are. Lots of things are dangerous as well. Stepping into a bull ring with a Spanish fighting bull would be dangerous - even with a rifle. I am not sure I would call it hunting.

Everyone on this forum has the right to participate in any legal activity they choose. Everyone on this forum can make their own judgement about the ethical nuances of shooting a released quail or a released lion. However, and I think it is a big however, no one on this forum has the right to demand approval of that activity by every other hunter with whom they choose to share the experience.

 

[Hank2211]

However, and I think it is a big however, no one on this forum has the right to demand approval of that activity by every other hunter with whom they choose to share the experience.

Amen @Red Leg.

Applies equally to demanding disapproval, I should think.

 

[mrpoindexter]

You are correct that the money from your sable and CBL lion went to the same place. However, the post I replied to asked the difference between hunting CBL and wild lions. Your sable and wildebeest was likely from at least a partially self sustaining population if not fully self sustaining population. CBL lions are simply farming practice with a unique harvesting method. There is no intention of creating self sustaining populations simply stock lions 7 days before hunter arrives, kill the lion before it can cause damage or die, stock more for the next shooter to arrive and repeat process. There is no way to defend this practice to non-hunters if you call it hunting. The CBL lion shooting model should never have been allowed to occur. It’s sad PHASA split over issue and the South African government has to shut it down instead of hunters.

Well, one of the main differences would be that the released sable doesn't eat the other expensive animals on your property, while the lion does. I was going to go hunt a sable this year and found out the prized sable on this guys property was killed by a lion.

The reason CBL was shut down was public outcry and that was all driven by the animal rights groups. The only reason they don't do it with high fence deer is that there are far too many deer hunters that would oppose the ARA coming after high fence deer hunting. Not enough hunters stood up for CBL. Yeah yeah, put and take isn't hunting to some people but I didn't realize animals mating in their off time was a requirement for hunting to be considered a hunt. I guess some see fishing a stocked pond as not really fishing either.

There is a reason that we have to dig in - the chipping away will never stop and all ground given up will be given up forever. Even if you don't care because you are never going to go there, it just puts your ground that much close to the front lines.

Look at the NRA. You think they are going to cave on 30 round magazines? Getting rid of those is just a step to getting rid of 10 round magazines and then getting rid of semi-auto and so on.

How much land can Israel give to Hamas until Hamas accepts that Israel has a right to exist? The answer is simple, there is no amount of give you can do that will get the other side to accept your right to exist when you are dealing with extremists. Stop trying to appease them. It is just another chance to become Chamberlain and declaring we will finally know peace in our time.

 

[Red Leg]

Amen @Red Leg.

Applies equally to demanding disapproval, I should think.

I think that is a fair comment Hank - particularly at the individual level.

My only caveat would be that it is appropriate for an organization like SCI or DSC to have opinions with respect to the efficacy of practices the organization believes are harmful to the overall activities, goals, and objectives of its membership. If a significant percentage of the membership feels differently there will be a change of leadership, position, or the organization will die.

 

[freefall]

Amen @Red Leg.

Applies equally to demanding disapproval, I should think.

Demanding approval seems to be working pretty well for the GayBLT crowd.

 

[TOBY458]

Demanding approval seems to be working pretty well for the GayBLT crowd.

How does a GayBLT taste? Do you add mayo? Sorry.....couldn't resist.

 

[C.W. Richter]

Very incompetent hunter on the video. Wounds, misses and then drops his rifle as he jumps out of the way. Then grabs his rifle and just sits on the ground instead of immediately getting up to shoot. Idiot.

It's not something one should go into blindly. Preparation or better yet a lifetime of preparation is more than strongly suggested. For the rest a PH and tracker are there for you.

 

[freefall]

How does a GayBLT taste? Do you add mayo? Sorry.....couldn't resist.

I personally have never tasted one, but I believe they come with their own special sauce.

 

[Tom Leoni]

I know enough about hunting and conservation to know how little I know. Therefore I won't use expressions like "I condone" or "I approve of." Yet, I can firmly state that I dislike the idea of put and take for big-game hunting. Much as I dislike the idea of deliberately sniping at game past 300-400 yards.

I am not too snooty to shoot a domestic pig in a fenced-in enclosure, but I would never call that hunting. I do it when I want to select a pig of the right size and age and have it immediately butchered. I am also not above shooting raised pheasant, also because I live in a region where wild upland game is 100% absent. I know that may seem hypocritical--which is why I used the expression I dislike rather than speaking ex cathedra about what others should or shouldn't do. There are two sides to most issues and I am far from knowing all the arguments pro and con.

As for lion hunting, it doesn't really interest me--wild or otherwise. The poor beast, once shot, looks to me like a moth-bitten old rug and loses 90% of its former majesty, unlike a leopard or most other African game. I guess I could participate and even have fun in a PAC (problem animal control) hunt--but definitely not to keep a lion as a trophy. A lion in a put-and-take situation would rank far below zero in my hunting priorities and would give me instead a severe pang of conscience.

Many years ago, I heard the owner of a Texas-based game ranch recount how a group of clients from Mexico peppered a bison with scores of 9mm Para rounds until the beast died--more from blood loss and exhaustion than anything else. The story--and the man recounting it--disgusted me to the point that it must have affected my idea of ANY put and take big-game "hunting" situation. I know this was an extreme case, but we can't always control our emotions.

Again, I'm not knocking those who engage in any type of hunting, as long as its both legal and humane. You're all my brothers. Just giving my opinion on a topic in this thread.

 

[freefall]

I shouldn't weigh in here, but my life is a series of bad decisions.
You want to shoot a lion that was raised in a pen to be shot for medium $, go for it.
You want to shoot a buffalo that was raised in a pen to be shot, likewise.
If you just want to shoot something, I know a lot of guys would let you shoot a steer in their feedlot, you could keep the meat and it would be better.
I won't hunt out of a tree stand, unfair.
Food plots are bait. Get a salt block, way cheaper and less effort.
If you don't give the animal a reasonable chance to detect and evade you, it's not sporting.
And if we're not being sporting, what are we?

 

[mrpoindexter]

If you don't give the animal a reasonable chance to detect and evade you, it's not sporting.
And if we're not being sporting, what are we?

And here is the irony of it all - if we are not being sporting and just shooting to get some meat to fill our freezer, we are not market hunting and not trophy hunting but subsistence hunting and that is the least offensive classification of hunting to the anti-hunting crowd, if there is such a thing. How crazy it is!

 

[Tanks]

@Red Leg Stated everything I was trying to say except more eloquently.

@John Wasmuth I think paragraphs and grammar would make that post more readable.

Well, one of the main differences would be that the released sable doesn't eat the other expensive animals on your property, while the lion does. I was going to go hunt a sable this year and found out the prized sable on this guys property was killed by a lion.

Did the Sable have a name?

 

[John Wasmuth]

@Red Leg Stated everything I was trying to say except more eloquently.

@John Wasmuth I think paragraphs and grammar would make that post more readable.



Did the Sable have a name?

Tanks the originally written document was proof checked edited, correct punctuation etc but was lost when the hard drive it was on burned. It’s been used, reposted, edited edited and edited to what it is now. I had to google it to find it. It’s been posted on a lot of outdoor forums and boards and it’s still out there.

The sables name was Victor…….

 

[freefall]

And here is the irony of it all - if we are not being sporting and just shooting to get some meat to fill our freezer, we are not market hunting and not trophy hunting but subsistence hunting and that is the least offensive classification of hunting to the anti-hunting crowd, if there is such a thing. How crazy it is!

If we're paying for it, we're not subsistence hunting, we're just buying meat on the hoof.
As I said, you could buy a steer in a feedlot a lot cheaper.

 

[Tanks]

Getting back to the topic at hand on dangerous game danger, it depends on where you are hunting. Here is a video of "black death" in RSA.

 

[Philip Glass]

I have a lion safari in a few months and I was wondering how dangerous a dangerous hunt really is, are there any statistics or proportion of people injured or killed per year?

Very hard to say. Most dangerous situations come from poor shooting. So keep that in mind. On most safaris, including DG, the most likely situation is a car wreck or a fall of some kind. Be careful but dont be paranoid either.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Getting back to the topic at hand on dangerous game danger, it depends on where you are hunting. Here is a video of "black death" in RSA.

Stone cold killers they are!!!

 

[Hunting Hitman]

With respect to embracing the "legality" of the CBL, we are a pretty narrow opinion group - even small within the broader hunting community. Both of our major advocacy organizations, SCI and DSC, have determined that CBL hunting or shooting is unethical and harmful to our pastime. That is a position with which I personally agree. We may all be "useful idiots," but the idiots seem to be in the majority with regard to this issue.

And before we go too far down the rebuttal path that there is no difference between a CBL and fill in the blank, I also personally have no issue with the theoretical hypocrisy of embracing the notion that there is a difference between a pen-raised apex predator like a lion and a pheasant.

With respect to plains game, I would further argue that there is a significant difference between a self-sustaining population of plains game on a large property or conservancy and an advertisement, of a type too often posted here, to come shoot this 46" sable, or a particular buffalo, or the hippo in the stock tank. My immediate assumption is that each probably has a name.

I get it that these practices are perfectly legal. Lots of things are. Lots of things are dangerous as well. Stepping into a bull ring with a Spanish fighting bull would be dangerous - even with a rifle. I am not sure I would call it hunting.

Everyone on this forum has the right to participate in any legal activity they choose. Everyone on this forum can make their own judgement about the ethical nuances of shooting a released quail or a released lion. However, and I think it is a big however, no one on this forum has the right to demand approval of that activity by every other hunter with whom they choose to share the experience.

Red leg,
I have always read and appreciated your point of view and many of your points above make sense but I ask you this.
When I as a hunter agree with the majority or "useful idiots" what does that get us as a hunting community in the face of anti-hunters?
I personally don't believe this position will change the mind of any anti-hunters. However if our position is We support the harvesting of animals based on the rules and regulations of the country we are hunting in that is a defensible position and one I choose to embrace.
I do not place my own preferences above anyone else's right to hunt in the legal manner they see fit.
Just my 2 cents
HH