Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Water Hole Ethics

Ironically riding in a truck and glassing is very acceptable, the norm for RSA. Albeit not the most successful way to spot game. The good old method of walking and glassing is, IMOA, the best method. It works, it is ethical, it produces opportunities that the other methods do not. Stealth remains the best and my favorite way to hunt. I have hunted areas on concessions with a minimum of 12,000 hectares. Driving can and does fit the bill to get from one area to another. But, walking and glassing remains the most logical and acceptable method to this long time hunter. The one problem being getting large animals to the truck. Good 'nuff! It's part of the hunt. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, worth the sweat and blood! Mtg

It's obviously a personal preference type of thing...

No different IMO than a whole lot of other choices that we make in life.

I say, other than simply abiding by the laws where you are hunting, "you do you and I'll do me" should work just fine for us all.

Personal choice. I've seen this crap posted both here, and over at AR. Hunt the way you want to. Just remember, some guys get into their 60s/70s, before they can go on safari. They may have back/feet/health issues that prevent them from hunting "other ways". BTW, I've done 2 African safaris, with my son. I paid my share of the freight to do this, and I'll hunt any damn way I want to, as long AS IT'S LEGAL! This "ethics" issue not only pizzes me off, but bores me to tears.


maddog

Not hunting within 500 meters of a water hole dates back to the East Africa Professional Hunters Association, it was one of their original rules.

This sounds like a Republican thing. The idea that someone wants you to do it their was sounds like a Democrat thing. They can't comprehend live and let live.

No, ethics are what you do to justify your personal convenience at any given time...and are subject to change as circumstance varies.

For instance, if you are hungry or have a serious want...as opposed to how you judge someone else in the same circumstance, ethics are variable.

Interesting reading, like RAC said earlier.

Contrary to popular belief it is illegal to hunt from the back of a truck in many provinces in South Africa. If the hunter has any medical issue we can apply for a permit to allow the hunter to take a shot from the vehicle. We call it "Toyota stalking". You must have it in your mind what your ethics are going to be and convey your preferences to the outfitter prior to the commencement of the hunt. If hunting over water is a problem for you then inform the outfitter and PH accordingly.

I walked and stalked in Kerrville TX and by luck got an axis deer across what looked like a dry creek. Most of those areas were absolutely not indusive to walking and stalking and feeders were in the order of the day. Like Pavlov's dog, when a feeder goes off all the animals in the vicinity come to the table. What's the difference between a hunting over a feeder, a feedlot or over water? Animals have a territory and a home range. When times are tough in winter, these animals know where the water, feeder and feedlot are. Sitting in a tree stand and shooting a deer at 150 yards away blissfully stuffing his face is more acceptable than hunting where water is?

Hunting properties in South Africa are not all 100 acres in extent. Some we hunt on are up to 15 000 acres with many animals and if you only have one waterhole the animals trample the vegetation to a desert real soon.

Quite frankly my deer, it is your ethics, not mine. I have to adhere to the law and so I shall. After seeing many animals die during 14 years full-time hunting I still feel no pleasure in witnessing death. My pleasure is derived from the pleasure the hunter experiences after successfully harvesting an animal.

I hunted water holes with a bow in Zimbabwe this past August. And I shot a few animals. I don't care what others think of it, but I certainly hope that those that bash this are not using telescopice sights, and othet enhancements that essentially allow one to kill animals that are within 500 or so yards. Whats the sport in that?
By the way I do use rifles and did so on this same hunt, with a rangefinder, and a nice scope. And I can and do shoot a lot of animals at very long range with a rifle.

Happy new year

I think the real mistake all of us too easily make is to judge any ethical standard through the prism of our own environment or experience. In much of Europe, and somewhat recently, some ranches/ farms in the States, the emphasis is on the quality of the herd rather than the "sport" involved in the shot. Potting "management" deer over a feeder allows fairly certain aging and scoring prior to a shot. Indeed, most German hunters would tell you that the highest ethic is ensuring a quick clean kill. Others in this country, who grew up with a different set of experiences, believe an ethical hunt entails a cross-canyon poke at a running deer (read any Jack O). Or the same German who might be appalled by the above, has no trouble participating in driven hunts for wild boar where precise shot placement is anything but a science. I think the wisest course is to try and fully understand the ethics of the area in which you are hunting and conform to the extent your personal red lines will allow you to do so.

Very well said. I have had discussions with hunters from Iowa that have a real problem with stands and feeders and yet they create a gauntlet between a narrow strip of woods along a creek and the corn fields using hay bales. They were bragging about tagging out by noon on opening day. Other areas are so over populated that I know of one person in NJ that shot a 10 point whitetail with a bow in his front yard.

Red Leg



I kinda live that way. When I used to hunt moose I would travel water ways looking for bottlenecks, bays etc with good feed and visual access. I would call immitateting a cow to get the bulls to respond. At times it was necessary to challenge the bull to get him to commit and get close. I hunted over water, at feed locations and feel that I was hunting ethically. I was protecting the herd, and was selective harvesting. I was a meat hunter and not a trophy hunter. I am still a meat hunter although I do have shoulder mounts on my walls.

The water holes I hunted were sometimes 50 miles long and often required a flight to get to them, or a two day overland/water trip to access.

I do not find fault with anyone for harvesting game as long as they obey the laws and assure humane kills. Live and let live. As I age my ability and desire to fulfil machismo expectation in the field wanes and I do not believe my ethics have been compromised. Enjoy the pursuit of game however you choose and enjoy the rewards of your hunt within legal constraints.

By the way I taught ethics as aa part of the certification process to paramedics. I understand the concept.

Randy

My definition of ethical hunting is the conduct approved by the majority of hunters in a specific region.

Thus, hunting with a rifle near a water source is ethical in most of the USA, but unethical (and sometimes illegal) in southern Africa. Hunting deer with hounds is ethical in some southern U.S. states, but unethical nearly everywhere else.

Bill Quimby

That's the most rediculous definition I've heard.
There are areas where the vast majority of hunters in the region are POACHERS. Your definition makes it ethical.
Plus I will NOT have anyone else decide for me what is ethical.
LEGAL yes but ETHICAL no.

You should get out more.

yep...

The Africa safaris tracking area includes a variety of varying landscapes such as shrub land with open savannahs and has an entire hill range, Ozondjahe Optimum, after which the Namibia tracking source is known as.

Perhaps I should have said "state, province or country" instead of "region." If the vast majority of hunters in a state, province or country accept a certain practice, the odds are excellent that it will not be illegal.

Incidentally, I find your definition of ethics to be a tad more ridiculous than mine. If the majority of hunters in the state, province or country where you hunt agree that something you do is unethical, your "deciding" that it is ethical will not make it so.

Bill Quimby

There are several definitions of "ethics," as anybody who looks the word up in any dictionary discovers. But most of the definitions suggest ethics are more than the result of one person's decisions. Usually it means a cultural and historical opinion, though an individual can decide on personal ethics.

However, personal ethics come close to "situational ethics," meaning the correct course of action depends on the situation. Many people disgree with this, demanding one course of action regardless of anything else.

This doesn't mean legal = ethical. Many game laws are based on local, misguided or antiquated attitudes. Fine examples are the 10-gauge and 3-shot limit on waterfowl shotguns. Those laws were passed when market hunting was outlawed. They were designed to reduce mass killing of waterfowl, but these days widely-observed bag limits prevent mass killing. There's no reason for anybody not to use an 8-gauge or put 5 shells in their pumpgun, but the laws are still there.

If hunting waterholes is unethical or illegal in the Selous, then my PH broke the law several times when I hunted there in September of 2011. In fact we often ate lunch in the shade near waterholes, and never killed anything, though we had our chances. As the month went on the rains came on, and hunting waterholes became worthless, since water was everywhere. In fact hunting waterholes before that wasn't any more sure than hunting elk "parks" would be in Montana, or whitetail scrapes anywhere.

Have also hunted DRY waterholes in Namibia, because the feed around them was still better than the thornbush anywhere nearby. Would love to know the "ethics" of that situation, espcially since crawling on our bellies was the only way to get within 200 yards of game.

timeoff2fish,

I'd like to read your answer to these questions, too.

I don't know if sitting over a water hole is ethical but I do know it's not much fun and I would rather hunt other ways.

I always find these discussion odd as they seem to reflect on how the animal is killed whereas most animals don't care if the hunter is ethical because on the whole, the animal would rather not be killed regardless of the ethics. Animals don't seem to care much about "fair chase."