Leeujag, soos hy moet afloop.

[mariusr]

Mense dink ou moet die vraag vra waarom wil jy leeu skiet!? Wat beryk jy daar deur? Is dit nou vir jou lekker om die mooi dier te dood net om sy vel te he!? Ek sal ook leeu skiet as ek moet en my lewe in gevaar is ! Maar ek gaan verseker nie leeu wil skiet wat met bottel groot gemaak is en donkies gevoer is en dan op duisend of tienduisend hektaar losgelaat is vir maand of twee om te jag? Dan is daar verseker iets fout met jou!!!! Al is daar nou maar net paar leeus oor in die wildernis ek as jagter is nie so groot gemaak om so iets goed te keur nie ! Daar is darem waardes in die lewe as jy nie daarmee saam stem nie is dit jou saak maar omdat daar geld betrokke is ens ens is dit kamstig reg!? Die een se dood is die ander se brood maak nie saak hoe oneties of onregverdig dit is nie!?

[matewis]

Soos telkemale al gese is, elke man doen wat vir hom lekker is en ek glo ons almal hier regverdig die situasie wanneer ons vingers op die snellers is.

Die uitdaging vir leeujagters is baie moeiliker. Die primere argument vir n biltongjagter is dat hy die vleis benut en jag omrede hy wil voorsien. Geen verskil as om pnp toe te ry en n pakkie skaaptjops te koop nie.

Die pac jagter argumenteer, en ook met meriete, dat hy n middel tot n doel is en dat die gemeenskap beter daaraan toe is na hy sy werk gedoen het.

Die leeujagter het nie hierdie argument nie, en dus bly slegs die ekonomiese voortbestaan van n spesie oor. Hier om ons kampvuur verstaan ons die dinamika en voordeel van die dollars, maar vir iemand wat ditt nie ken nie, baie keer agv geen blootstelling, maak dit nie sin nie.

Ek sal nie n leeu skiet nie. Selfs al wou ek het ek nie die vaardighede, toerusting of ondervinding om dit te doen nie. Ek dink dis n ongelooflike rush wat mens kry, wat gedryf word deur jou primere instink as man en jagter.

Wie is ek om te oordeel? Daar is geen bewyse dat leeujag die voortbestaan van n spesie bedreig nie. Die teendeel is dalk eerder waar.

Dit alles gese, vir my is daar nie n verskil tussen die jagter wat uitgaan om die rowland ward bok te soek vir sy braaikamer, en die leeujagter nie.

[Frederik]

Marius, party mense skiet nie vlakvarke nie omdat hulle so lelik lyk !!!!!

[Wouter Roets]

20 November 2013

OPEN LETTER FROM CHASA’S CHAIRMAN – MELISSA BACHMAN

Dear Hunters

Although I have received overwhelmingly strong support from hunters for the press release I penned for CHASA regarding the outcry over the Lion Hunt of Melissa Bachman, there have been a very small number of hunters who have challenged my (and CHASA’s) pro lion hunting stance. These comments vary from some who believe hunting ANY inedible specie is wrong, to others who bemoan the practice of canned shooting or the hunting of captive bred animals, and those who object to her apparent glee which she has placed very publicly on social media. All these commentators have pointed out their own personal ethos which I appreciate tends to be the more purist, hard hunting & moderate off take style of hunting.

CHASA as an umbrella organisation has many differing styles and types of hunter within its ranks. Apart from the typical “biltong” hunter as most SA hunters are referred to, we have groups hunting with the use of birds of prey, hunting over hounds, wing shooters, those who focus on making a recreational activity out of damage causing animal control, handgun hunters and more. The fact is that specific styles of hunting and the character of the people who hunt are as diverse as humankind can possibly be. There are those who would never shoot from a vehicle and those who shoot in no other manner.

Our function is to ensure the Freedom to Hunt. There are THREE FUNDAMENTALS which we apply when we decide which hunting activity to protect. It must be LEGAL, SUSTAINABLE and HUMANE hunting. Legal is probably the simplest of these three to define and our biggest challenge here is to engage with government to ensure laws are reasonable, logical, aim to achieve the other fundamentals, and are easy for hunters to comply with.

Sustainable is often misunderstood. Sustainable does NOT of itself imply there MUST be a direct benefit to conservation as such, but rather that it must NOT work AGAINST conservation. I see a lot of comment that we hunt to conserve. We don’t. We hunt because it’s in us to do so, as a deep seated human imperative (supressed in many urbanised folk) but real enough for those of us who feel it. The conservation is simply a natural consequence of hunting, particularly as we have over time developed magnificent conservation models based on our desire to preserve hunting (The history of game law development worldwide bears this out) A true hunter would feel in his gut if his hunting were taking more than nature could bear.

Humane is often misconstrued especially when we hear the blurb of animal rightists and some misinformed members of the public debating speciesism. In simple terms from a hunter’s perspective, we need to do everything within our means to ensure the quickest, surest and least stressful death of the animal being hunted. In this regard we need to be careful of pointing fingers at those who don’t adhere to our own specific personal preferred hunting ethos. An animal shot in the head or heart from a vehicle does NOT die a less humane death than one shot from the hunter on foot. A lion or elephant properly shot with the appropriate calibre & bullet does NOT die a less humane death than a jackal or a springbuck does. Any hunter who panders to these myths may believe that animal rightists will accept his more “ethically elevated” approach to hunting and be satisfied to let him carry on hunting because of it. This is not true!

Animal rightists are a fringe element culture, but carry enough passion and extremism to influence huge chunks of public opinion. Their STATED ambition is the eventual demise of ALL forms of human use, domination or ownership over animals, period! They are fully aware that their more radical objectives would be a hard-sell to folk, so they have devised a simple strategy, based on the domino effect. Knock over the easiest targets first and keep moving along the line as you progress. You may well believe your own hunting ethic should be the minimum acceptable standard now, and even support legislation making it so. But that would make YOUR style the next one in the targets of these extremists. In this debacle I have even had an engagement with a group of big game fisherman who were attacking the lion hunt, but when I pointed out that they apply a similar “use model” as hunters when they fish, they put up an incredibly feeble argument to try and differentiate the activities. How silly, and how dangerous for the fishing community? ALL users of nature’s bounty need to support one another regardless of your own particular personal ethos, provided the three fundamentals are adhered to. The argument that only food is a legitimate use, and the only reason to hunt is particularly concerning. If we succeed with this argument then it’s a simple next step for animal rightists to say alternative food sources are available. We DON’T hunt anymore to stay off starvation. There is a lot of cultural, health, spiritual and educational reasons to hunt, and yes we must admit there’s an element of ego involved. It’s part of the human psyche.

In short, we need to do what hunters do best; be honest and upfront. What we must not do is start an internal feeding frenzy pointing fingers at each other, and supplying our adversaries with ammunition against us. We know what we do is just and right, and for now I can assure you so does the relevant parties in government. That’s what we achieve in our constant positive engagements with them. We need to be more mindful of how the public needs to be positively influenced to understand hunting, without us being defensive about it. If we are to hunt into future generations we cannot hide hunting away from public scrutiny so instead we have to socialise the public to hunting by our constant positive engagements, without the abusive language which is so often used by the anti-hunters.

Kind Regards

Stephen Palos - Chairman
CHASA

Manne lees hier en dan besluit jy of die debatte oor biltong jag vs leeu jag vs trofee jag enigsins bevorderlik is vir jag in die algemeen.

[Skolla]

Ek wou nie eintlik iets hier sê nie maar gaan tog my eiertjie lê.
Soos wat ek dit sien, my opinie.

Twee "spesies" ?
Die wilde leeus, in parke en groot privaat reservate, en ek glo min van hulle word in elk geval aangebied vir jag.
Hulle gaan sorg vir die wilde leeus se voortbestaan.

Dan die wat geteel word vir jag doeleindes.
Hulle sal geteel word solank as wat hulle geld inbring, al maak ons ook wat.
Hulle kan maar gejag word vir die man wat bereid is om dit te doen en die geld daarvoor het.
Daardie geld word goed aangewend vir die voortbestaan van alle wild spesies in die land.

My 2c.
Skolla

[kopskoot]

20 November 2013

OPEN LETTER FROM CHASA’S CHAIRMAN – MELISSA BACHMAN

Dear Hunters

Although I have received overwhelmingly strong support from hunters for the press release I penned for CHASA regarding the outcry over the Lion Hunt of Melissa Bachman, there have been a very small number of hunters who have challenged my (and CHASA’s) pro lion hunting stance. These comments vary from some who believe hunting ANY inedible specie is wrong, to others who bemoan the practice of canned shooting or the hunting of captive bred animals, and those who object to her apparent glee which she has placed very publicly on social media. All these commentators have pointed out their own personal ethos which I appreciate tends to be the more purist, hard hunting & moderate off take style of hunting.

CHASA as an umbrella organisation has many differing styles and types of hunter within its ranks. Apart from the typical “biltong” hunter as most SA hunters are referred to, we have groups hunting with the use of birds of prey, hunting over hounds, wing shooters, those who focus on making a recreational activity out of damage causing animal control, handgun hunters and more. The fact is that specific styles of hunting and the character of the people who hunt are as diverse as humankind can possibly be. There are those who would never shoot from a vehicle and those who shoot in no other manner.

Our function is to ensure the Freedom to Hunt. There are THREE FUNDAMENTALS which we apply when we decide which hunting activity to protect. It must be LEGAL, SUSTAINABLE and HUMANE hunting. Legal is probably the simplest of these three to define and our biggest challenge here is to engage with government to ensure laws are reasonable, logical, aim to achieve the other fundamentals, and are easy for hunters to comply with.

Sustainable is often misunderstood. Sustainable does NOT of itself imply there MUST be a direct benefit to conservation as such, but rather that it must NOT work AGAINST conservation. I see a lot of comment that we hunt to conserve. We don’t. We hunt because it’s in us to do so, as a deep seated human imperative (supressed in many urbanised folk) but real enough for those of us who feel it. The conservation is simply a natural consequence of hunting, particularly as we have over time developed magnificent conservation models based on our desire to preserve hunting (The history of game law development worldwide bears this out) A true hunter would feel in his gut if his hunting were taking more than nature could bear.

Humane is often misconstrued especially when we hear the blurb of animal rightists and some misinformed members of the public debating speciesism. In simple terms from a hunter’s perspective, we need to do everything within our means to ensure the quickest, surest and least stressful death of the animal being hunted. In this regard we need to be careful of pointing fingers at those who don’t adhere to our own specific personal preferred hunting ethos. An animal shot in the head or heart from a vehicle does NOT die a less humane death than one shot from the hunter on foot. A lion or elephant properly shot with the appropriate calibre & bullet does NOT die a less humane death than a jackal or a springbuck does. Any hunter who panders to these myths may believe that animal rightists will accept his more “ethically elevated” approach to hunting and be satisfied to let him carry on hunting because of it. This is not true!

Animal rightists are a fringe element culture, but carry enough passion and extremism to influence huge chunks of public opinion. Their STATED ambition is the eventual demise of ALL forms of human use, domination or ownership over animals, period! They are fully aware that their more radical objectives would be a hard-sell to folk, so they have devised a simple strategy, based on the domino effect. Knock over the easiest targets first and keep moving along the line as you progress. You may well believe your own hunting ethic should be the minimum acceptable standard now, and even support legislation making it so. But that would make YOUR style the next one in the targets of these extremists. In this debacle I have even had an engagement with a group of big game fisherman who were attacking the lion hunt, but when I pointed out that they apply a similar “use model” as hunters when they fish, they put up an incredibly feeble argument to try and differentiate the activities. How silly, and how dangerous for the fishing community? ALL users of nature’s bounty need to support one another regardless of your own particular personal ethos, provided the three fundamentals are adhered to. The argument that only food is a legitimate use, and the only reason to hunt is particularly concerning. If we succeed with this argument then it’s a simple next step for animal rightists to say alternative food sources are available. We DON’T hunt anymore to stay off starvation. There is a lot of cultural, health, spiritual and educational reasons to hunt, and yes we must admit there’s an element of ego involved. It’s part of the human psyche.

In short, we need to do what hunters do best; be honest and upfront. What we must not do is start an internal feeding frenzy pointing fingers at each other, and supplying our adversaries with ammunition against us. We know what we do is just and right, and for now I can assure you so does the relevant parties in government. That’s what we achieve in our constant positive engagements with them. We need to be more mindful of how the public needs to be positively influenced to understand hunting, without us being defensive about it. If we are to hunt into future generations we cannot hide hunting away from public scrutiny so instead we have to socialise the public to hunting by our constant positive engagements, without the abusive language which is so often used by the anti-hunters.

Kind Regards

Stephen Palos - Chairman
CHASA

Manne lees hier en dan besluit jy of die debatte oor biltong jag vs leeu jag vs trofee jag enigsins bevorderlik is vir jag in die algemeen.

Manne

Is dit net ek, of voel julle ook lus om spontaan te skreeu Stephen Palos for PRESIDENT!!.

Ek het lanklaas iemand tee gekom, wat so beredeneerd, oor so kontroversiele en emosionele, onderwerp kan skryf.

Ek kan ook nie help om te dink, dat daar nou 'n hele klomp ouens van die "leiding gewende organisasie" is ,wat wonder: hoekom doen daar nie sulke skrywes die rondte,vanuit ons Vereeniging nie? (jammer dat ek dit nou noem, maar dit (Stephen se skrywe) is wat ek "leiding-gewend" noem.!

Use or loose it, "ou grote"

[ROBBIE1]

If we are to hunt into future generations we cannot hide hunting away from public scrutiny so instead we have to socialise the public to hunting by our constant positive engagements, without the abusive language which is so often used by the anti-hunters.


Hierdie stelling maak vir my veral baie sin, hoe meer positiewe bloodstelling ons aan ons liefde vir jag en hoe ons dit doen gee, hoe voordeliger gaan dit op die lang duur vir die hele bedryf wees

[DWB]

So praat 'n man vol Wysheid.

Ronnie, ek praat spesifiek van Stephen maar jy is ook nie te bad nie!

[Wouter Roets]

Ronnie

Jy is nie alleen met jou gevoel oor Stephen Palos nie. Toe ek dit lees toe dink ek ook dat ek nie kan sien dat iemand dit beter kon stel nie. Dit is voorwaar iemand waarmee n mens n kampvuurtjie kan deel.

Ek wonder of hier nie dalk n lid is wat dit vir ons kan vertaal nie, sodat almal hopelik die boodskap kan inneem.

Groetnis
Wouter

[ASP]

Manne, dankie vir al die kommentaar, goed en sleg. Jammer ek was nie betrokkie nie, ek was weer aan die afneem (3 Leeus, Buffel, Renoster groenjag, 2 Sables, Kudu, Eland, Lechwe, Springbok en seker nog maar ek het vergeet.

Ek het BAIE posts gemis, en gaan nie eens almal probeer antwoord. Wat ek wel kan noem:

Baie van die leeus wat hul kos van mense af kry, kry ook stokke en klippe deur dieselfde draad. "Hokleeus" is moerig en gevaarliker as "wilde" leeus.

Om te keer dat die video nie vervelig raak nie, sit ek baie min bekruip footage in. Ek kom tot die punt want dit is wat almal wil sien. 95% van die leeus wat ek afgeneem het, insluitende hierdie een, het weggehardloop. Na 'n paar keer se agtervolg en weghardlopery, bly die leeu en wag. Hy het sy afstand wat hy jou sal toelaat. Kom binne dit en jy word prooi. Skiet voordat jy "te" naby is, en dinge loop af soos op hierdie video.

Kan mens hom eet? Beslis. Ek het amper al die spesies wat ek afgeneem het geproe, en alhoewel dit nie altyd lekker is, is dit kos. Leeu en Luiperd met krummels om smaak net soos Spur se snitchel. In die buiteland word leeu karkasse gewoonlik gebruik vir krokodil bait. In RSA gebruik baie outfitters dit vir rantsoen vleis, as die werkers dit wil hê.

Sal ek self 'n leeu jag? Nee, maar het geen probleem as iemand anders dit eties doen nie.

As ek regtig MOET leeujag? Op voet, maar ek sal seker maak dat dit 'n wettige jag is, waar die leeu lank voor die jag vrygelaat is. Geen skote onder 25 treë nie. As jy wil leeujag moet jy die ghoens hê. Op 100 meter skiet ek eerder 'n Rooibok.

Hierdie was nie die eerste leeu wat ek afgeneem het nadat daai wyfie my bygekom het nie, dit was inteendeel die een net voor die ongeval. Die video met "nuwe" Leeus volg binnekort, ek is besig met uploading.

En ja, die PH se bynaam is Poacher. Hy is 'n yster in die veld en ek stap enige dag saam met hom agter gevaarlike wild aan.