My african safari

[timmy]

Prashant, I have not given my opinion on this thread yet.

My opinion is, I love your pictures! I very much appreciate your sharing. Also, like many, I really liked the cheetah pic. (We all have our fantasies, don't we?) Anyway, that's my opinion: Great pics, and a big thank you.

One more opinion: If you have more to share, you can be sure I will appreciate them.

[prashantsingh]

Thanks Inder for loading those snaps.
Thanks Two Rivers for explaining the funda behind calling the white rhino "White". I am told that the Black one has a rather short tempered.
The Cheetah experience was actually out of the world.
I personally feel the Tusker is the real King of the jungle. Even the lion gives way to this massive animal.
When you see a big male with those huge tusks , the sight can not be expressed in words.Truly awe inspiring.

[jetley]

hello friends ......know what ,a few days back ,i saw some lovely hunting pics(mostly in africa ) ,infact the threads were classified per animal , i seem to have lost the links ...can u buys pls help me find those ......thank you

[Rajat]

i saw some lovely hunting pics(mostly in africa)

I think the word lovely is more suitable for wild animals in their natural habitat.

The appropriate word to replace "lovely" in your sentence can be chosen from any of the following:

bleeding, blood-soaked, gory ,grisly, blood-soaked, blood-spattered, bloodstained, gory , blood-soaked, blood-spattered, bloodstained, wounded, murderous, horrible, bloodthirsty, cruel, murderous, slaughterous , bloody, disgusting, ghastly, grim, hideous, horrible, horrid, horrifying, macabre , obscene, offensive, revolting, savage, sinister,startling, terrible, terrifying, violent, brutal

Or if you would rather:

i saw some hunting pics

[prashantsingh]

Well Rajat . This may come as a disapointment to you, but I am planning another "bloodsoaked,gory,murderous and horrible" trip mid next year.
This time to another continent, where hunting is legal.
There will be lots of shooting with the camera and a little with the rifle.

[shooter]

Well Rajat . This may come as a disapointment to you, but I am planning another "bloodsoaked,gory,murderous and horrible" trip mid next year.
This time to another continent, where hunting is legal.
There will be lots of shooting with the camera and a little with the rifle.

I want to go for hunts too.

[Rajat]

Prashant, in fact I am not disappointed with your safaris and pictures. Except the one with the Blessbok. Had it not been for this one picture I would have truly appreciated your sharing the African safari experience with all of us.

The "bloodsoaked,gory,murderous and horrible" is only limited to the part where you shoot with a Gun and was not said for the part when you are shooting with your camera.

I hope this time on your trip you get close enough to the animals in their natural surroundings, with the camera, that you get enough adrenaline released to get you on a high so you may not feel the need to shoot with a gun.

I have also rephrased one of your sentences for you:

I also feel that when you get "nice realistic close up pictures" the animal is immortalized, and like a priceless piece of jewelery, the picture, is passed on from one generation to the other.

Prashant, I am not trying to let you down. I have gone through many of your posts and have felt a mixed response: Pro hunting and Pro Conservation.

Buddy, I hope we can convert you just to a pro conservation guy.

[Bespoke]

Rajat,

Most of Ex-hunters have turned into very famous conservators like Jim Corbett, "Billy" Arjan Singh.

The Gentleman spend his hard earned money on following his passion of hunting.He could easily be a Poacher in India but he chose to follow the rules and hunt where it is allowed. The only reason that Africa has good conservation of game and wildlife in Africa is tourism and hunting tourism being one of the biggest revenue earning sector for some developing African economies.This Gentleman has pumped in at least few thousand dollars into conservation of African wildlife,Indirectly his money did feed a starving child in Africa.

I understand your concern for Animals and I would like to ask you how much are you doing for Frogs coming under your cars in Rainy season? The moth coming to your electric lights,the Rats and Lizards in your house and Mosquitoes in summers? I hope you don't carry a Leather wallet and wear Plastic and Nylon shoes all the time and you are vegetarian.I mean life is equal in every being weather it is a Mosquito or an Elephant.

The biggest mistake the people make are that "Hunters are not Conservators" In fact they are Biggest conservators,Has anyone blamed "Cricket players that they should not play in Cricket stadium because it spoils the grass and turn into Gardeners". I agree there have been black sheep's in Hunting so called "Royalty" of India (The real Royalty was almost Finished by 1857 but thats different Subject) ,this new breed of "Paper Royalty" had to find a way to show their power and they chose to Butcher Wildlife and buy expensive cars and collectibles and maintain Harems! but they should not be confused with all the hunting folks.

I appreciate your concern for Wildlife but everyone is different one should not force his own views on someone.

[prashantsingh]

Rajat . Hunting has been banned in India for such a long time that I can very well understand your (anti-hunting) sentiments , and those of many others on this forum.
The sad state of our jungles and their inhabitants is a matter of concern.
That's why I advocate..... Save Indian Wildlife ....If you really want to hunt ...Hunt Abroad.
The likes of Salmaan , Saif and Pataudi could easily afford a hunt (if lesser mortals like I can). And enjoy it as well ,because it is legal . The hunting areas are well protected , beautiful , and free from poachers. At the expense of "few" animals , funds are raised to save many others. A photo safari would cost less than 20% of the money a hunting safari would cost. A decent amount of this money , would be put back into conservation.

In the days when Shikar was legal in India most Officers of the Indian Forest Services indulged in hunting. They were often called upon by the poor farmers living around our jungles to get rid of cattle lifters , maneaters and crop raiders . For a person living in a town and having a "khushi job" it is impossible to imagine the loss a poor farmer faces when a rogue elephant raises his crop to the ground. It is difficult to feel the pain and suffering the poor folks go through when they loose their kin to maneaters. Also impossible to imagine the financial loss of the villager whose cattle are regularly lifted from their fields by the big cats. To make things easy I will give you a simple example. We all know Mr Vijay Mallya's love for horses. Some of these horses our expensive......really expensive. Would Mr Mallya alllow these animals to graze in the jungles and be killed by a big cat.....The answer is obvious ......NO. For a poor farmer his cattle are of same financial value as the thoroughbred horses are to Mr Mallya. Unfortunately he does not have the finances to feed them the same way and give them the same facilities. For him the loss of a cow which gives milk is equallent to the loss of a prized racehorse to the businessman.
Would you allow a leopard in the Garhwal to feast on your German Shepard worth Rs 15000 ? Probably not feel the same way for a local mastiff picked up by the same cat.
Just like being a vegetarian or a non vegetarian does not prove your love / hate for animals.
Being a hunter / non hunter , does not prove your love / hate for wildlife.
Shikar WAS an integral part of life for many in India including many forest officer. This has changed ever since .
But . In countries where hunting is legal, individuals including those given the responsibility to protect the forests still play an important part in "game management" and "culling".

[shooter]

Dear Rajat i am not going to waste my breath writing about hunter-conservation.
Enough has been written.

If you want to talk about some point discussed before in those posts, im happy to engage.

If you want to start again,
im sorry.

[Rajat]

Bespoke,

First of all I am just voicing my opinion and views and not forcing them on anyone. You live in a free world and if you feel that I am forcing my views then feel free to ignore these and I will not object to it.

“The only reason that Africa has good conservation of game and wildlife in Africa is tourism” Tourism and not "hunting tourism" if you mean the latter then I would like to see some facts and data to prove this.


“This Gentleman has pumped in at least few thousand dollars into conservation of African wildlife, Indirectly his money did feed a starving child in Africa.”
Maybe, but this sounds more like an excuse for hunting. Is this the only way to feed starving African children? Is there no other way? How do you know that this money generated from hunting goes to feed starving children? You can easily donate some money to the Red Cross or some NGO for this I guess. What about the homeless and starving people in India? Is our first duty not towards them in our own motherland?

Hunt if you do not agree with me or do not care for wildlife or if it is your passion but do not give these miserable and pathetic reasons.


“I understand your concern for Animals and I would like to ask you how much are you doing for Frogs coming under your cars in Rainy season? The moth coming to your electric lights,the Rats and Lizards in your house and Mosquitoes in summers? I hope you don't carry a Leather wallet and wear Plastic and Nylon shoes all the time and you are vegetarian.I mean life is equal in every being weather it is a Mosquito or an Elephant.”

Well you have got a point here. Honestly I do not do anything about it. I am not a vegetarian, I wear leather shoes and I would rather squat mosquitoes then get bitten by them (as they are parasites). BUT I dot not drive my car looking for a frog to drive over and crush it OR see a moth and take a hot electric light and run over to it to burn it. You get my point.


“The biggest mistake the people make are that "Hunters are not Conservators" In fact they are Biggest conservators, Has anyone blamed "Cricket players that they should not play in Cricket stadium because it spoils the grass and turn into Gardeners". I agree there have been black sheep's in Hunting so called "Royalty" of India (The real Royalty was almost Finished by 1857 but thats different Subject) ,this new breed of "Paper Royalty" had to find a way to show their power and they chose to Butcher Wildlife and buy expensive cars and collectibles and maintain Harems! but they should not be confused with all the hunting folks.”

In fact they all are the biggest conservators. If you are speaking generally then my response is OH YEAH!

The only way I can differentiate between hunters is the intent of hunting.

-- Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:16 pm --

Prasahant,

Actually I think you have got me wrong. My anti hunting sentiments have got nothing to do with it being banned in India for long or it being illegal etc. It is simply that I like animals and do not want to be cruel to them or hunt them. That’s all.


“That's why I advocate..... Save Indian Wildlife ....If you really want to hunt ...Hunt Abroad.” Now what can I say about this. In a way if you take it lightly, it is almost funny. I do appreciate your sentiments for Indian animals. But I cannot really distinguish between an Indian deer or an American one.

“And enjoy it as well ,because it is legal . The hunting areas are well protected , beautiful , and free from poachers. At the expense of "few" animals , funds are raised to save many others. A photo safari would cost less than 20% of the money a hunting safari would cost. A decent amount of this money , would be put back into conservation.”

Well maybe, but it does not give me sufficient grounds to hunt.

“They were often called upon by the poor farmers living around our jungles to get rid of cattle lifters , maneaters and crop raiders . For a person living in a town and having a "khushi job" it is impossible to imagine the loss a poor farmer faces when a rogue elephant raises his crop to the ground. It is difficult to feel the pain and suffering the poor folks go through when they loose their kin to maneaters. Also impossible to imagine the financial loss of the villager whose cattle are regularly lifted from their fields by the big cats.”

This is a different story. Although in some cases even this is not justified. Here we are just referring to trophy hunting and / or hunting for pleasure and not for any particular reason.

“For him the loss of a cow which gives milk is equallent to the loss of a prized racehorse to the businessman.”

Great argument and here I do not really blame him. A lot of matters pop in here about encroachment on forest land etc but this is another story. We are talking about pleasure hunting only. We cannot do much about these several issues directly but the only this we can do with a n immediate effect is stop the senseless killing.

“Would you allow a leopard in the Garhwal to feast on your German Shepard worth Rs 15000 ? Probably not feel the same way for a local mastiff picked up by the same cat.”

Actually the point here was not protection of your loved ones or property etc. As I said above.


“Being a hunter / non hunter , does not prove your love / hate for wildlife.”

I agree with you Prashant and can see this in your posts. I truly believe that you do not hate wildlife and just want to go on killing all animals that you see. Why do you think I just commented on your thread and not any where else? There are a dozen threads there about hunting. Here I felt that I was talking to a reasonable individual who does care about wildlife too.

-- Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:17 pm --

Dear shooter,

Likewise

I reciprocate the feelings

We can discuss other things of mutual interest elsewhere

-- Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:29 pm --

Well Guys, enough said. I guess we have all made our point. The debate can go on but we will save it for sometime later and for some other occasion now. Thanks for responding and discussing.

[hvj1]

i saw some lovely hunting pics(mostly in africa)

I think the word lovely is more suitable for wild animals in their natural habitat.

The appropriate word to replace "lovely" in your sentence can be chosen from any of the following:

bleeding, blood-soaked, gory ,grisly, blood-soaked, blood-spattered, bloodstained, gory , blood-soaked, blood-spattered, bloodstained, wounded, murderous, horrible, bloodthirsty, cruel, murderous, slaughterous , bloody, disgusting, ghastly, grim, hideous, horrible, horrid, horrifying, macabre , obscene, offensive, revolting, savage, sinister,startling, terrible, terrifying, violent, brutal

Or if you would rather:

i saw some hunting pics

[prashantsingh]

Prasahant,

“They were often called upon by the poor farmers living around our jungles to get rid of cattle lifters , maneaters and crop raiders . For a person living in a town and having a "khushi job" it is impossible to imagine the loss a poor farmer faces when a rogue elephant raises his crop to the ground. It is difficult to feel the pain and suffering the poor folks go through when they loose their kin to maneaters. Also impossible to imagine the financial loss of the villager whose cattle are regularly lifted from their fields by the big cats.”

This is a different story. Although in some cases even this is not justified. Here we are just referring to trophy hunting and / or hunting for pleasure and not for any particular reason.

“For him the loss of a cow which gives milk is equallent to the loss of a prized racehorse to the businessman.”

Great argument and here I do not really blame him. A lot of matters pop in here about encroachment on forest land etc but this is another story. We are talking about pleasure hunting only. We cannot do much about these several issues directly but the only this we can do with a n immediate effect is stop the senseless killing.

Actually the point here was not protection of your loved ones or property etc. As I said above.

I agree with you Prashant and can see this in your posts. I truly believe that you do not hate wildlife and just want to go on killing all animals that you see. Why do you think I just commented on your thread and not any where else? There are a dozen threads there about hunting. Here I felt that I was talking to a reasonable individual who does care about wildlife too.
Thanks for responding and discussing.

I love wildlife . I love wild places.
Nothing can be more beautiful than nature.
I have justified hunting animals which cause loss to human life / crop and cattle in the above statement.
Now lets talk about "Trophy" hunting.
A number of friends from the U.S. , U.K. and Australia who are regular hunters (and have hunted many many more animals than I have) found my statement of hunting only "Big racks" strange. I have tried to explain on another post that a hunter has his own ethics and goes by them.
Trophy Hunting is all about getting the big ones. Animals above a certain minimal criteria.
A Trophy Hunter would always go for a good head. This, in itself,is not easy to get.
As a result the hunter makes his own task of (the act of hunting) more difficult.
He puts in more effort to get that "Trophy".
A "trophy animal" is also smarter than another animal , thereby making the hunt even more challenging.
The real threat to wild life is not from a "Trophy Hunter" but from a poacher/ trapper who would shoot anything he came across.
I have known old time Shikaris who would not fire a shot even when a they came upon a "Tiger", simply because it was not "big enough". People returning year after year to the same hunting block in persuit of a decent head , yet not compromising on the size of the animal by shooting a younger or smaller animal.
A "Trophy hunter" will never overshoot all the animals in the jungle. He will not shoot females and the young ones. Not even males which are below a certain criteria. The real threat to wildlife is not from the hunter but from the poacher and the loss of habitat.
In many countries where hunting is legal and where the state of their flora and fauna is much better than in developing nations like ours ...... even pregnant females and fawns are shot. The justification given is to reduce the pressure on land. In many cases it is acceptable. A pregnant doe which is about to deliver a fawn during the winters and snow may just not have enough food to eat. The idea is to shoot it (a quick death) rather than allow it to starve (a slow and painful) to death.
But in India ...which hardly has such a harsh winter (except in the snow clad Himalayas) . We can not use the same yardstick. In India, already there is so much pressure on forest land that we just CAN NOT allow hunting. We must save whatever we are left with.
Thats why I say .
Those who do not wish to hunt ......Great.
Those who do......Hunt Abroad.
And you are so true Rajat when you talk about photography.
A good snap takes as much effort and junglelore in stalking and getting close to the animal......as a good hunt does.

[Vikram]

Rajat Wrote:

“The only reason that Africa has good conservation of game and wildlife in Africa is tourism” Tourism and not "hunting tourism" if you mean the latter then I would like to see some facts and data to prove this.

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10003

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11241

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10600

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10318

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10317

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10319

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10316

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10320

When you go through the above and still require more evidence,please do ask,will be very glad to provide more info.

“This Gentleman has pumped in at least few thousand dollars into conservation of African wildlife, Indirectly his money did feed a starving child in Africa.”
Maybe, but this sounds more like an excuse for hunting. Is this the only way to feed starving African children? Is there no other way? How do you know that this money generated from hunting goes to feed starving children? You can easily donate some money to the Red Cross or some NGO for this I guess. What about the homeless and starving people in India? Is our first duty not towards them in our own motherland?

Rajat, You seem to miss the point here. When a trophy hunter pays for the trophy, part of the money goes to the local community development. Look at it like this- If there are hungry children and the father/mother cannot feed them, they look at wild animals either as food or saleable commodities.End result- uncontrolled and unsustainable slaughter of animals.By pumping money into the local economy, you are preventing the vicious cycles from kick-starting.

Excuse to hunt?So what? Some one hunts,pays for it.A few animals,mostly older animals, are taken so that a majority and sustainable population of other animals thrive.What's wrong with it?

Hunt if you do not agree with me or do not care for wildlife or if it is your passion but do not give these miserable and pathetic reasons.

You are being uncharitable here. Miserable and pathetic reasons? Read the above please.If there were not hunters who genuinely care for wildlife and their habitat, there would not have been wast tracts of wilderness in many places on earth. Read the history of Yellowstone National Park and who started and who he was,please.You may make sense of it.

Well you have got a point here. Honestly I do not do anything about it. I am not a vegetarian, I wear leather shoes and I would rather squat mosquitoes then get bitten by them (as they are parasites).BUT I dot not drive my car looking for a frog to drive over and crush it OR see a moth and take a hot electric light and run over to it to burn it. You get my point.

You eat meat and yet you object to hunting? Is it because you do not need to go hunting for one and because someone else does it for you? Looking for frogs to run over with cars is not hunting.It is called wanton destruction of life.Hunting involves utility,to humans and wildlife( when managed scientifically and sustainably) and no life is wasted.The meat is used. If it is a pest, its destruction serves a purpose of maintaining balance.So, your comparison does not involve comparing apples with apples.

The only way I can differentiate between hunters is the intent of hunting.

I do not understand this.Could you please explain?

Actually I think you have got me wrong. My anti hunting sentiments have got nothing to do with it being banned in India for long or it being illegal etc. It is simply that I like animals and do not want to be cruel to them or hunt them. That’s all.

And , kind sir, you do eat meat,wear leather products and probably use cosmetics and medicines-all that may involve animal testing and considerable amounts of animal cruelty.Or is it OK to be cruel to domesticated animals?Yet you think you are right in criticising legal hunters who help conserve wildlife?

“That's why I advocate..... Save Indian Wildlife ....If you really want to hunt ...Hunt Abroad.” Now what can I say about this. In a way if you take it lightly, it is almost funny. I do appreciate your sentiments for Indian animals. But I cannot really distinguish between an Indian deer or an American one.

Again, you misunderstand what Prashant says. He is not being funny or naive. What he is saying is that since hunting is banned in India and hence he cannot invest in a legal hunt in India, he is forced to take that money abroad. Imagine all the animals that are poached in India and the amount of legal revenue that could be raised even if half of them were legally taken by trophy hunters.All that revenue that could be used to fund conservation efforts within India. Does it still look funny to you?

“And enjoy it as well ,because it is legal . The hunting areas are well protected , beautiful , and free from poachers. At the expense of "few" animals , funds are raised to save many others. A photo safari would cost less than 20% of the money a hunting safari would cost. A decent amount of this money , would be put back into conservation.”

Well maybe, but it does not give me sufficient grounds to hunt.

That is your choice not to hunt. But, the prospect of a good hunt and a chance to enjoy it for ages to come by helping conservation is a good enough ground for hunter-conservationists like Prashant.

Here we are just referring to trophy hunting and / or hunting for pleasure and not for any particular reason.

Should one feel pangs of guilt and shame for being a legal and paying hunter? Explain us please- How does it feel to raise a chicken in a very tight cage in which it can hardly move and all the other gory conditions that one reads and then slowly cut its throat so that it can be converted into kebabs or biriyani is not cruel and take a wild bird that lived free in the best environment with a nice shot that is almost equal to switching a light off is?What is more painful and what is cruel?

We are talking about pleasure hunting only. We cannot do much about these several issues directly but the only this we can do with a n immediate effect is stop the senseless killing.

What is wrong,again, with hunting that is legal,sustainable and helps in conservation? How is that pleasure is not OK and killing factory bred and raised animals is OK?

Well Guys, enough said. I guess we have all made our point. The debate can go on but we will save it for sometime later and for some other occasion now. Thanks for responding and discussing.

[/quote]

Thank you for raising some interesting points and cared enough to type these lengthy replies.That is how we learn from each other.I sincerely hope that my post does not make you feel unwelcome etc, for that is not my intent.We can differ and yet be civil and friendly about it.Please fell free to share your thoughts.Thank you.

Best-
Vikram

[full_circle]

Those who do not wish to hunt... Great.
Those who do... Hunt Abroad.

You eat meat and yet you object to hunting? Is it because you do not need to go hunting for one and because someone else does it for you?

is it OK to be cruel to domesticated animals?

Hunting, where legally allowed, is a personal choice. There is nothing in it for anyone to proselytise.