My african safari

[shooter]

Dear Rajat I wrote that enough has been written and you said you reciprocate the feelings.

I have been going through your posts and didnt see what you have written.

I have written several posts with citations from scientists etc about hunting conservation. Please also note that these citations arent my makings. They are based on studies and published in reputed magazines.

Please also note anti hunting organisations also are also pro vegetarian. At least they arent hpocrites who eat meat themselves and call others who hunt cruel. Even they realise battery production of animals for food is much more cruel than hunting.

Vikram has kindly posted the links to many of them. Most people in India who eat meat haveno qualms in doing so. Never been to a slaughter house and see the plight of animals there. Never see battery hens or how cruelly meat animals are treated.

If a person hunts for food, it is considered cruel. Thousands of cows are killed for leather every year but hum to hindoo hai. Cow is sacred. Hunters the world over have contributed more to the preservation of wildlife than armchair conservationists like you.

I pay money to BASC (british accociation of shooting and conservation) yearly fees.
National rod license to preserve streams and lakes for fishing
Annual fees to wildfowling clubs and that money goes to preserve marshes and prevents them from being encroached for farming.
Pay the farmer of the land i shoot on. For this money he leaves around 10% of his land 'as it is' this area is not farmed but left as nature intended. Wildlife use this area for nesting and breeding. A mini sanctuary if you like.

To see how hunting benefits communities, please google markhor hunting in Pakistan which if on record the most expensive hunt on the planet. more than the rhino.
Please refer to govt fees for trophies in africa and how it goes to communities. Meat from safaris goes to feed people in the villages.

I dont know what you do for a living. A long time ago, i had compiled a list of impact/use of forests for different professions. please see that post too.

Please also see that these are pragmatic ways of conservation rather than utopian ways of saying:

manage man animal conflict (how?)
Reduce population (overnight? please study population pyramid, phases of growth etc)
there are other ways of feeding the poor
Remove corruption

Calling a hunter as having no interest in wildlife? It takes a hunter to know the difference between an oryx and a blesbok. You have forgotten that Jim Corbett was also a hunter.

[357 S&W]

[Rajat]

Well, Well, Well, Here I find myself alone confronted by three mighty hunters and one shooter. Boy, am I nervous.

You must give this to me: I seem to have drawn your complete attention at least for a moment.

Anyway from the time I was drawn into this I was expecting this response.

Gentlemen, there will be no end to this discussion. Now or forever, between us or the entire human race which is divided on this topic although the majority is with me.

So here we must agree to disagree.

I would not call myself a conservationist in the true sense of the word but I have strong anti – hunting sentiments and beliefs and I am not afraid of expressing my views. Here it seems this is considered blasphemy. Heresy.

One thing I should make clear here as Prashant has said: being a vegetarian or non vegetarian does not prove that one loves or does not love animals.

In the same way I do not believe that all hunters are animal haters or anti – conservationists or evildoers or do not love or understand wildlife and nature. The fact is that all hunters are outdoorsmen with knowledge, appreciation and a certain understanding of nature.

Outdoorsmen are welcome, It is just the unnecessary killing part that I dislike.

Other than this all gun / weapon lovers are not necessarily hunters.

However it is natural for humans to differ and in this context this is what has been termed as the “ Bambi effect”:

The phrase "the Bambi effect" has been used by some commentators to suggest that people's objections to the killing of animals that they perceive as adorable particularly deer and other woodland creatures while the same people do not objecting to the killing of animals not perceived as adorable, is an irrational and inconsistent psychological phenomenon.
Referring to a form of purported anthropomorphism, the term is inspired by Walt Disney's animated film Bambi, where an emotional highpoint is the death of the lead character's mother at the hands of the film's villain, a human hunter known only as "Man".


As Victorian era dramatist W. S. Gilbert remarked, "Deer-stalking would be a very fine sport if only the deer had guns."

-- Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:50 am --

To reply in detail to everyone it will take a lot of time but in short (or long) here it is:

Prashant: a discussion with you is always welcome. Good to know your views.

“I love wildlife . I love wild places.
Nothing can be more beautiful than nature."

"A good snap takes as much effort and junglelore in stalking and getting close to the animal......as a good hunt does.”

I appreciate this and agree with you.

Trophy Hunting; A downside of trophy hunting is that it is anti-evolutionary because trophy hunters go for the most magnificent specimens in prime breeding condition, leaving the lesser ones to reproduce. With enough of this happening the quality of the species declines, degenerates.

We will surely discuss things later on, not necessarily about the cons of the hunting part but in general too.

-- Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:58 am --

Vikram:

Thanks for the links, I appreciate it.

I agree. As you say we can differ and be civil and friendly about it. I did not have any doubts about your intent too. A discussion with you is always welcome.

Forgive my posting this directly here instead of creating a link but I thought this will be appropriate. I hope the moderators will forgive me.

Dialogue between a typical recreational hunter and Anthony Marr
Source: all-creatures.org

This is more or less a summary of what we are debating here from my point of view.

TRH: "You are lumping us law-abiding hunters in with lawless poachers."
AM: "Law is a human concept. Where the animals are concerned, hunting and poaching are both killing. And where animal conservation is concerned, it is the total number of animals killed, hunted and poached. By the way, do you use baits when hunting
TRH: "Of course not. It is illegal, and not right."
AM: "Baiting is legal in Washington state. Does that make it right to do it there
TRH: "Hunters are the only true and effective conservationists."
AM: "There are two kinds of conservationists - those who conserve so that they could continue to have animals to kill, and those who conserve for the sake of the planet, and protect wildlife for its own sake. Once the latter have arisen as of the 60s, the former can no longer claim to be “true”.
TRH: "Hunting is good is keeping animal herds healthy.
AM: "Unlike other predators, who go after the weakest prey, thus genetically strengthening the prey species, hunters go after the most magnificent specimens, thus weakening the species. You are talking about quantity, but I‘m talking about quality."
TRH: "If you get rid of bear hunting, there'll be a bear population explosion."
AM: "There has never been any bear population explosion over the eons, before or after we humans came on the scene. Natural biological controls, such as food shortages, lower birth rate and intraspecies competition and predation will keep the population level steady."
TRH: "You should go after the Asians and their use of bear parts, not us hunters."
AM: "My very first campaign was to target the Chinese community in North America regarding their use and trade of bear parts, and tiger parts, and rhino parts... Regarding hunters, are not bear head and hide also bear parts?"
TRH: "Hunting is not killing; it goes way beyond that. It's a form of communing with nature. I can't expect you to understand."
AM: "Hunting is not killing? Some humans may buy that argument, but not the bears. It's not necessary to kill in order to commune with nature. Try camping or wildlife photography."
TRH: "Hunters are the anti-poaching field force. We are the eyes and ears for the conservation officers."
AM: "Relying on hunters to watch out for poachers is like letting wolves safeguard sheep from coyotes. Hikers and campers have eyes and hears too. Further, if Grizzly bear hunting is banned, then anyone caught killing a Grizzly would be a poacher."
TRH: "We humans are and have always been predators. To hunt is to be human.”
AM: “Tigers are more predatory than humans, but a tiger that is not hungry does not hunt. Evidently, we humans have more blood lust than even tigers. Please be honest. Recreational hunters hunt primarily for entertainment, not for food.
TRH: "Many interior and northern towns economically depend on hunting."
AM: "Eco-tourism and wildlife viewing have time and again proven more beneficial both in terms of economy and employment."

On another note:
Marr asked, “If the hunters are such effective heroes, why don’t they go and hunt evil poachers instead of innocent bears?”

Now, I really cannot understand why hunters are ALWAYS portrayed as conservators and the life and blood of the downtrodden economies. Is it because they hunt for pleasure and to defend it and become heroes this “hunter and conservator” thing was coined? Or is it that hunters hunt just so starving children get some food and their parents get employment? I wonder what is the real answer.

Intent and purpose of hunting / killing : For pleasure, for food, to protect life and property, get rid of pests, trophies etc.

As you say, comparing apples to apples. This cannot be absolute in all conditions.

Hunting abroad: No its not funny to me any more but neither are (for example) concepts such as “canned hunting” which is essentially a trophy hunt in which the animal is kept in a more confined area, such as in a fenced-in area (may be a quite large area), increasing the likelihood of the hunter obtaining a kill. As you know a canned hunt is a "hunt for animals that have been raised on game ranches until they are mature enough to be killed for trophy collections and there are not wild animals but more or less like domestic animals used to humans.

In South Africa, the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, recently announced new laws to stop the practise of "canned hunting" in his country. South Africa environment minister announced long-awaited restrictions on lion hunting, declaring he was sickened by wealthy tourists shooting tame lions from the back of a truck and felling rhinos with a bow and arrow. This comes in response to the embroglio created over the potential canned hunt of the African rhinoceros
Marthinus Van Schalkwyk said the new law would ban "canned" hunting of big predators and rhinos in small enclosures that offer them no means of escape.

A June, 2007 story on CNN detailed canned hunting in South Africa and includes a video of a canned lion hunt where the animal is shot against a fence.

The South African Predator Breeders Association, which represents most of the country’s lion breeders opposed this descision.

Most lion hunting is done by foreign tourists, who on average pay about $22,000 to shoot one of the cats. A further $18,000 is generated in the form of safari costs and the price of having a lion stuffed for shipment back to the hunter’s home, according to court documents filed by the association. So you can see that the money goes to private breeders and not necessarily for conservation or controlling population.
More than 300 lions are hunted in South Africa every year, with trophy hunters coming from countries including the U.S., Russia and Spain. That had made South Africa the second-biggest destination for lion hunting after Tanzania, where wild lions are shot. About 1,000 lions are hunted each year in Africa.

Canned hunting is popular only because there are hunters queuing up to shoot these poor animals. Are these hunters not a part of your tribe?

I did not want to post the videos here. Go to youtube some of the videos showing this would even make your stomach turn.

Is this not legal hunting?

Another example:

NEW JERSEY AUDUBON SOCIETY ENDORSES DEER HUNTING

A March 15, 2005 Associated Press article stated: "The New Jersey Audubon Society is endorsing the use of hunts, hired guns and other lethal measures to thin out the state's 200,000-strong white-tailed deer herd, saying population control measures must be stepped up in the interest of preserving the state's forests."

How did New Jersey - after decades and battalions of hunters - manage to create a herd of 200,000 deer? The answer is: by shooting a large percentage of bucks over many years. Standard "deer management" is a joke, a sham, which is why Pennsylvannia, Wisconsin, Michigan and other states have over 1.5 million deer apiece. The New Jersey Audubon Society should be informed and intelligent enough to realize that simply recruiting even more hunters to reduce deer populations will never accomplish anything.

Deer management is a sham, a joke, a twisted caricature of true conservation. Deer hunting is managed for sport, not to balance ecosystems, but to provide a surplus of live targets for hunters. Vast megaherds of white-tailed deer have been cultivated in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan - these states have over 1.5 MILLION deer apiece. Virginia had 20,000 whitetails in 1950, now it has over 900,000!

Fifty years ago, deer populations could have been easily controlled by killing a relatively small percentage of does. Instead, a large percentage of bucks were killed, habitat was manipulated, and deer herds greatly increased.

According to the book "Restoring America's WIldlife," Mississippi's entire white-tailed herd was estimated at a mere 7,357 animals in 1932. In 1993, just the harvest alone was 263,000 deer! New Jersey reported a "harvest" of 2,173 deer in 1937. Its annual bloodbath exceeded 49,000 in 1993 - a prime example of "deer management" resulting in a 20-fold increase.

"Restoring America's Wildlife" also stated: "Over the past 50 years, this effort led to the successful restoration and continuing management of several native game species - notably the white-tailed deer and the eastern wild turkey. Hunting of deer was prohibited in Missouri after the 1937 season produced a harvest of only 108 whitetails. Seven years later, the season was opened to the first "bucks - only" hunt of 1944 which produced a harvest of 583. The first "any deer" season of 1951 gave hunters 5,519. Since 1944, 950,000 whitetails have been harvested. That's more than 40 times the total estimated deer population before P-R, bringing recreational pleasure to more than 5.3 million licensed hunters."

HOW DO WILDLIFE AGENCIES CREATE A SURPLUS OF GAME ANIMALS?

Many species of mammals - such as deer - react to hunting harvests with an increase in reproductive rates. Also, killing more bucks than does will increase deer populations. When a high percentage of bucks are killed, more nutritious forage is available for the remaining bucks, does and fawns. This improved nutrition results in higher ovulation, birthrates, and healthier fawns. In many states, such as Colorado, hunting results in the death of at least twice as many bucks and male fawns as does. The main purpose of "deer management" is to maximize fawn production.

1.) Bucks are killed by hunters
2.) Does produce extra offspring (fawns)
3.) Fewer bucks means more nutritious forage for fawns and adult does
4.) Habitat is manipulated (burning vegetation, timber-cutting, etc.) to provide more food.
5.) Predators are killed
6.) Abnormally high populations of deer result year after year

My thanks to Shayanne1212.

Naturally, hunters are eager to be seen as conservationists. But true conservation involves more than preserving areas of habitat to be used as outdoor shooting galleries. And, true conservation involves more than creating humongous deer and elk herds. Shooting coyotes, cougars, wolves, foxes, bears, and other predators - whether for amusement or to increase game populations - cannot and will not qualify as conservation.

Another example small but none the less important:

For animals like wolves who have a love mate for life, killing their mate is like destroying their life. Can you think of the damage done to the survivor?

TAXATION AND REVENUE GENERATED BY HUNTING
It is true that hunters pay for certain things pertaining to conservation through taxes but little can be said about that which is compulsory. That is, money obtained by the state and central governments from such things as consumer spending and wage earnings are not voluntarily donated. Certainly, taxes give the consumer some concern about where their money goes, yet this is not enough to establish the notion of being charitable. The government takes a substantial portion of my earnings, yet I don’t claim to have donated to the various areas to which my money has been sent. I am unable to accurately claim that I donated to these various areas, and so too it is with many of the areas hunters claim to finance. The government uses lots of the tax money to make roads in wildlife areas to make easy access for hunters. ( because hunters basically pay them back with the license to hunt).

“ 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” Point well taken but Vikram, not always. You know it, I do not need to come up with data and try and prove it. It is not so painless.

Anyway Vikram, I know that both of us can go on and on defending our stand and both will still be adamant on our beliefs.

Hope to discuss other matters of mutual interest some other time.

-- Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:35 am --

Shooter, I was expecting something better than this from you.

Yes, I reciprocate the feelings that enough has been written and it is true. Who said anything about my writing this stuff?

I did not write much yet and would not have even now had it not been for this debate and had I not been drawn into it. Consider this a beginning. I am not on this forum to get into these debates but for my love of weapons and to be comforted that like minded individuals exist in this country.

I know that since the 22nd of May 2007 you have written more than a thousand posts and several with citations from magazines, articles and studies.

I know that you did not create the data from your own experience and you picked it up somewhere. We all can do it as I have done above. Does it prove or will prevent anything? I too can write a series of posts with anti hunting matter and conservation etc. but I prefer not to. This is not the reason I joined this forum.

Every man to himself and to his own beliefs.

I am glad that you started it this thing here so do not blame me for my reply. Quite good at name calling aren’t you: “Hypocrite, armchair conservationist”

Do not take me for the tiger you rest your gun on.

“I pay money to BASC (british accociation of shooting and conservation) yearly fees.
National rod license to preserve streams and lakes for fishing
Annual fees to wildfowling clubs and that money goes to preserve marshes and prevents them from being encroached for farming.
Pay the farmer of the land i shoot on. For this money he leaves around 10% of his land 'as it is' this area is not farmed but left as nature intended. Wildlife use this area for nesting and breeding. A mini sanctuary if you like.”

Does this prove anthing?

I am not bragging and would not have ever mentioned it here but you made me do it.

You say that you do not know what I do for a living and right you are.

For each and every single year since the last 10 years and to this date I pay more money (officially), fee and taxes to the Indian forest authorities than you have paid till now or will ever pay in the forms you have mentioned above. Not a rupee of what I have paid goes towards hunting or destruction of wildlife.

I do not know if they use it for conservation or not and that is another story.

Oh and I did not even mention the number of people, basically villagers, employed in the process.

As for the rest, I have written enough above.

For me this is the end of this discussion.

-- Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:40 am --

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

Rahul I am not really trying to proselytize. You know one thing led to another and here we are.

[Vikram]

Rajat,

While I respect anyone who takes a principle stand on any issue,the debate is not about setting about to out do the other side or corner them or force them to accept what someone is saying.It goes beyond you and me.This is not a might is right kind of situation where people are ganging up against you.When you say that we won't change or stay adamant, then there is no point to these discussions.We spend time and energies to learn from each other.

You came up with lengthy examples about what others are saying but not what you say WITH them.If you like to discuss the issues raised in those examples, please do.I am willing to spend time in discussing them. No way did we say that Hunters-Conservation is the only model.You simply cannot disregard the role that legal hunters play in conservation. If you/and the people you quoted can only come up with the cruelty aspect, of curse with the selective application of kindness to cute looking creatures or majestic beasts, but not your battery bred broiler chickens,say it and we can talk about it too.

Again, nothing personal here and all about the principle.

Best-
Vikram

[hvj1]

A good snap takes as much effort and jungle lore in stalking and getting close to the animal......as a good hunt does.

Hello Prashant.

Recent experience has prompted me to confidently say that the degree of difficulty, while taking a wild life photograph is much higher as compared to taking a shot, to kill the animal.

The principles involved in ‘stalking’, both for hunting and photography are the same. It is when we start talking about getting ‘close enough’ to take a ‘shot’ that the degree of difficulty , while taking a ‘good’ photo as opposed to pulling the trigger, increases three fold.

Firstly, the limiting factor on both the gun and camera is the ‘range’, it depends on the rifle caliber and also the focal length of your camera that dictates how close, is ‘close enough’.

I am using a 70mm – 300 mm nikon lens, to get a really good photograph of say a duck in a lake, I need to be at least 15-20 m from my target. As compared to the days when I used a telescoped .22 rifle, the range would have been around 40-50m. Which effectively translates into an extra 25-30 m of stalking. Which any hunter, worth his salt would certainly nod knowingly in understanding.

Secondly, when you are ‘close enough’ to take a photograph, one needs to pause and think, whether this is going to be an ordinary photograph, or a superb one. Believe me when I say, that at this point, ‘FARTing’ makes all the difference.

No, I don’t mean flatulence.

FART according to Ken Rockwell is a “mnemonic for a creative process” and certainly not related to expulsion of body gas.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

FARTing

F: Feel, a good photo starts when you feel like taking a good photograph of a subject which has excited you.

A: Ask, ask yourself, what it is that has caught your attention in the first place. The answer is easy, when it comes to wild life photography.

R: Refine, here one starts talking about the entire ‘composition’ of the picture, with specific emphasis on quality of light and how the texture of the feathers and colors are enhanced. Going deeper, you refine further by choosing parts of the background, which would enhance the picture even more, for example, while taking a photograph of a duck, how the reflections of the subject and foliage (reeds) blend in the photo. Finally, ‘angle’ of the shot also plays a major role.

T: Take, stands simply for taking the photo.

So while I am ‘farting’ around, I need to do all this double quick, lest my cover is blown and the birds take to flight.

To finally summarize : The degree of difficulty between hunting and photography is to the extent of your FART.

Best Regards

[hamiclar01]

Firstly, the limiting factor on both the gun and camera is the ‘range’, it depends on the rifle caliber and also the focal length of your camera that dictates how close, is ‘close enough’.

I am using a 70mm – 300 mm nikon lens, to get a really good photograph of say a duck in a lake, I need to be at least 15-20 m from my target. As compared to the days when I used a telescoped .22 rifle, the range would have been around 40-50m. Which effectively translates into an extra 25-30 m of stalking. Which any hunter, worth his salt would certainly nod knowingly in understanding.

You can stop being a miser and get a bigger zoom lens
That way you won't have to worry about sneezing when getting too close

[prashantsingh]

A good snap takes as much effort and jungle lore in stalking and getting close to the animal......as a good hunt does.

Hello Prashant.

Recent experience has prompted me to confidently say that the degree of difficulty, while taking a wild life photograph is much higher as compared to taking a shot, to kill the animals.

I am using a 70mm – 300 mm nikon lens, to get a really good photograph of say a duck in a lake, I need to be at least 15-20 m from my target. As compared to the days when I used a telescoped .22 rifle, the range would have been around 40-50m. Which effectively translates into an extra 25-30 m of stalking. Which any hunter, worth his salt would certainly nod knowingly in understanding.


Best Regards

I loved that post of yours, and found your snaps Fantastic.


By the way hvj1
ANY HUNTER, WORTH HIS SALT
would NEVER shoot a SITTING "DUCK in a lake" with a .22 rifle (mounted with a scope).
He would only shoot it on the wing.

[full_circle]

Rahul I am not really trying to proselytize. You know one thing led to another and here we are.

Rajat bhai, aint it always so...

I have strong anti – hunting sentiments and beliefs and I am not afraid of expressing my views. Here it seems this is considered blasphemy. Heresy.

Now thats unfair! Or did I miss out on the call to have you burned at the stake?

The degree of difficulty between hunting and photography is to the extent of your FART.

You can stop being a miser and get a bigger zoom lens

Did you have this in mind hamiclar? http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/co ... 1700mm.htm

12001700mmview.jpg

[Bespoke]

On another note:
Marr asked, “If the hunters are such effective heroes, why don’t they go and hunt evil poachers instead of innocent bears?”
.

I am very interested get me a permit.

[hvj1]

You can stop being a miser and get a bigger zoom lens

Hamiclar01,
My dear fellow,
The 70mm-300mm cost me Rs 26000.00, whereas the 70-400mm older version would cost me Rs 3.75 lacs and the latest version around Rs 6.71 lacs. I think, I can afford to scrape my elbows and knees than the 400mm.
Regards

I loved that post of yours, and found your snaps Fantastic.

Thanks Prashant, I really do have a long long way to go....

By the way hvj1

ANY HUNTER, WORTH HIS SALT
would NEVER shoot a SITTING "DUCK in a lake" with a .22 rifle (mounted with a scope).
He would only shoot it on the wing.

Err, do you mean, shooting the duck on the wing with a .22 ? I think you mean with a shotgun, unfortunately, I never could develop my marksmanship skills with a shotgun.
Incidentally, I have hit a duck in flight, just taking off, with an open sight .22 once... but never have I tried it again, taking into account the safety factor.
Anyway mate, I consider you to be a better hunter than me, or shall we say your salt is rockier than mine
Best Regards

[prashantsingh]

I meant a hunter would never shoot a sitting duck with a .22 rifle.
He would shoot one in flight with a shotgun instead .....which is mostly used in duck shooting.
A Poacher on the other hand would have no issues using a .22 rifle with scope on a sitting bird because what matters to him is the "quantity" of birds collected and not the "quality" (the way they are hunted).
For a hunter it's "sport" ....and when you play a game you follow certain rules.
For a poacher there are no such rules. Infact he would prefer the .22 as it makes less noise.


For Ref:
Please see Aleutian Canada Geese shot by 357 S&W in the Hunting Section.


And BTW,
I have asked a friend to put up 4 snaps taken by me last summer at my farm with a 4X zoom.
I still have not figured out how to upload snaps on IFG. I hope you will like them when they are finally added to your post.

P.S. the "fart" part was fun to read.

and before I forget: Rock salt in the Himalayas and it's foothills (eg Dehradun) is said to cause Iodine deficiency Goiter. So I eat "Tata Salt (iodized)"......and still can't shoot a duck in flight with a .22.
Cheers.

[hvj1]

I meant a hunter would never shoot a sitting duck with a .22 rifle.
He would shoot one in flight with a shotgun instead .....which is mostly used in duck shooting.
A Poacher on the other hand would have no issues using a .22 rifle with scope on a sitting bird because what matters to him is the "quantity" of birds collected and not the "quality" (the way they are hunted).
For a hunter it's "sport" ....and when you play a game you follow certain rules.
For a poacher there are no such rules. Infact he would prefer the .22 as it makes less noise.

Oh Horrors of horrors, that certainly is not kosher is it, never knew about it. Now I wonder what 'Shooter Masterji' has to say about that... I suppose 2 lasheson the rear for me.

For Ref:
Please see Aleutian Canada Geese shot by 357 S&W in the Hunting Section.

Will do.

And BTW,
I have asked a friend to add 4 snaps taken by me last summer at my farm with a 4X zoom.
I still have not figured out how to upload snaps on IFG. I hope you will like them when they are finally added to your post.

Welcome, welcome.

and before I forget: Rock salt in the Himalayas and it's foothills (eg Dehradun) is said to cause Iodine deficiency Goiter. So I eat "Tata Salt (iodized)"......

Best Regards

[prashantsingh]

" I wonder what Shooter Masterji has to say"

Looks like hvj1 has taken the anti-hunting relay baton from Rajat from here on.
Since Shooters has not posted yet. I will take the liberty of answering from his side.
I may be wrong, and if that be so ,Shooters may correct me later.

Are you refering to Shooter's post "Some hunting pics" in the Photo Album?
Indeed . Those are fantastic bags of ducks , pheasants,partridge and rabbits .
But you must also understand that they are not individual bags.
Infact they are a collection of the days hunt . All the birds and animals shot in the day by a group of hunters. Not an individual.


Talking about ethics.
There was a time when the days collection would be pooled in and finally divided equally amongst all the hunters .
Lets take for example three hunters A, B and C.
Hunters "A" shoots 10 ducks
Hunter "B" shoots 4
and Hunter "C" shoots 1.
Total Bag = 15 ducks
So end of the day......every one gets 15/3 = 5 ducks.
Shooters being a crack shot would probably have shot more birds and rabbits that day.....but end of the day ...everyone would have gone back with enough "game meat" and some fantastic memories.

[Rajat]

Happy Diwali Everyone!

This is correct, this debate is not about trying to outdo the other side or to force anyone. My intention is just to present my point of view and endorse it with relevant examples as I was made to believe that citations were required here.

It is also true that we are trying to learn from each other. Specially myself from the members who are more experienced and know things that I do not. I try to learn all the time: what to do and what not, at times people set good examples, sometimes bad.

The lengthy examples I came up were just to "illustrate" my thoughts and views and were an essential part of what I wanted to say and to project certain issues related to what we were discussing. There are many more but I just wanted to bring up a couple just to clarify that it was not just an individual being sentimental here and voicing his own views but that there are, in fact, lots of related issues too. If need be I can bring up tons but that is unnecessary.

I am not disregarding the role a few hunters might play in conservation and as you say this is not the only model and nor is the model of battery bred broiler chickens. Who is defending this anyway?

Cruelty is just one aspect but not the only one.

Anyway not to begin with this again.

Holiday time: With lots of time in hand I have gone through a lot of hunting and anti hunting posts in IFG's history. If this debate goes on, I know now who the active participants on both sides will / may be and what all will be said and none of us will quit.

Although not one to give up I guess there is little that can be said and this is not giving up. More Facts and Figures can be brought up but there will be no converts.

Everyone here is pro guns apart from this fact there are the hunters and the anti-hunters. We will have to share the same platform.

I am against hunting and senseless killing of animals in all forms. This is a personal choice and no one can change it.

Once in a while we might still exchange our views on this topic but I do not want to start another heated debate or get into a slanging match or repeat / get everyone to repeat all of the other old points discussed earlier or dig up new facts.

We must agree to disagree on this one gentlemen.



The hot topic now seems to be Hunting with a camera and I love it.

-- Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:05 am --

On another note:
Marr asked, “If the hunters are such effective heroes, why don’t they go and hunt evil poachers instead of innocent bears?”
.

I am very interested get me a permit.

Way to Go!

I am sure no one will ask you for a permit if you catch them in the act.

-- Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:38 am --

the degree of difficulty, while taking a wild life photograph is much higher as compared to taking a shot, to kill the animal.

The principles involved in ‘stalking’, both for hunting and photography are the same. It is when we start talking about getting ‘close enough’ to take a ‘shot’ that the degree of difficulty , while taking a ‘good’ photo as opposed to pulling the trigger, increases three fold.

So while I am ‘farting’ around, I need to do all this double quick, lest my cover is blown and the birds take to flight.

So true. Its really hard to imagine what some wild life photographers and camera men / teams have to go through. It is a real test of all their skills and senses.

[hvj1]

Hi Prashant,
When I referred to SHooter it was a reference to his vast knowledge and in camaradarie. I have not seen his hunting pics, Nowadays, I generally avoid the hunting section,unless I find the post is being frequented continuously by the knowledgable types, who generally make very informative coments and its a pleasure to read them. Albeit the subject being gruesome to me.
Best Regards