Sustainable Hunting Practices in South Africa

[IvW]

No TokkieM, all these animals are not born trophy size. Nor do the numbers I shared mean that the annual fawns crop are the animals hunted.

When I say (summarized):
- 120,000 contiguous acres (188 square miles);
- typical density at Huntershill in good habitat devoid of top predators (Lions, Hyenas, Leopard, Cheetah, etc.) of 2 to 3 animals per 10 hectares (25 acres);
- game population in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 animals;
- annual recruitment of 80 fawns per 100 does in good habitat devoid of top predators;
- annual population growth at Huntershill in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 animals per year;
- annual hunting season of about 8 months, 34 weeks, 240 days;
- 200 hunters/year;
- 10 animals per hunter in average;

What is means is the following:
- 2,000 animals are collected every year;
- the 2,000 animals collected are obviously the older animals ("trophy size" to use your words);
- the 2,000 animals collected at the top of the pyramid age are replaced at the bottom of the pyramid by the 4,000 to 6.000 animals born every year;
-------> there is not only no financial incentive for "put & take", there is actually a need for culling.

Regarding "trophy size", I think that the above explains that Huntershill obviously does not hunt annually the annual fawns, and obviously annual fawns are indeed not born trophy sizes, but there is one more point to the "trophy" question. What is a trophy? If you mean SCI Gold Medals, you are obviously right, not every animal will reach this size, but the reality is that most African hunters (exception duly acknowledged of the experienced repeat African hunters, who are a relative minority) consider their animals "trophies" even though they may not be SCI medal material. To many, many African hunters, a "standard" size animal is a trophy. See for proof of this 80+% of trophy photos posted on AH by members who hunted all over Africa.
-------> there are plenty enough "trophies" for everyone, even though not medal material, and not everyone can afford Kudu, Waterbuck, etc.

Sex ratio is another interesting question, here is why: many of the classic plains game females are also horned: Blue Wildebeest, Black Wildebeest, Red Hartebeest, Eland, Gemsbok, Blesbok, etc. Female Gemsbok are actually in some hunters' judgement better trophies than male; the world record Buffalo is actually a female (although I personally prefer old big boss, deep curl males), etc. so it would be a mistake to expect that only males are hunted.
-------> discriminating hunters may want a male Blue Wildebeest, but many less discriminating hunters are perfectly happy with a nice female Wildebeest.

As a side note regarding the "commercialization" addressed otherwise, the challenge is that many outfitters hunt fairly small properties (5,000 to 10,000 acres) on which just 2 or 3 hunters can be a crowd, and on which there are not enough animals to support many hunters. Conversely, even though Huntershill welcomes 200 hunters per year (97% of whom come back, so we can assume that they are reasonably satisfied enough to come back) the reality is that:
-------> 200 hunters/year represent 6 hunters per week in average over the 8 months/34 week hunting season (even less if you consider a 52 week year);
-------> 6 hunters on 120,000 acres is hardly a crowd;
-------> 200 hunters who shoot 10 animals each collect 2,000 animals/year, which is not even half the natural population growth, so herd sustainability is not an issue.

Yes, there are more or less productive years, there is natural mortality (old age) and some depredation mortality (for example, baboons prey on fawns, Caracal and Jackal prey on small antelopes), etc. but as previously mentioned, there is a good reason why Huntershill offers cull hunts specifically targeted toward females: one of their land and game population management challenges is not to truck in animals to be shoot, but to cull the herds sufficiently for them not to exceed carrying capacity.

One of the key concept to keep in mind, might be that there are a fair number of wealthy hunters who can afford the Caprivi Strip, the Okavango Delta, the Selous, Tanzania northern blocks, buffalo & elephant hunts on a million acre concession in Botswana, etc. but truth be told these hunters are the minority. The vast majority of hunters headed to Africa seem to be saving for a few years before going and will never hunt the Selous or the northern blocks. They can still enjoy a wonderful hunt of truly wild animals in true Africa, on large private hunting properties in South Africa, Namibia, etc. Maybe we should not be applying $20,000 or $40,000 safari criteria to $8,000 safaris...

I hope this helps. If you believe that the facts are not stated in the correct way, please share specific feedback. The Huntershill managers are always interested in better game and land management practices. Their approach seems to have been working reasonably well for almost 20 years, but if you have specific suggestions, they are valued.

If this is the case, why do they need separate fenced off breeding areas if they have a natural over supply of 2000-4000 animals after the 2000 take off? Somewhere the maths are screwed up.....

 

[One Day...]

If this is the case, why do they need separate fenced off breeding areas if they have a natural over supply of 2000-4000 animals after the 2000 take off? Somewhere the maths are screwed up.....

Hey, how are you IvW? It has been a while. Still wrecking terror on these baboons at super long range with the .338 Lapua?

This question is really simple to answer: because it is a legal requirement

Greg Harvey, the owner of Huntershill is one of the few who engaged, at great expense I understand, in a recovery program of disease-free Cape Buffalo, and high fencing is required by law in South Africa, I am told, for land owners who want to re-create breeding Cape Buffalo herds. Actually, thank you for your question, I had completely forgotten to speak about that other aspect of conservation work by Huntershill.

Guys, the math real life validation is really simple too. Going back to buck wild 's criteria "are there females?" What about upping that criteria to: "are there females cull hunts?" Now THAT should tell you something about the math

Tough crowd, tough crowd...


Ockham's razor, from English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (1287–1347), further known as the law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that "simpler reasons are more likely to be correct than complex ones."

 

[mark-hunter]

"simpler reasons are more likely to be correct than complex ones."

... well yes, except for women and politicians...



Ok,
I have a question!
The reason for my question is not that I doubt anything being said here. I just would like to know:

What law or regulation defines fences in south Africa, if somebody can quote?
Is it the same for every province?

 

[One Day...]

I am going to try to be reasonably brief

South Africa Game Theft Act of 1991 is the main law that deals with wildlife ownership in South Africa.

In a fundamental departure from most modern states where wildlife is owned and managed by the State, South Africa allows individual ownership and management of wildlife provided the land owner receives a Certificates of Adequate Enclosure (CAE).

High fencing is therefore a legal requirement in order to retain ownership of the game.

The requirements for enclosure are legally defined and vary depending on the type of animals considered.

Each Province has it owns regulation but there is a lot of commonality between the regulations. For example, the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA) enacted in 2008 an Operational Guidelines of the Chief Directorate of Environmental Affairs 2008: Certificate of Adequate Enclosure & Dangerous Game Fencing Specifications. The Western Cape has a 2014 Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province (see attached).

In the 2014 Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province animals are distributed in six classes and some sub classes, with different enclosure requirements.

For example:

Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province (p. 9)

Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province (p. 10)

Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province (p. 11)

Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province (p. 12)

See attached the entire Policy on Fencing and Enclosure of Game, Predators and Dangerous Animals in the Western Cape Province. As stated above each province has its own document but they are all substantially the same, although with some minor differences.

I hope this answers your question

 

[PeteG]

One more thought

Just before heading toward Jury Duty again today (I will be signing off for the day in a few minutes), it came to mind to add the following, continuing the agreement with what Bossie (Limpopo Big Game Safaris,) was saying: "each and every game farm in this country brings in some kind of species at some point or another."

Referencing the research of Peet van der Merwe, professor at the School for Tourism Management at the North-West University at Potchefstroom, there were three game ranches in South Africa in the 1960's. There were 12,000 in 2018. As a result, despite an almost doubling of international hunting revenues in South Africa over the last few years (from $78 million in 2014 to $130 million in 2016) there is now more wildlife in South Africa than at any time since the 1900's, and the numbers keep growing. Sable increased from 3,000 in 2001 to 40,000 in 2018, Roan increased from 1,000 to 7,000, etc. Van der Merwe estimates that South Africa had around 20 million game animals in 2018. Obviously, the single driver for this incredible recovery and conservation success is game farming/ranching. In addition, game farms create three times more jobs than livestock farms and workers salaries are on five and a half times higher.

So, let us be 100% clear, South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, etc. conservation success stories and safari opportunities ARE based on game ranching, and everyone heading to these countries should know it, to avoid the disillusion of not being the next Hemingway, Robert Ruark or Peter Hathaway Capstick, unless they can afford the Selous, the Caprivi, the Okawango, Tanzania's northern blocks, and a few other places. There should be great clarity that $20,000 or $40,000 safari expectations in terms of wilderness (land and animals) cannot be realistically shoe-horned in a $6,000 budget. But these are still great South African, Namibian, Zambian etc. safaris.

Just like about any Turkey hunting in the US today owes to a massive recovery and re-introduction effort, about any hunting safari in South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, owes to a similar massive recovery and re-introduction effort.

Take Huntershill as an example. It started in 2002 from virtually nothing in terms of game and hunting territory. 17 years later it hosts 70 species over its own 55,000 acres and its hunts - pick a number, they estimate 10,000 to 15,000 animals, others say it may be 8,000, so what! it is still enormous - over 120,000 contiguous acres. Of course, thousands of animals were brought in to create or re-create breeding herds! When domesticated livestock farms are converted to game ranching, they start from scratch, there is nothing left on the land. I do not know the exact number, but I am certain, as Bossie discussed for Limpopo Big Game Safaris concessions, that literally thousand of animals were brought over the last two decades to Huntershill to recreate breeding populations, and to this day Huntershill adds a couple hundred every year to create additional breeding herds of different species, improve the genetics of existing herds, replace aging breeding animals, etc. There needs to be great clarity about this, and there is no shame in it. Far from it. This is how South Africa, Namibia, etc, game populations have been recreated, and those who accomplished this remarkable conservation success are rightfully proud of it.

But this is not "put & take canned hunting" as in: 'truck it in tonight, uncrated it tomorrow morning and shoot it in a pen tomorrow afternoon' and we should not let people get confused about that

Just my morning $0.02
Have a great day everyone.
Thx
P
.

Oh dear Pascal... Lumping Zambia in with the game farming in South Africa and Namibia is not be the right thing to do. It makes you look like you are grasping at straws in order to make a point.
Zambia has a very very low game ranching/farming community with a low number of hunters.
The majority of hunting in Zambia is done in wild unfenced areas.
I will say that Zambian hunting success is NOT due to game farming.
With regards RSA and Namibia, you would be more correct.
More so in RSA where hunting became a business opportunity in a fashion unlike any of the other Southern African countries.

Perhaps you need to personally experience the difference between a wild self sustaining population and a "self sustaining" game farm.
As you are defending what has been a debate over the numbers you presented, you will see a true wild self sustaining population looks nothing like what you describe at HH.

One thing you are right on is that a $20,000 -$40,000 hunt cannot be shoehorned into a $6,000 budget.
On this vein, they are different hunts. They are not comparable and in my opinion never will be.
Many will defend the notion that a large low fenced area in RSA is the same as a wild hunt anywhere else, the decision on which side of the fence (no pun intended) individuals choose to sit on is their own.
There are similarities between the two and if you choose a large low fenced area, that is fine with me and with others.
You will not be criticized, in the same way hunters who choose unfenced wild areas feel that they are getting a different or better experience should not be labelled as elitist or "better than thou". Which is unfortunately the case where many are labelled accordingly.

I will hunt open areas, no fences etc, i will also shoot on game farms etc.
I am not judging anyone either way, but i can tell you without a doubt they are not the same and it will be very hard to convince me of that fact.

Whatever you stand to gain in your relationship with HH, they need to double it as your efforts and faith to support their model have been commendable.

 

[TokkieM]

Whatever you stand to gain in your relationship with HH, they need to double it as your efforts and faith to support their model have been commendable.

You can say that again.
@One Day... I have been fortunate enough in life to have hunted most of the EC, fortunate too in that many of those hunts where in areas where there where no fences. Now your PH with a PhD may have told you many things and I am sure most of it was true, but if he told you that is how HH manage their game and trophies he made a mistake.
The carrying capacity in that area cannot justify the number of game on their 55000 acres. They don't own the rest of the 120000 acres and I am sorry but no land owner in SA is going to be told what and how he must manage his property for another's benefit.
You seem to enjoy statistics and patterns, so do I, but I tend to look at what is tangible and in front of me. Take the HH Facebook page for instance, their photo gallery specifically, notice anything odd? I do, a few things. For one with so many hunters passing through why are there so few Impala taken each year compared to other bread and butter trophies like Springbuck and Blesbuck? Especially if they have such large breeding herds and predation control? Is it lack of suitable habitat? Or is it Impala are so sensitive to being transported and the mortality rate is too high to justify put and take hunting?
If the habitat is not suitable, how do cross over feeders that eat the same food as Impala survive in such big herds on HH.
The photos also show a extremely consistent pattern in specific species being taken by hunters, eg a few Oryx soon after each other a few Blesbuck soon after each other a few Springbuck after each other and this pattern holds very much throughout the gallery, especially on Eland. Now a mature Eland bull takes many years to reach a suitable age to make a trophy and in general the generic traits in those herds are very very similar, unlike Impala and Blesbuck. Funny thing is the traits shown in these bulls are pretty much dissimilar and again with the amount of bulls taken those Eland herds must be a couple of hundred strong on HH. I have seen this pattern before, one that follows the auction curve.
Now a strange thing about animals that get dropped of on a new property is that some either run in every single direction the wind could blow in, or others simply stand around where they are dropped. I am sure it has to to do with how they where captured, how long they where in the holding pens and off course the environment those animals where raised in. Most of the true wild captured ones run and run.

On a side note, how many "bullet" holes in the ear does the taxidermy doing work for HH repair a year?

It is a sad and bitter day if this is what folks believe hunting in SA is all about, there are some extremely dedicated Outfitters on here that actually do give a very close to wild Africa experience to their clients. 95% return rate means very little if your clients have only ever hunted in one place.

You have been left alone on here to try and set things in a better perspective for HH and like I said before I admire your loyalty, but when a Captain speaks and stands alone on behalf of a whole army it makes me doubt the integrity of the army.

 

[One Day...]

I will say that Zambian hunting success is NOT due to game farming. With regards RSA and Namibia, you would be more correct.

Thank you for the point Peter. I followed the link to the Takeri Game Reserve in Zambia featured at the bottom of a rather crude contribution on page 2, and it is an 8,000 acres ranch that seems pretty similar to the smaller ranches in South Africa with smaller properties and smaller game populations. Further, I had seen South Africa, Namibia and Zambia associated together in other threads and I repeated the association, which I will entirely agree is not the smartest thing to do. I have never been to Zambia yet, and if I am wrong, I stand corrected.

There was no attempt to use Zambia to support the South Africa model, I personally believe that it stands on its own as one of the greatest game conservation success stories in Africa.

I believe that, as you indicate, the fundamental discussion is:

One thing you are right on is that a $20,000 -$40,000 hunt cannot be shoehorned into a $6,000 budget.
On this vein, they are different hunts. They are not comparable and in my opinion never will be.

Yes that is the point entirely. Truth be told, if I could afford it, I would hunt the Caprivi, the Selous, the Okavango Delta, Tanzania's northern blocks, Mozambique Zambeze Delta, and, based on your post, Zambia indeed

But like many, I can not afford these...

So, I had the choice between never going to Africa, or going to South Africa. I decided that South Africa was better than no Africa. I did a lot of research and I opted for a hunting area as large as possible. I fully know that the experience is likely different from that of un-fenced millions of acres, but I did not find the experience at Huntershill much different from hunting wilderness areas in Arizona, so I liked it. it was true, hard core hunting in the mountains of Huntershill.

I am not judging anyone either way, but i can tell you without a doubt they are not the same and it will be very hard to convince me of that fact.

I am not judging anyone either, and no I am not trying to convince anyone that hunting a million acre un-fenced concession is the same as hunting an 8,000 or even 120,000 acres high fenced property. All I am saying is that you can have a great hunting experience on 120,000 acres too. That is all

I personally believe that it is very, very short-sighted to bash South Africa's safari hunting (which you Peter are not doing, so I do not imply you are in that group), or for smaller operators to bash bigger operators, for whatever reason could come to mind, because South Africa it is often the gateway to Africa for many if not most international hunters for a first plains game safari, that may lead indeed to more expensive safaris on other African countries later on...

Once we loose South Africa as a destination because folks who post vehemently against its hunting experience finally convince first time safari hunters that no Africa is better than South Africa, how long do we believe that it will take the antis to shut down the rest of Africa?

Anyway, sorry if I hurt your feelings in reference to Zambia, it was not intended, I went by the 8,000 acres Takeri Game Reserve and if you state that it is the exception rather than the rule, I am perfectly willing to believe it.

Whatever you stand to gain in your relationship with HH, they need to double it as your efforts and faith to support their model have been commendable.

It would be hard to convince anyone hell bent on describing me as a mercenary who sold his soul for a few bucks, oh yes someone said that, how delicate! but I could not care less. I am either a loyal friend indeed, or a loyal employee, right? Either one are good people in my book
Thank you for the compliment, I will be sure to show it to Greg, the Huntershill owner and I sure hope he will add a couple animals to the package I already paid for

 

[One Day...]

You have been left alone on here to try and set things in a better perspective for HH and like I said before I admire your loyalty, but when a Captain speaks and stands alone on behalf of a whole army it makes me doubt the integrity of the army.

Well, we could discuss the concept of delegation, but truth be told I am really not trying to convince anyone. Presenting data is enough from my perspective. People will make their own judgment. I prefer it that way personally.

So just a little more data:

https://www.africahunting.com/threa...faris-august-2018-plains-game-paradise.45017/
https://www.africahunting.com/threa...n-to-the-east-cape-huntershill-safaris.42277/
https://www.africahunting.com/threads/south-africa-huntershill-safaris-10-days-of-awesome.31178/
https://www.africahunting.com/threa...if-my-wife-kids-can-do-it-so-can-yours.23138/
https://www.africahunting.com/threa...h-huntershill-safaris-in-the-east-cape.48626/
https://www.africahunting.com/threads/south-africa-back-from-the-east-cape.50657/
https://www.africahunting.com/threa...aris-april-may-2019-plains-game-safari.50578/
https://www.africahunting.com/threa...shill-safaris-for-another-awesome-hunt.50694/

I get it TokkieM, you do not like Huntershill. That is perfectly fine. I wish you had been there so you could talk about something you actually experienced, but that's OK. I wish you the best hunting, wherever you prefer to do yours, and I mean it sincerely.

Maybe the folks who posted glowing hunt reports on Huntershill here or elsewhere, and many other happy clients who do not post, are fools to believe that Huntershill actually IS an "extremely dedicated Outfitter on here that actually do give a very close to wild Africa experience to their clients" but many of those among them have indeed hunted in several other places and they still come back to Huntershill, so I guess that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and maybe we can leave it at that

 

[IvW]

• There are tagged breeders in the breeding area at Huntershill. They are generally not for hunting or shooting, but as their name implies they are for breeding. This is the reason why they are tagged, so that they are not shot accidentally.

What????

They have a fenced off breeding area that are not for hunting or SHOOTING only breeding yet they still need to be tagged so they are not shot ACCIDENTALLY!!!!

WOW how dumb are the PH's? or clients for that matter.....

Lets get the facts straight please, I am a jackal but a old one at that....you cant BS me that easily...I am not a unsuspecting client....

• The high-fenced, as required by law, breeding area located in the plain at Huntershill is by my estimation based on Google Earth around 5,000 acres. I apologize, I do not have the exact number. As mentioned above, it is in itself larger than many outfitters property in South Africa, and large enough for true hunting for people who either:

1. suffer from physical limitations, or
2. want an animal that only strives in flat plains, or
3. insist on breeder quality trophies, as indeed, as previously noted, breeders are not eternal and older males will be expelled by younger males taking over, can be killed in the process, or will simply die of old age.

What????

Since when does the South African Law require a high fenced area for Hunters who suffer from physical limitations or who have have booked animals that only thrive on "flat plains" or insist on breeder quality animals????

Especially when you state...

When I say (summarized):
- 120,000 contiguous acres (188 square miles);
- typical density at Huntershill in good habitat devoid of top predators (Lions, Hyenas, Leopard, Cheetah, etc.) of 2 to 3 animals per 10 hectares (25 acres);
- game population in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 animals;
- annual recruitment of 80 fawns per 100 does in good habitat devoid of top predators;
- annual population growth at Huntershill in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 animals per year;
- annual hunting season of about 8 months, 34 weeks, 240 days;
- 200 hunters/year;
- 10 animals per hunter in average;

What is means is the following:
- 2,000 animals are collected every year;
- the 2,000 animals collected are obviously the older animals ("trophy size" to use your words);
- the 2,000 animals collected at the top of the pyramid age are replaced at the bottom of the pyramid by the 4,000 to 6.000 animals born every year;
-------> there is not only no financial incentive for "put & take", there is actually a need for culling.

Hey, how are you IvW? It has been a while. Still wrecking terror on these baboons at super long range with the .338 Lapua?

Shoots great and thanks to your advice regarding this thing is real sweet. I am however selling it as it is not really my cup of tea and going to use the funds towards a double rifle that I will get more use out of.

This question is really simple to answer: because it is a legal requirement

Greg Harvey, the owner of Huntershill is one of the few who engaged, at great expense I understand, in a recovery program of disease-free Cape Buffalo, and high fencing is required by law in South Africa, I am told, for land owners who want to re-create breeding Cape Buffalo herds. Actually, thank you for your question, I had completely forgotten to speak about that other aspect of conservation work by Huntershill.

Guys, the math real life validation is really simple too. Going back to buck wild 's criteria "are there females?" What about upping that criteria to: "are there females cull hunts?" Now THAT should tell you something about the math

Tough crowd, tough crowd...

So is the high fenced area as stated before by you for....the physically disabled, animals of the flat plains or insisting clients

• The high-fenced, as required by law, breeding area located in the plain at Huntershill is by my estimation based on Google Earth around 5,000 acres. I apologize, I do not have the exact number. As mentioned above, it is in itself larger than many outfitters property in South Africa, and large enough for true hunting for people who either:

1. suffer from physical limitations, or
2. want an animal that only strives in flat plains, or
3. insist on breeder quality trophies, as indeed, as previously noted, breeders are not eternal and older males will be expelled by younger males taking over, can be killed in the process, or will simply die of old age.

Or is it for "in a recovery program of disease-free Cape Buffalo-for land owners who want to re-create breeding Cape Buffalo herds"

???

BS indeed baffles brains, but in my opinion there is way to much "I am told" "I apologize, I do not have the exact number".

Sadly it seems you are believing everything you are told and it is ending up in a banging your head against a brick wall...

More hearsay than facts..unless you are involved in the actual management of this vast operation 12 months of the year...

"simpler reasons are more likely to be correct than complex ones."

Exactly so lets call a spade a spade...

I have had great respect for many of your replies and assistance given on topics where you have the knowledge and experience but I am afraid you have have lost the plot here as far as I am concerned.

It is quite clear that you have a vested interest in this operation but I am afraid that this is clouding your vision...it may be better to stand back a little.

This reminds me of the best tracker I ever had the privilege of hunting with, Alec Ndlovu.

A Spanish client had wounded a Buffalo bull twice on a walk and stalk hunt with his 90 lb bow. We followed this bull for 4 1/2 hours on foot, when we finally caught up, the bull had lain down in a small dry riverine, he was facing away from us and we could only see his arse, right hand side partial and the right horn from the back. We where close, the wind was swirling, we had not much time. I as the responsible PH had to be sure this was the right bull as I could not afford paying for another, even though this was the bull at the end of the track we had been following for 4 1/2 hrs. I know, you always trust your tracker, always.....however I needed to know. I whispered in his ear, in his language, how did he know it was THE bull...

His reply was, You are looking but you do not see....

I looked again but I still did not see....

Alec then pointed out that an un-wounded buffalo would never lie on it's own tail...I never forgot that lesson I learned from the best tracker I ever had the privilege of hunting with

Pascal, you are looking but you are not seeing.....

 

[One Day...]

IvW my friend, you are twisting my words:

They have a fenced off breeding area that are not for hunting or SHOOTING only breeding yet they still need to be tagged so they are not shot ACCIDENTALLY!!!!

You are quoting me selectively: I said "They are GENERALLY not for hunting or shooting" (emphasis added).

Since when does the South African Law require a high fenced area for Hunters who suffer from physical limitations or who have have booked animals that only thrive on "flat plains" or insist on breeder quality animals????
...
So is the high fenced area as stated before by you for....the physically disabled, animals of the flat plains or insisting clients who either: 1- suffer from physical limitations ... Or is it for "in a recovery program of disease-free Cape Buffalo-for land owners who want to re-create breeding Cape Buffalo herds"

You are reversing causality. I did not say that South African Law require a high fenced area for Hunters who suffer from physical limitations etc.

You are lumping together fragments of statements out of context. As I explained with proper quoting from the regulatory texts, high fences are a legal requirement to retain ownership of the game. This indeed allows folks to engage in re-creating breeding herds, buffalo or others. In Huntershill's case it happens that this large area is located in a plain, so they also have there flat plains species.

And yes it also allows for hunters with physically disabilities to hunt. Huntershill is very proud to offer hunting opportunities to people with disabilities. A paraplegic client had a great hunting experience at Huntershill. I personally think that is great.

BS indeed baffles brains, but in my opinion there is way to much "I am told" "I apologize, I do not have the exact number"

Well, I struggle between completeness and brevity (and I frequently fail). Regarding the "I am told" I would think that the following post was quite specific regarding high fences legal requirements.

As to "I do not have the exact number" unless I am wrong I think I used it only once, and I stand by it: I do not have the exact size of the flat plains breeding are at Huntershill - what can I say, you do not want me to invent it right? - but I also stand by my educated guess using Goggle Earth that it is in the 5,000 acres range...

Pascal, you are looking but you are not seeing.....

I appreciate the judgment IvW. If I may share an equally amicable feedback, I would say that it seems to me that you are neither seeing nor even looking because it really seems that you, and a few others, are steadfastly keeping your eyes closed when turning your head toward Huntershill.

Sadly it seems you are believing everything you are told and it is ending up in a banging your head against a brick wall... More hearsay than facts..unless you are involved in the actual management of this vast operation 12 months of the year...

Such is you opinion, and I have read you long enough to know you will not change you, and you tend to come a little jot off the press, which is OK too.

As mentioned somewhere along the way, this is not exactly my first rodeo, and I actually DO have a fair amount of professional experience managing at executive level with US federal agencies millions of acres of public land, game populations, and endangered species recovery projects in the United States. Different ecosystems certainly, but same sustainable ecological concepts nonetheless.

I have not much too add my hot friend, except that I see your logic selling the .338 Lapua for a double considering the rest of your rifle battery. I am glad the help I provided with the ballistics etc was useful to your experience with the Lapua and you had a good time with your son.

Thx
P

 

[dobber]

This is where i get lost, i know for a fact everything that happens when i am there, i know for a fact what happened when i was there, everything else when i am not there i only know what i was told happened
Not to dismiss anything you have posted in any way regarding facts about the property or someones hunt but tough to buy day to day activities are well known to you based off emails or WhatsApp

What I can say for a fact is that there is not a daily, weekly, monthly

Last year, in August 2018, I went hunting for 12 days at Huntershill. Had never met them, did not know them

 

[TokkieM]

His reply was, You are looking but you do not see....

Like Eland being shot out of the same "herd" but one is full of ticks and the other is as clean as can be

 

[Hank2211]

I fear this may be getting a little out of hand.

The purpose of this thread, as I see it, is to discuss "sustainable hunting practices" and not to attack those hunting practices.

I think we can all agree that if you want to hunt only unfenced, free ranging game, that is certainly your right. I've enjoyed many hunts like that (but never in South Africa), and hope to continue to do so.

However, we can also agree, I hope, that virtually all hunting done in South Africa (there are exceptions) is done on game ranches or private property, which, by definition almost, involve hunting behind fences, be they low or high. This has been the reason for the remarkable increase in wildlife in South Africa and the success of that conservation model. It is also this model which has made African hunting accessible for an enormous number of people who otherwise would have no opportunity to hunt Africa. To attack it as wrong in and of itself does it and those involved in it a great disservice. Note I'm not saying anyone has done that!

Equally, to attack "put and take" hunting without defining it strikes me as equally wrong. As some have pointed out, virtually every game ranch will bring in animals from time to time to improve genetics, supplement herds, etc. Surely to argue that this is wrong is to attack the underlying conservation model? Perhaps we should instead look at what is meant by put and take in various circumstances. For example, bringing in some cape buffalo bulls and a few years later shooting them is one thing. To show a prospective hunter heads in a book and then when one is picked to release it onto a property to be hunted is quite another. Yet both can legitimately be called "put and take." Or can they?

We could also discuss whether, for example, it's ever OK to provide supplemental feed for animals without disclosing to potential hunters that you have done or are doing that? Does it matter to anyone, or would the average hunter just assume that in cases of need, that would happen? But what if the reason for the supplemental feeding is that the property is too small to carry the animals which have been put on it? Should that be disclosed? What about water? Is that the same or different?

Should we discuss the difference the size of a property makes, in general or with reference to specific animals? I see many are put out about whether the size of one outfitter's hunting area is 55,000 acres or 118,000 acres (or whatever). Does it really matter, or does it only matter with respect to certain animals? I hunted the Bubble Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe last fall. It's about 980,000 acres or well more than 1000 square miles. Are fences even a conversation worth having? If so, at what level do they become relevant?

I'm not really worried about anyone's feelings - I once shared a camp with a bow hunter who wanted a particular size sable so a suitable one was brought in for him and released in a small area with one water hole, by which he was sitting. He got in on the first day (the first hour or two, if I'm not mistaken). I had no problem (more or less spontaneously) laughing when he called it a "hunt." So it's not about feelings, it's about what should matter. And maybe most importantly, perhaps we could discuss what should be disclosed to prospective hunters. If you're looking for buffalo hunt for example is it relevant to know the average length of time the buffalo have been on the property? The least amount of time any one buffalo has been there? That all of the buffalo were born there? Or all but two, one of which was added last year and one this year? What if 99% have been there for 5 years but one was added last week and you just happen to shoot that one? Is it important that you know those facts? Etc.

Perhaps we could discuss these or similar concepts, rather than going after one outfitter which, as far as I can tell, seems to have a significant number of happy (and returning) hunters?

Just a thought.

 

[TokkieM]

@Hank2211 HH is not being singled out, the thread was started off a post related to them. Then HH implied that they have a large enough property with sustainable herd and herd dynamics, which a few of us called BS. They however are sticking to their story and so am I, in fact not one HH employee working on the property has had the decency to respond, instead they feed their agent information to spread as the Gospel. Like I said before, not many moons ago the same thing happened with a EC Outfitter and he ran out of "Lead" too, even when everyone else was singing his praises, so the happy client crap means very little, neither does a return rate of 95% if the Outfitter sells you the dream he wants you to believe instead of the dream you deserve.

 

[One Day...]

This is where i get lost, i know for a fact everything that happens when i am there, i know for a fact what happened when i was there, everything else when i am not there i only know what i was told happened
Not to dismiss anything you have posted in any way regarding facts about the property or someones hunt but tough to buy day to day activities are well known to you based off emails or WhatsApp

You are right dobber, I do not live there, and people who live there and with whom I am in contact could be lying to me ... and to the world through my acceptance of their lies. I did think about that...

But I am not really describing day to day activities. All the high level numbers I quoted (property size, population size, reproduction, number of hunters, etc.) I discussed in the truck for the 12 days I was there, and the conclusions are just supported by the data. Actually, TokkieM is mistaken in his apparent belief that I run to them to ask them what to respond to every post that pops up. As to them not answering on AH, well, they are busy hosting and guiding clients, and it is my "job" as their representative on the forum.

My first filter is to check everything Huntershill said against what I saw during my limited 12 days there. It is not much, but it is also a lot - you get a pretty good idea of a man's character when you sweat with him 12 hours a day for 12 days climbing the mountain (I have observed that too in years in the military and years guiding alpinists in the French Alps). And it sure beats the filter of people who have spent 0 day at the place and never met the people.

My second filter is to check everything Huntershill said against the practices I see deployed in the US by US Fish & Wildlife and AZ Game & Fish wildlife scientists with whom I work at executive level. Yes African antelopes are not Pronghorn antelopes, and yes Eastern Cape ecosystems is not Arizona ecosystems, but you would be amazed at how close Eastern Cape mountains are to high altitudes deserts and mountains of the Southwest, including northern Arizona where I live. Actually, my usual description to local friends is that if you did not know the animal and the plant species, you would be hard pressed to say if a picture was shot in the Stormberg Mountains or in the San Francisco Peaks.

My third filter is to do my own personal research. It is amazing what a few hours on Google will bring in terms of peer-reviewed scientific papers, technical reports by practitioners, professional industry associations training material, conservation NGOs studies, etc. on about darn anything from about darn anywhere. I read a lot. Probably a leftover from my dissertation years.

What can I say, I do not see glaring gaps in what Huntershill said compared to what I saw myself; compared to what best practice is in the US Southwest; and compared to the research. But maybe I look and do not see, or I am naive, or I sold my soul for a few bucks, or I just don't know what I am saying... Hey what can I say, I am only a guy with limited capabilities: it was as struggle to get my MBA, my PhD, and my Harvard Certificate (OK, OK, tongue in cheek, but come on guys, it is not really my first thread here, do I really come across as dumb or dishonest? Did I suddenly turn evil the day I accepted to represent Huntershill?)

Hank2211 is right in my view, as noted in my recent response to IvW, we are reaching diminishing return. I provide data, its validity is challenged with opinions. As I said elsewhere, I am not too good at that, I am the analytical guy, not the emotional guy, so it may be time for me to sign off this one. For what it is worth, there are apparently, here and on more private channels, a fair number of AH members who appreciate the data and do not reach the same conclusion as a few members who keep dissecting my every words looking for a contradiction This is a game that I simply will not win, and I gladly accept it


As it is, I am flying on July 5 for another 12 days at Huntershill, on my own dime I might add (should I post a copy of my check?), and I am going to go spend now a few hours ringing a 6" steel plate at 150 yard, a few hundreds of time with a .22 from various field positions. Have a great afternoon everyone.
Thx
P

 

[BenKK]

Like Eland being shot out of the same "herd" but one is full of ticks and the other is as clean as can be

G’day Tokkie, I enjoy reading your viewpoint but have a question about ticks. On five kudu bulls we saw dead in the Eastern Cape (we shot four and my brother’s ugly mug startled another so badly that he dashed through the bush and tripped on a decrepit, low, old sheep fence, breaking his neck - my brother says it was my ugly mug that scared the kudu) two were covered horrifically with ticks - the oldest two bulls literally on their last legs. Could that have been the case with the eland? Do old animals gather more ticks?

 

[Therack]

I attended a game auction on my last trip to RSA. Both male and female animals were being sold. Most females were sold 5-10 at a time and most males were sold individually. The purpose was to give a landowner some genetic diversity in his herd, not for put and take. This was no different than most cattle auctions I have attended in the USA. Some males animals were ear tagged, I was told this was to prevent them from being shot accidentally and they could continue to spread their genes. I would assume at the end of the breeding years a tagged animal would be harvested, it would be considered free range even though it had an ear tag.

 

[Hank2211]

@Hank2211 HH is not being singled out, the thread was started off a post related to them. Then HH implied that they have a large enough property with sustainable herd and herd dynamics, which a few of us called BS. They however are sticking to their story and so am I, in fact not one HH employee working on the property has had the decency to respond, instead they feed their agent information to spread as the Gospel. Like I said before, not many moons ago the same thing happened with a EC Outfitter and he ran out of "Lead" too, even when everyone else was singing his praises, so the happy client crap means very little, neither does a return rate of 95% if the Outfitter sells you the dream he wants you to believe instead of the dream you deserve.

I understand but I'm not sure the two of you going at it will further the discussion very much . . .

Your last sentence is a very important one, and one I've often thought of starting a thread about. I've been to Africa more than 14 times and I like to think I've picked up some things along the way. In particular, I've come to know a couple of PHs very well, and I've been let in on some discussions that I might not otherwise have been party to, had they not known me as well as they did. The reality is that the hunt you have is the hunt the PH wants you to have, in so many ways. Perhaps we should have a discussion about that as well. Is it wrong for the outfitter to sell a dream - aren't they all in fact doing that to some extent? I could go on . . . and I might on another thread.

As for that other "EC Outfitter" are you referring to someone named Loodt? I have more than a passing familiarity with that case, if that's what you're referring to, and I can't say I see any comparison between that one and HH. Note that I have never hunted at either place, but I have hunted the EC a fair bit.

Could that have been the case with the eland? Do old animals gather more ticks?

In tick prone areas, older animals will almost always have more ticks than younger ones, and it seems that as animals begin to lose condition, they pick up even more ticks. A strong, healthy specimen might have few, if any, ticks, while a weak one may be literally covered in ticks. Maybe one is the cause of the other or not - that's for a vet or other expert to say, but there's no doubt I've seen more ticks on older animals.

 

[BenKK]

One thing is for certain, South Africa is an incredible conservation success story, and I’m glad to be a tiny part of that. Better to see wildlife in the bush than cattle and goats. We don’t always agree on every method involved in this process, but I hope this rejuvenation continues long after I’m gone. I’m probably the kind of bloke who worries about high fenced properties of only five- or ten-thousand acres, but if you take a bird’s eye view of all these thousands of properties all trying to restore themselves to something like how it was, it’s pretty awesome.

 

[TokkieM]

G’day Tokkie, I enjoy reading your viewpoint but have a question about ticks. On five kudu bulls we saw dead in the Eastern Cape (we shot four and my brother’s ugly mug startled another so badly that he dashed through the bush and tripped on a decrepit, low, old sheep fence, breaking his neck - my brother says it was my ugly mug that scared the kudu) two were covered horrifically with ticks - the oldest two bulls literally on their last legs. Could that have been the case with the eland? Do old animals gather more ticks?

Thank you. All things being equal the older animals tend to have more ticks or tick poke marks, but you also find more ticks on animals that are sick, closed in small areas or that stand still for prolonged periods of time. Durring droughts animals lack the energy to move, this gives ticks time to get on. In areas where ticks are prolific you will never find bulls in a herd where one has no ticks and the other does, just does not work that way as the herd moves at the same pace and speed as well as through the same area. Eland cows are prone to having the udders covered in ticks once the calf reaches around 2 months old it can no longer get enough milk from the cow and dies, sad but true.

I attended a game auction on my last trip to RSA. Both male and female animals were being sold. Most females were sold 5-10 at a time and most males were sold individually. The purpose was to give a landowner some genetic diversity in his herd, not for put and take. This was no different than most cattle auctions I have attended in the USA. Some males animals were ear tagged, I was told this was to prevent them from being shot accidentally and they could continue to spread their genes. I would assume at the end of the breeding years a tagged animal would be harvested, it would be considered free range even though it had an ear tag.

Also true, breeding herds are sold this way, but what do you think the ratio to male female is when they capture a whole herd? Once they seperate the breeding herds where do you think the excess males go? They go to hunting outfitters with a put and take operation.