On another thread I casually mentioned that I had deliberaty wounded a Cape Buffalo in order to provoke a charge. I was cussed and told I had no honor. Other posters made mention of such high-sounding phrases as "stewards of the land", etc.

As a kid (14) I worked for 5 summers in a packing house, killing beef, pigs, sheep, and chickens. As an adult I have fought in combat and understand the reality of humans killing other humans and likewise being killed. I have no illusions about pain and death. Afer all, we all get a turn. What follows is the complete (and long) story of the buffalo hunt. I invite any and all comments and opinions concerning what constitutes "moral" hunting as opposed to "immoral" hunting.

If you want to call me names, I ask only one thing, that you have the courage toPM me and let me know when you are going to be in the Denver area, so I can give you a chance to meet with me.

This is the story:

A Buffalo Hunt

In the fall of 2003, I went to Zimbabwe for the express purpose of killing a bull elephant. This was my second trip to Africa in two years. The preceding year I went to the Republic of South Africa on a Cape Buffalo hunt.

The elephant hunt went well, and after 4 nights of hunting crop-raiders with no large tuskers being spotted, we turned to day hunting in another area, and I shot a nice 60 lb elephant. Having spotted a large herd of buffalo the preceding evening, which ignited my desire to shoot another buff, I then decided to have another go at buffalo hunting.

After posing for the mandatory pictures with the elephant and crew, we left the elephant kill site at about 9:30 am and went looking for buffalo.

Hunting in an area with many ridges and hills, that reminded me of Colorado, except for the 100 degree heat and the mostly-dry river beds, we trudged up and down hills, glassing for buffalo.

Around 11:00 or so, we were standing on a bluff, and below us at about 80 yards, five dugga boys (bachelor bulls), jumped up and headed for thick cover. With the PH yelling at me to shoot, I simply watched as the bulls headed into the thick cover without me ever attempting a shot. At 2 grand a pop, I wasn�t going to be pressured into snap shooting at a bull without first making sure it was a bull I wanted to hang in my den.

What then followed was a lesson in tracking, that I will never forget. Up and down through sandy, dry river courses, we followed the bulls through the 100+ degree heat.

Working slowly through thick cover (including some jess), we would ease up within feet of the bulls as they would try to bed down. With the strong barnyard smell of cattle in your nostrils, you would kneel in the hot sand, and as sweat dripped down your face you would try to peer through the bush. At times, even I could see the unidentifiable black forms of the bulls. Invariably, the bulls would bolt and once again we would be after them.

Finally after 3 hot, dry, hours of pushing the bulls, we finally got into position at the end of a long finger. The bulls had finally settled down about 100 yards away in the midst of an open field under the shade of a couple of acacia trees.

The PH was in a rush to move in and kill the closest bull, a large, old animal with a 3 foot long gash down its back. As it was quite comfortable on the ridge, with shade and a nice breeze, I suggested that he let two old men (myself and the bull), enjoy our afternoon a bit before concluding our business.

I could tell the PH wasn�t too happy, but the bulls were pretty much settled in and I was resting and enjoying the rest and the anticipating immensely (BTW I still had 8 more days of hunting left, so I wasn�t really in a hurry to wrap this up).
In about 15 minutes, the rest of the crew (an apprentice PH, a second PH, and a gun bearer) arrived with some cold drinks (Castle if you are interested). We sat and slowlydrank our beers and enjoyed the respite from the heat.

The PH was starting to get nervous (turns out he wanted to finish the hunt and head back to Bulawayo and check on his family) and mentioned that the bulls were up and starting to feed so we needed to start after them. (Actually, they were still resting in the shade, but I didn�t want to push a good thing too far, so I figured it was time to finish up.).

We (the PH, tracker, and myself) leopard-crawled to within 40 yards of the old bull lying closest to us. By this time the old bull had come to his feet. Having absolute confidence in my rifle (a Win. 70 African in .416 Rem. Mag) and my cartridges (400 gr Swift A-frame in the tube, and 400 gr Barnes solids in the magazine). I moved to the front to take my shot.

Unbeknown to the PH, I had already realized that the bull he wanted me to shoot was not the best of the bunch (maybe he thought going home with 120 lbs of ivory was trophy enough for one trip, and he would save the 40+ inch bull for another hunter, but who knows?), and I had also decided to have some fun with this bull.

With that I took deadly aim right up the cenerline of the bull left front leg and 1/3 way up its body (a perfect broadside shot for a buff), I then aimed 3 inches to the right and down 4 inches from the bottom of its belly. Bang!

The PH (as PHs do) was watching carefully through binoculars to see where I hit. He looked at me funny and asked where I shot. With a straight face, I told him I had aimed at his shoulder (didn�t really lie, since I did aim there before I fired for effect) and then I muttered something about brush deflecting the shot.

The other bulls (including the 40+ incher) wheeled and cantered off into cover. The bull, I shot just stood their looking sick. At that time I felt a little bad, as I had expected the bull to run with the other bulls and then we could have some exciting follow up.

Break in story. My rationale for the shot placement was that by hitting the bull a little far back and low, we would have a could blood trail so we wouldn�t lose the bull, and yet there would be no structural damage, so the bull would have all or most of his lung power and be about to give a good account of hisself.
Back to story.

Since the bull just stood there, we moved another 10 yards closer, and this time feeling that I ought to finish this up, I quickly shot the bull twice in his shoulder. At this the bull turned and faced us, let out a grunt and started toward us. I turned and looked at the PH and said �He�s coming.�. The PH never took his eyes off of the bull. The bull ran about 6 or 7 yards and then went down. The tracker started jumping up and down and clapping (obviously he had spent enough time tracking wounded buffs to not want to repeat the experience any more than he had too).

I couldn't really care less, but shooting the bull just to hurt him and piss him off is kind of prickish.

Does that count as name calling? I've seen about all I care to see of Denver; hate to break you the bad news.

Interesting trolling technique though....

It's your money and your conscience, but I can say if I was one of the fellows that might have to go in the thick stuff after the bull, and I found out you purposely flubbed the shot for "excitements" sake one of us would be toting an butt whooping!!

Mike

And what would you do to the PH for the ripoff?

Sounds to me like the problem was the PH not the bull, I would have passed on the shot,

If you mean trying to get him to shoot the smaller bull. I guess that would be up to the discretion of the shooter. I wouldn't want to have a guy constantly yelling in my ear to shoot, shoot, shoot as mentioned in another thread, but I would be upset if I caught him holding out the "good" stuff on me..Probably would do like most, call him on it, if it persisted then cut his tip and let others who might be planning on using his services know in advance of the practice.

What would you do?

Mike

Courage to let you know when you are in the Denver area...HUH?
Jackass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bart...LagoVista Texas,Let me know when you are in the Austin area!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't have a clue but it seemed the PH better not take any hot heads out with him. Buffhunter never gave "the rest of the story" about how the PH handled the rest of his hunt. It seemed he just meant to make the PH suffer by having to track but did take out the buffalo before any further charge or whatever and layed him down. I am not a dangerous game hunter so don't know the customs of it.

I would wager the PH has the more interesting version of buffhunter's trip....

Buddy, you got a problem with your guide, then take it up with your guide. Purposefully wounding an animal and not killing it as quickly as possible is inexcusable. Don't take it out an the game animal because you don't have the guts to stand up to your guide.

Well you shot him in the guts and he still didnt charge, so what the hell did makin him suffer accomplish?? I think this is as stupid now as it was on the other post!!! Jesse Elting Benton, Kansas ... I think youve been inhaling that beautiful Denver SMOG too long!!!!!

Was that really all that wise, right in the middle of the charge, to look away to the PH and make the comment, "he's coming"? First you loose perspective, and depth, and possibly loose the location of the shot. I'd think that at that point the PH probably was well aware of where the buff was and that he was coming. And you loose time to do the finishing shot. What happens when that round goes click? Now there is not enough time left........

I might not agree with much that you did, I certainly think that if you were looking for suicide you may have come close and certainly had a large dose of stupidity working about then.

Of course its not my place to judge, I've done some stunts at times too. Just luckily none quite like this one.

BTW I still want to take a buff once before I die. But I want it done with a bow. Maybe it makes me worse?

Jeff

"Stewards of the land" isn't sounding as high as once thought, is it?

I think you'll find most hunters feel this way as well. Its unfortunate you are so interested in proving your point that you fail to try to understand from where the majority of hunters are coming.

Treat game with respect due by providing for the quickest, most humane kill.

Do we wound game occasionally? Yep. Do we like it? I think from this post, so far, you're getting the hint we do not. I personally loathe the intentional wounding of game for the sake thereof. My moral code will not allow me to take a shot on game if I'm not relatively certain of an instant kill. Does that always happen? Having been in the service, I'm sure you know what happens when someone utters "never" or "always".

If you want to prove a point, then do so. Save us from hollow threats, please, as I'm certain very few in here are worried.

buffhunter,

I read that thread over on long-range hunting, and have been mulling over your actions since I saw it then. Figured it'd just go away.

Nope, you saw fit to bring it back up here. Fair enough; seems you're getting the attention you wanted.

As for what I think, it don't really matter.

Karma seems to follow hunters: you reap what you sow.

Whether the next bull you try that one sorts things out for you, or a little antelope that shouldn't does, or you try that on a griz and s/he takes exception to it... or even some other something from this rather sarcastic old world does the bidding for them, it'll happen. Seems that's what you want, a reckoning of some kind. It'll come; it always does.

This much is a guarantee, though. The next time you take the field and decide to try something like that, you can bet that I'll be pulling for the critter. And, I suspect that I'm not alone in that camp.

To each there own, and if this is your thing, like that Mark chap who makes money off of wounded animals he provokes into charges, then so be it. But, I'd not hunt with either of you. Nor will I condone nor condemn what either of you do; 'tis not my place to judge. However, when either of you do such things, and your matter gets sorted out in the way that it will, that it should, I'll not lament your passing, nor worry much that it was quick. In fact, there will likely be just a slight smirk on my face knowing that you've gotten what was coming to you. That's just me being honest, and admitting my own flaw, but since you asked, I answered. Again, I doubt that I'm alone in that camp.

Good hunting.

As you did VA I have held off any answer to this deal. What you said pretty well reflects my feelings.

I don't feel qualified to be the judge of another man or his actions.

I will only say concerning the deliberate wounding of game that I wasn't raised that way and I would not do it or voluntarily associate with those who do.


BCR

So what's the punch line? You can't be serious........................

I have two guesses why you posted this ................please tell me if I am getting warm.

1. You were dropped on your head as a child? How am I doing.............getting close?

2. You are writing a thesis for your psych degree and your post is a means by which to gather data for your dissertation? Meaning, you throw out a preposterous story and you see what kind of response it elicits. I guess that makes us part of your study..........cool. How am I doing?

Ok, on the off chance it is not 1. or 2. and you really are bragging about purposefully gut shooting an animal, I can't even comprehend why on earth you would want to share this with us???? So what gives Buffhunter, are you just stirring the pot???

Scratching my head.....................

i almost hate justify this post with any kind of response. But if i had of been there I may have invented a whole new meaning to the word hunting if you get my drift. Let's just hope that 1. No animal rights or anti-hunting folks get a fix on this thread and 2. I wonder if this whole thread is a set-up by the anti-hunting crowd...just to see whatever incriminating evidence they see.

3. I AM FOR THE CRITTER ALL THE WAY ON THIS ONE!!!!!!!
This is despicable in hunting & human morality and you will go to hell.

That's as far as I need to read to know what you are...............

Ted

VAnimrod and others have more or less summed up my points of concern. In the other thread it seemed to me that you had opportunity to clarify your motives, which you've attempted here, and I thought maybe that would make your decisions somehow "more understandable." Actually, the more you write, the less understandable (and to me, less acceptable) all this is.

By mixing the buff story with long range shooting in your other post, you've managed to give, to those who maybe haven't given much thought to what's involved for those who do that work with their own conscience as responsible hunters being intact, plenty of so-called first-hand ammo in defining a certain kind of carelessness. (Calling something a sniper rifle means nothing to me, by the way.)

I don't know if you're for real and it actually doesn't much matter. What really matters is that you're seemingly more an aberration than the norm... and for that I'm thankful.

I'm pretty sure I read this or something very similar 4 or 5 years ago on Accurate reloadings site.

Castle, for the uninitiated, is apparently an alcoholic adult beverage. Gizzling same, during daytime on a hunt, impairs judgement. *( That says volumes in itself ).

I'll be happy to meet the originator any time any place.

Bill Tibbe

If you don't respect the animal or the sport, you have no business hunting.

Quote: "If you want to call me names, I ask only one thing, that you have the courage toPM me and let me know when you are going to be in the Denver area, so I can give you a chance to meet with me."

--------------

It's for that reason that I hold back some of what I'd likely write otherwise. A slaughterhouse environment does little to encourage sensitivities regarding animal life in general.

My bet is your story is your own little fantasy, but either way, you're a prick.

And, what do you know, I'm in the Denver area....

Now for some clarification:

As to the PH, I was not wounding the beast, because I was upset with his "shoot, shoot, shoot" or the fact that he wanted me to take a smaller bull.

Quite the contrary, he was the most intense hunter I have ever seen in my life. I enjoyed a good reptoire (sp) with him both during the hunt and afterwards (I e-mailed him and his wife for some time afterwards).

When he radio'ed in about the nice ellie I shot, the safari outfitter wanted to raise the trohpy fee, since he generally used a sliding scale based on the weight of the ivory. However I had negoiated with the outfitter for a fixed price, no matter what size ellie I shot and the PH backed me up, as he was a witness to the negotiations.

Afterwards, I understood his desire to get back home. He had a wife and young son who were alone and living in a very volatile situation with the local blacks. I don't fault the man at all for wanting to get back home.

The reason I mentioned not snap-shooting the running buff, was because a) I didn't want to accidently wound an animal that might get away and suffer for weeks or months and b) I wanted to pick both the animal and shot.

Now is for the interesting part. It was actually one of the other PHs that said to me the night before "Hey Rick, if you want to have some fun, hit the buff off shoulder.".

Now that may come as a big surprise to US hunters who have been indoctrinated that hunting is all about a quick, painless death.

But in Africa, a savage land where the people are much closer to the reality of life and death (both in the bush and in the villages) many of the people have a different outlook.

I was told by a PH, how him and all of the other PHs have a running bet on who can run over the most kaydees (miserable looking village dogs, who look like they are all starving) in a hunting season. They actually speed up, swerve, and do everything but wreck the hunting car to try and run over the wretched beasts.

When I wounded my buff, I did it having full confidence that the animal would not get far or suffer long, and would have an opportunity to die like buffalo are meant to die, not slayed like a barnyard goat.

Obviously many of you can't understand or believe that way of thinking. It's probably the result of a life time of brainwashing about what is proper, appearances, and perceptions of what the others might think. In CO the hunting regs even have a little paragraph about the unsightly displaying of dead game animals.

Therefore we try to sanitize and elevate the sport of hunting into some noble art full of dos and donts, fair play, etc.

I have no misconceptions. One poster mentioned the object was to quickly kill with tools at hand.

Let's face it, if you want a quick, painless, clean kill. You take a high-powered rifle, get in as close as you can, and shoot for the head. You don't use arrows (where even a perfect shot might take 3 hours for a bull to bleed out), or muzzle loaders. You NEVER shoot at running game, etc.

Many hunters never learn to shoot the rifles or take the time and money to practise until their profiecient (How do you tell a good Texas hunter from a bad Texas hunter? The good Texas hunter hits the road signs!).

As for no respect for buffalo. I spend many an evening watching the Mark Sullivan films. I have no respect for him, he is just another adrenlyn junkie. I would never hunt with him, because he always manages to get into position where he kills the buff, not the client, and comes across with a very condescending attitude towards his clients.

To me the stars of the videos are the magnificent buffalo. Get a little bit of adrenlyn flowing through them and by god they do their best to kill you. Evolution has given them an unbelievable gift of fearlessness, strength, determination, and
downright meaness, that I believe, makes them unique in all of the animal kingdom.

I have no interest in using 16 oz prairie dogs as targets just to see if you can hit them, when I shoot a deer, or elk, or bear, I do my best to make a clean, one-shot kill. I even pass up mediocre animals, if I don't want the meat.

But IMO, Cape Buffalo are meant to be given a chance to die fighting.

Reportedly, back in the old days, a Viking's last wish was to die with a sword in his hand. Dying with glory and honor.

I believe that's a buff deserves that honor as well and I really don't care how it looks to the rest of the world. But I'm convinced, me and the buff have a perfect understanding of each other.

Except for a few, thoughtfull replies, most of the posters have wrote nothing but emotional, sheeplike bleatings, and empty namecalling from the safety of cyberspace.

If you are all that upset at someone wounding a buffalo, how can you sleep at night knowing picadors, matodors, and banderillos (sp) are wounding and torturing brave, fighting bulls for the enjoyment of spectators? To me that is far worse. But to each his own.

Good hunting to all.

So you have to gut shoot a buffalo to get him to die fighting?

Seems to me a gutshot gives him a chance to die suffering.

I went back and read your original rant on gut shooting the buff/ long range hunting, etc. and I you wrote some weird [email]A@#[/email] S&%t about leveling the playing field by intentionally injuring the animal first. You need help man..............that is not a normal mans thought process. Hell, come to think of it, that is what Jeffery Dhamer used to do to animals before he started eating people. Frankly, I am a little freaked out that you live in my home state. And no, I have no interest meeting you........ my wife would be pissed if I ended up in a 50 gallon drum of acid in your basement......... you sick bastard....

tevans:

Call it a rant if you want, but somehow no one is thinking (or at least posting) about the moraility of hunting in general. "Is gut shooting a deer or elk, because you are too lazy or cheap to become proficient with your rifle/bow better or worse than a deliberate gutshooting?

Is using living creatures for target practice (i.e prairie dogs, coyotes, marmots, etc) a much nobler endeavor than placing a well-aimed shot into an animal that can (and does) sort people out on a regular basis?

Is using a lessor tool (i.e. bow, muzzler loader, minimum caliber rifle, etc.) any different than deliberatly making a bad shot? (If the purpose is to kill as quickly and humanely as possible).

I don't know but I don't see that much difference. Like I stated in the LRH post, I quit duck hunting and bird hunting because I was finding too many birds with old wounds.

I have no problem with causing an animal pain for a short amount of time, as long as I'm confident it will be over one way or the other within 30 minutes or so (and if it is an animal that has evolved to work with the pain to defend itself).

Wounding an animal and letting it suffer for days, weeks, or months is not something I want to be part of.

Yet I've seen hunters with semi-auto .22s shoot up prairie dogs. Some of those critters make it back to their den and when the hunters are back at the bar enjoying their drinks and laughing about their shots, some of those prarie dogs are still suffering in the dark.

You tell me who is worse off. A buff that gets shot low and a little back, but will be followed up by some of the best trackers in the world, and eventually killed by guys toting big bore rifles (the old buff might be even be able to exact some vengeance before he dies) or a pheasant crounched down in a ragweed thick witb some number six shot in his wing, back, and gut?

At least the buff only suffers for a bit.


tevans,

One of my favorite quotes is "I only kilt those that needed killin". Rest assured that 99..9% of the sheep, that most Americans have become are in no danger from me. In fact, my bet is that people like me, will be the ones protecting the women and children of this country, even the children of people like you who call me a sick bastard, because I look at nature in a slightly more primal way than you can fathom.

One good point you make. The internet is accessed by 100s of millions of people. Some of those are pychopaths, sociapaths (sp), rapists, muders, child molesters, and wanabees. So I would recommend that you be carefull who you call names and DON'T EVER give your full name and the city or state in which you live. It is amazing how easy it is to get a full address and the names and ages of all who live with you (i.e. spouse and children). Don't be an idiot and put your family in danger, just because of a stupid post. It's not worth it.

To sum it up. I believe and accept the savageness of the natural world. Hunting is part of that. You can accept it or pretend its not. Thats your choice. But when I die, I want to come back as a Cape Bufalo, not a rabbit.

The problem with [bleep] is no matter how much you wipe them, they still smell like CHIT! He can try to dress up this one anyway he wants, it still smells. JMHO TM

I got a feelin that you ain't long for this campfire.
And when you are gone,things will be a little bit better.
Jackass!
Bart

That sounds an awful lot like a threat against our friend's family. I still think you're tales have only happened in your head and you're really a small man, screaming for attention. A mighty "ellie" hunter like you shouldn't be too difficult to track down either, btw.

In either case, you need to leave or apologize.

I'll try and lead by example and fuel no more of your garbage. I suggest everyone else follow suit.

"Don't be an idiot and put your family in danger, just because of a stupid post. It's not worth it."


I may be a little thick, so please spell it out in block letters for me���.. Should I infer from your post that you are threatening my family????

What in the hell has this world come to!!!!!!!

Now that's funny chit, I don't care who you are. Almost missed this gem of a post. All I'm really gettin' out of it though is that this guy thinks buffalo are so sacred and majestic that one deserves to get wounded first before it dies.....Did I miss something?---2MG

bugghunter, your correlation on wounded animals has no merit because when a real hunter wounds an animal, it is an accident, not on purpose like you are doing.

Anyone that hunts long enough is going to accidentally get a bad hit eventually, but most of us feel remorse and hope it never happens again.

_________________

Whoaaa, there Bart and careful you should be! Good grief, Man!! You may not know it but Ole Buffhumper IS none other than the original mutant ninja turtle and past president of the 'Society of the Warriors of the Abatoir'. Check out his pedigree in his 1st post here. He is a legend among his peers when it comes to the ways of the henhouse. He 1st made his mark in life as a Hit Man going forth to deal with rogue chickens and you cannot appreciate the complexities and dangers involved in this if you haven't done it yourself and we aren't even talking about having to contend with the laying on of hands to control Free Range chickens. He does that, too, even today just to stay in practice. Meaning he chokes his chicken regularly.

Look even further into his dangerous, adventureous past and you will also see that Buffhumper is not only a killer of fowl and livestock but wild beast and man as well. Take heed, Bart. He knows the sting of Combat, the smell of battle, has stared death right in the anus and emerged victorious, rising above it all. YOU are not worthy to question these things!

Actually, I'd bet a day old, 1/2 bottle of hot Colt .45 malt liquor that Ole Buffhumper is the same as one BALLBUSTER who got his balls busted and handed back to him in a tea cup over on the Africa Forum of Accurate Reloading. He's a lying assed, pitiful POS.

Old Toot

A different slant on the scenario: Maybe the wounding of the buff was not intentional, but due to buck (buff?) fever, ragged nerves, an adrenaline rush or whatever, but in the mind of the writer this was an unaceptable dent to his ego, so in his post hunt fantasies the plot was changed to make it seem that it was done on purpose??

Whatever was going on out there, it wasn't what I'd call "hunting." The whole scenario, your behavior and the PH's behavior, is so screwed up that it defies analysis. Rather than badly shooting a magnificent game animal to make a point, maybe you could have talked to the PH? You know, talking... where you use words to express yourself. Most of us will never get the chance to hunt in Africa. You did get the chance and you ended up with a tainted memory that you can keep for the rest of your life. Nicely done.

You take Buffhumper seriously, Chinook? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Old Toot

sniff, sniff, sniff.......

This thread isn't passing the sniff test. "ole buff starts a thread titled "The Morality of Hunting", then proceeds to post how he gut shoots a 'buff for schits and grins ? WTF.

I smell a thesis in the making or he IS that whacked.

Tony

10.00 bucks says he flinched or had buff fever and that is the only reason he gut shot the animal and being the mighty hunter he is, he just won't admit to his own shortcomings. if he is really telling the truth..............blake

All right, here's an idea...

We've got a few African PH's here at the Campfire. I'd like to see their take on this.

Let's see if I can get JJHACK, Peter V, and safariman over here to take a gander and give an assessment.

Why?

Well, because the three of them combined probably have more African hunting experience than the rest of this Campfire combined, and, since they're actually PHs, they can give the perspective on this from that angle.

Hold tight, let's see what they have to say.

BTW - before it slips away unnoticed: Good post by WETIBBE. No one else caught the beer/judgment thing. Again, credit where credit is due.

Our friend bufhunter certainly knows how to put an interesting story together, complete with just enough technical details to create the fa�ade of experience and realism.

A quick word count of his �story� shows repeated use of the words "kill, killed, killing, express purpose of killing" and so on. This coupled with a clear attempt to provide context of �working in a slaughterhouse� and life experience �fought in combat� is symptomatic of trying to make up for disappointments in life and reflection of more than a bit of personal angst. The real gem is in the prelude; �If you want to call me names, I ask only one thing, that you have the courage to PM me and let me know when you are going to be in the Denver area�. This just says it all!

This is not really about morality in hunting nor a foray into the minefield of hunting ethics but rather an attempt to bait folk into taking exception so that �buffhunter� can reflect and vent his frustrations on the crew here. Perhaps we should really feel sorry for this kind of person, or, just ignore inadequate trolls.

He has already received 2 pages to many of attention by having folk respond to his posts here.

I am an African, I�ve been here for close to half a century, done my bit in sundry bush wars and spent more than a bit of time in the presence of other Africans while hunting as part of my own lifestyle and as a professional. I believe I understand enough of Africa to quote Buffhunter as being a �savage land where the people are much closer to the reality of life and death (both in the bush and in the villages) many of the people have a different outlook�.

Notwithstanding this, I strive to honour whatever I am hunting by giving it a fair chance, anything else is just killing and I�ve had enough of that, and more so, people who don�t know the difference.

I was asked to read this and comment. Sorry to dissapoint those who have hunted Africa with me and know me but this does not justify any comment from anyone, and should just be left to die. This "sullivan/capstick" wannabe is just bored and writing nonsense here.

Hooorraayyyy for J.J. . Thank YOU .....721

The shaman suddenly appears. After dancing about the campfire a bit, he stops with a odd look on his face. He returns to his seat at the fire and begins checking the bottom of his feet. He gets up again, goes over to some wet grass, and begins doing his well-known "Dance of the Cleansed Mocassin." After he is done, he approaches the intrepid buffalo hunter and starts a complex incantation. I will not bore you with the details, but after lots of shaking of the rattle and a lot of intricate steps, he steps back and reaches into his robes, pulls out a roll of toilet paper and runs it down the barrel of the buffalo hunter's .416 Rem Mag.

The shaman then returns to his seat at the campfire.

I, too was asked to enter the fray here. I have been away from the campfire for a few days and normally do not spend much time at this topic, but here are a couple of thoughts. IF this is a true story, then 1)the PH should be severely reprimanded for allowing beer to be consumed while there were still loaded guns around and dangerous game to be hunted. 2) I have a close freind / shirtail relative who was nearly killed by a wounded buff, I have seen photos of the aftermath including the wounds before any medical attention was given. No one who has ever seen such things would attempt such a stupid stunt. 3) I would not put my PH's, who are also my friends, into a situation where the hunter would deliberately wound a Buff and put them and the trackers, etc. in harms way. If Buffhunter is actually a person who travels and hunts in Africa, do not contact me about a hunt. You are not welcome in our camps.

I could probably be encouraged to enter into a discussion about the morality of hunting in general if it was not started with a story line of this type.

MARK

Shaman,

While I've always found your posts entertaining, this one is pure classic! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

ROTFLMAO

Chris

Thank you for listing your manly and superior qualifications. Stuart Smally used to look in the mirror and say, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me." I personally think that might have been a cooler intro.

Try bowhunting. Not only will it give you a little more respect for your quarry, it's more rewarding that fantasy writing.

Yeah, right. Anthropomorphism is a trait you share with a likes of the animal rights types. As for me, I don't prolong the life of an animal I decide to kill, be it an ant or a large game animal. I guess your mileage varies.

In fact, my bet is that people like me, will be the ones protecting the women and children of this country, even the children of people like you who call me a sick bastard, because I look at nature in a slightly more primal way than you can fathom.


Muley Stalker, tevans:

What part of the above post did you not understand?

Did you read the words PROTECTING ...EVEN THE CHILDREN OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO CALLED ME A SICK BASTARD.

So if I have to type it out real sloow so you can understand.

"I have no desire to hurt any women or child either directly or indirectly, even if their dad is a SOB."
__________________________________________________

One good point you make. The internet is accessed by 100s of millions of people. Some of those are pychopaths, sociapaths (sp), rapists, muders, child molesters, and wanabees. So I would recommend that you be carefull who you call names and DON'T EVER give your full name and the city or state in which you live. It is amazing how easy it is to get a full address and the names and ages of all who live with you (i.e. spouse and children). Don't be an idiot and put your family in danger, just because of a stupid post. It's not worth it.


This post was actually in response to another poster who mentioned something about whackos in chat rooms. It was meant to impress on anyone reading the thread who might not be internet savey, that there is websites out there that make it real easy to locate someone if they give their last name and city, state. So again my recommendation is NEVER use your full name (or even your last name) and the city where you live on a public forum. Because there is no telling who is lurking. Would you want Michael Jackson to know you had 9 year old son and have your phone number? I know I wouldn't. So believe it or not, that was meant to be a public service.

__________________________________________________

So besides all the hysterics and namecalling, is there anyone who can tell me how using prairie dogs as living pie plates (i.e. targets) is morally superior to deliberately wounding a buff?

I really would like to hear the rationale.

BTW As far as the serial killer thing, I believe 3 of their most common traits are 1) bedwetting 2) torturing small animals, and 3) a fascination with fire. Sorry to disappoint the more imaginative of you, but I am 0 for 3 on that score.

Yeah, right. Anthropomorphism is a trait you share with a likes of the animal rights types.
________________________________________________

Cheyenne,

One big difference, the animal rights activists try to relate to animals as people. I, on the other hand, believe people are animals (go ahead everyone take your shots, I can take it), and I try to relate to animals as another animal.

When is enough,enough?

Bad, just all bad

Buff hunter

The poor ole overgrown cow just wanted a belly full of grass and it didn't have much in the way of weapons to fight back. just some hoofs and a couple of horns.

If you are interested in a little more fair of a fight then there is a fairly decent war in Afghanistan and a poor excuse for a war in Iraq . Swapping orange tracers for green is a little more interesting than hammering some bovine herbivore with a 416.

Why is this nutball even allowed to post any more here after he threatened a man's family and is typing this absolute bullcrap?...You give people from the state of Colorado as well as this country a horrible name ..I am absolutely ashamed to even share a country with this human being..... You, sir, are a disgrace to all hunters and people in general and need some serious help.....I am usually not one to judge either but when there is abslutely no other side to the arguement it's not called judging......

Holy sheit! It sounds like the Mall Ninja went huntin'! Gecko,is that you? Where ya been? I'm rolling on the floor! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
http://www.mallninja.com/archives.htm

It is interesting how quickly the "mob mentality" affects some of those who post here.

Buffhunter made two poor decisions that day. One was consuming alcohol, the other was purposefully not making his best shot.

However, there is no "morality" or "ethics" involved here. Animals are not "noble" creatures. If they were we wouldn't be killing them and eating them.

We want to make our best shot because:

1. It increases our chance of making a sucessful harvest
2. It will ruin less meat
3. We have a little pride in our ability to make well-placed shots

Just about the last reason we want to make a good is shot is to minimize the suffering of the animal. It is a factor, but not the overriding one. If we really didn't want the animal to suffer pain from a gunshot we wouldn't even shoot.

We hunters need to quit being so hypocritical about this. If we can't stand the idea of an animal feeling pain or suffering because of our actions, we have no business going into the field.

Blaine,

Respectfully, I think you missed the point here <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.....totally so.

Old Toot

The only significant points here that are a guy made two poor decisions while hunting, and there is hypocrisy when we hunters get all uppity (talking about morality and ethics and so on) about minimizing the pain inflicted on an animal while we are trying to kill it.

Most everything else is just meanigless emotional drivel..................

Blaine, this current fairy tale aside; I see your point and I understand it I believe. However would you not agree that to deliberately wound an animal just to see what happens is a rather sick way of hunting? Whether or no this deal actually happened or not there was a (as stated) a deliberate attempt not to kill asap but to wound.

BCR

I agree with everything in this thread.

Boggy,

I agree that purposefully making a bad shot, for whatever the motivation, is a poor decision. It is also not the kind of hunting I have any interest in.

If he were to repeatedly shoot animals to wound vs kill, then I would say he is "sick". I am not sure one isolated event counts as being sick.

________________________

The only significant point here, Blaine is that all of what Buffhumper said is fabrication, a lie, etc. That is the significant point here. That significant point gives total relevance to your last sentence in the quote. Drivel. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
Now, had he been honest enough to open his subject with; "Once upon a time, I went on Safari" (fairy tale mentioned by BCR), then maybe it would be worth any opinions or discussion.

If you give any credence to Buffhumper's posts, then I'd say the same here as the reply to Chinook, that being, "Et tu, Blaine"? That's the significant point, let's investigate a murder that didn't happen, a robbery that never occurred, a lie for its own sake.

Not hammering on you or anyone else here except for Buffhumper. However, I do marvel somewhat at how accurate P.T. Barnum's gospel on the human condition really was.

Old Toot

Buffhunter,

Dang, I was real disappointed to figure out your story was serious. The irony of your life-and-death struggle, sweat running down your face and all that, with the �crew� fetching you a cold beer had me layin� on the floor.

Man, would that make a great beer commercial or what?

As for the morality of shooting-to-wound, hunting isn�t all that complicated � have your mamma explain it to you.

The fundamental flaw in 'buffs drivel is that hunting isn't an issue of morality. That is the anti's argument by placing the life of an animal equal to a humans.

The sad part is apparently he doesn't even know that he doesn't know the real issue. Purposely wounding an animal for the outside chance that it will charge and "test your manhood" isn't an issue of morality, it is an issue of stupidity and irresponsibility.

By purposely placing the lives of his PH and attending crew at risk, you could place into question his real motives for gut shooting the 'buff.

I agree with the various PH's that have weighed in.....I wouldn't want that slob in my hunting camp.

Tony

Whether or not the event actually occurred is moot. What is telling are the responses to the story on both sides.

What is telling are the responses to the story on both sides. [/quote]

Yeah, we're all sick, Blaine. We all have the mob mentality here. Yeah. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Old Toot

I am trying my best to figure out why you bothered to post this thread at all. After reading, and re reading, the only conclusion I can come to, is that you are just trolling to stir up some crap.

[Quote: Buffhunter
With that I took deadly aim right up the cenerline of the bull left front leg and 1/3 way up its body (a perfect broadside shot for a buff), I then aimed 3 inches to the right and down 4 inches from the bottom of its belly. Bang!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sounds like a heart/lung shot to me, NOT a gut shot. At any rate you and everyone else here knows that is still not the best shot on any animal that is more likely to run at you then away from you after being shot. That bullet you waste trying to make the hunt more "exciting" will be the one that costs you your life one day.

RO <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Actually since River Otter brings up the placement issue, I defy anyone to call a heart shot perfect on a close buff. Not that I've ever shot one, but evidently mr morality/saviour of the world, has only shot one more than myself.

From what I've always read break bones is the ticket and any idiot knows that lining up on the front leg 1/3 of the way up goes through the top of the heart, missing all bone structure.

And I'm glad RO points out that a few inches back from that is back end of the lungs/liver at the very worst case, probably not close to the liver on such a big animal.

Jeff

Blaine:

I applaud the fact that you can critisize without having to resort to emotionalistic namecalling. Your comments on about the fact that hunting is about killing and that it brings pain (to more or less some degree), is what I was hoping this thread investigate. Everyone here has their philosophical and personal thoughts and feelings on hunting and what's "cricket" and what's not. That became increasing clear to me, when on the original LRH post (even before I mentioned the buff), so many hunters quickly offered their thoughts that long range hunting is not hunting. I was really hoping more people would provide some insight on how they arrived that certain kinds of hunting is okay and other types of hunting is bad.
Thank you for going to the heart of the tread.

__________________________________________________

To the bowhunters:

I bow-hunted for muleys for 7 years. I used a spot-and-stalk method exculsively. In that time I killed 2 does and 1 buck. I also lost another doe by doing the right thing. I hit her good and she went onto some private land. I marked the blood trail and then went down to get permission to follow-up. The ranchers wife was friendly enough, but she wanted me to wait until her husband came back and let him make the decision. We drank coffe and chatted and after a half hour or so her husband showed up and gave me permission. Unfortunately, it had started raining, and by the time I got back up to spot, the blood trail had washed away. I hunted for that dang deer for 2 days and never found her (scrub oak country).

I offer this information only as a lesson I learned, whcih may or may not help you in the future.

But as far as "killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible", it is common for bow hunters to wait a half hour or so after hitting an animal to give it time to "stiffen up" or die.

Seems to me, all that does, is increase the chance for you to get the animal, not necessarily to ease its suffering. Lying around for a 30 minutes or so with an arrow stuck in your butt/shoulder, etc, doesn't sound all that comfortable to me. I invite your thoughts and comments.

To the prarie dog hunters:

When you shoot a prarie dog, do you check and make sure it's not a female that is suckling young? Starving to death in a den, waiting for your dead mother to come and feed you, to me sounds a hell of a lot worse than wounding a buff and waiting 3 or 4 minutes to see what he will do, before finishing him off.

But to both groups, I'm not critizing, I'm just pointing out some thoughts on what is "cricket" and what is not.

RiverOtter:

You are right on. According to my "Perfect Shot" diagram, I hit the buff with a low lung shot. The idea, (this sounds cold) was to hit the bull so that he wasn't structurally hindered, yet it would leave a good blood trail and make sure that the buff would die within a fairly short time, whether he charged or not.

To Blaine:

One last thing, I agree with you on the judgement points except for the beer. I drank one beer during a 2 hour or so lull. One of the Zim PHs and an apprentice PH also drank a beer in that time frame. My PH did not drink anything but soda. So I don't think that was really a big factor.

In retropect, my BIGGEST MISTAKE, was even though one of the Zim PH's mentioned hitting off-shouder the night before, was NOT TALKING WITH MY PH AND GETTING HIS THOUGHTS. It was really his show, and I should have given him a chance to say "NOT ON MY SAFARI" or "OKAY, BUT ONLY IF THE COVER IS RIGHT", etc.

I should not have deliberately put him and his staff into a wounded buff situation, without his agreement.

And as the the other Zim PH who first suggested it to me, I and I alone made the decision and took the shot. He could have been kidding, or maybe he was an adrenlyn junkie, himself. But I alone bear responsiblity.

As far as the situation, we were in fairly open ground, Between myself, the 2 PHs, and the apprentice, we had a .416 Rem Mag (me), a .505 Gibbs (my PH), a .470 NE (the other PH), and a .458 Lott (the apprentice). So we certainly had enough fire-power.

Still I learned something from the incident. And I would like to hear from others on how they view hunting and they believe that hunting is a natural state of affairs.

For myself, I think the human race is alive today only because of our predatory nature. Having a willingness to face danger and hardship in order to kill in selfdefense or for food, is what enabled us to evolve in what we our today. I think, we owe it to ourselves, to take a critcal look at why we hunt and how we hunt. I don't think anyone owes an apology for their desire to hunt and if we are not carefull, we will wind up like the smokers. First they were harassed, and then, instead of standing up for their rights, they tried to be apologetic and compromise. The final result, was that they "accepted" the stigma of being a smoker, suffered indignities (having to go outside in 10 degree weather, etc.), and eventually lost their rights to smoke in more and more places (I work in Boulder, CO, the most liberal (read oppresive) city in the USA).

I would hate to see that happen to America's hunters. So much for the soapboxing.

Please feel free to comment.

Perhaps Buffhunter should try bull fighting. It seems more up his alley.

First, as "buffhunter" admits, he was clearly wrong in putting the PH and any other persons in the hunting party at risk. Shooting a dangerous game animal to wound rather than kill is essentially reckless endangerment. He is lucky no one was hurt otherwise his little tale here would have served as damning testimony.

Second, while animals do not have rights, they do warrant moral consideration. This is why there are laws prohibiting the torture of animals. What would you do if you drove by a ranch and saw horses starving to death in a corral? What if you found a boy torturing a dog to death? If we buy Blaine's logic, we have no moral obligation to intercede since animals are mere property.

As Jose Ortega y Gasset stated, "good hunter is uneasy in the depths of his conscience when faced with the death he is about to inflict on the enchanting animal." He went on to say, "I believe that this has always happened to man, with varying degrees of intensity according to the nature of the prey - ferocious or harmless - and with one or another variation in the aspect of uneasiness. This says nothing against hunting, but only that the generally problematic, equivocal nature of man's relationship with animals shines through the uneasiness. Nor can it be otherwise, because man has never really known exactly what an animal is. Before and beyond all science, humanity sees itself as
something emerging from animality, but it cannot be sure of having transcended that state completely."

We hunt because it is fundamental to our nature. I disagree with "buffhunter." We have flourished as a species for three reasons unassociated with hunting. We are a cooperative, social animal. We are, by far, the most intelligent species. We care for our young. Sharks are nearly perfect hunters, but they have remained essentially unchanged for millions of year. Many species that were better hunters than us are now extinct.

There was a time hunting was necessary for survival. That time has long since passed. People can live long and productive lives without ever hunting. Those of us who continue to hunt do so because we recognize it as part of our nature.

Over the centuries, we have evolved ethically. We no longer believe slavery is ethical. We no longer practice human sacrifices. How we hunt as changed as well. We, as a society, set bag limits, seasons and impose other legal rules on hunting. We also have ethical rules. These rules, like fair chase, do not exist in a vacuum. We establish them as a community to protect the spirit of the hunt.

"Buffhunter" uses a rhetorical device. He says essentially, "You will poison a rat while condemning me for making a deliberately bad shot on a buffalo."

My response: Motive matters. We poison rats to protect human health. We also use rats and other animals for medical experimentation. This is morally justified because this use serves a greater purpose of advancing human science. Humans have rights; animals do not. Still, any reputable research institution will treat animals as humanely as possible. This is our moral obligation.

Yes, bow hunting results in a slower death. It is also much harder to kill an animal with a bow than with a high-powered rifle. Why use a bow? Because we are hunters, not just killers. Why try to find the balance between our need to hunt, a moral consideration for the animal and a relatively level playing field where the hunt's outcome is largely determined by skill. This is an imperfect process, and as Ortega y Gasset note, still one where we may have doubts at the end of the day.

Every hunter, if he hunts long enough, will wound an animal. What I condemn is not merely what "buffhunter" did, but why. He wounded an animal for his personal amusement, thinking a blood trail and track might be more exciting. He did so with the security blanket of an armed PH and his own high-powered rifle. This makes the "man among boys" rhetoric ring hollow to me.

I have no quarrel with a hunter who takes a buffalo with a rifle, a bow or even a spear in a fair chase environment. Wounding an animal in the hope of greater sport, however, strikes me as disrespectful of the animal and of the hunt itself.

I read the story. I reread the story. I don't see an intentional wounding. It was a mortal, but not a break down shot. Many people prefer those on nondangerous game and won't take anything else. The buff was going to die and probably in not very long.

So it was a less than wise shot considering the species. It was also a poor decision to purposefully take a shot like that and endanger the PH and trackers. Then again a guy could easily and unintentionally screw up a good shot and hit a buff in the very same manner. The PH knows that and so do the trackers and yet they still choose to go afield with people they really don't know all that well.

Buffhunter brings up some good points and I think we as hunters should wrestle with some of those thorny issues for our own good. We've been backpedaling from the antis for a while now.

Some of us use the word "harvest" in place of kill as if somehow it changes the facts of what happen when bullet or arrow meets flesh and bone. Call it what you will, it's not changing any minds. In the end a creature is dead, the hunter caused the death, and that my friends is killing. Even the fuzzy thinking antis can figure that one out.

We as hunters cannot guarantee with any certainty that we will cause a painless end to our quarry's life. Many strive to that end and some have good success but the reality is that the end of an animal's, and many human's life is traumatic. That's just the way the world works.

Sometimes we wound game and it causes undue suffering, that is also no secret. I've seen people time and again try to snuff threads with discussions about it for fear the antis will find out and use it against us. It shouldn't be news to anyone that they already know so denying it is not in our best interest. We need to deal with it.

Whether we go afield with lethal intent or not it doesn't change the fact that the animals we hunt will die and it most likely will not occur with them being in a bed surrounded by loved ones while they slip off to a peacefull end.

What bothers some of our fellow humans about what we do is the death and pain that is inevitable when we choose to take a life. I think that's partly because many of them are deluded or ignorant about just how the real world works and what the options are for an animal who's life is going to end. The other part is that we choose to inflict trauma and death as part of a recreational pursuit. Apparently a lion tearing the entrails out of a conscious wildebeast is acceptable to them because she's doing it to survive. Personally I don't think that part matters much to the wildebeast.

Whether we get joy, a feeling of accomplishment, or just a full belly matters not to the animal we've just killed. Why it should matter to someone that's not part of the intimate hunter-prey relationship, nor even a witness to it playing out does mystify me a bit but that's what we have to deal with.

I just have a hard time thinking we're going to get anywhere with a smokescreen.

Every day people die in automobile accidents. It is a reality of driving. There is a difference between a guy who kills someone in an accident and a guy who kills someone because he was driving recklessly. You don't think so? Explain it to the parents of a child that has been killed by a reckless driver.

Deliberately shooting a dangerous game animal to wound it is reckless. As noted, it wasn't just "Buffhunter" putting his own backside on the line. He decided to put his PH at risk as well. The PH is paid to deal with clients who may or may not make a good shot every time. He is not paid to play lifeguard while a client makes a self indulgent decision.

Rights require responsibility. A man and a tiger sit a cage. The man can agree to not kill the tiger. The tiger cannot make this promise. Our right to hunt is inextricably linked to our responsibilities as hunters. This is not about glossing over the bloody realities of killing, field dressing and processing a game animal. Hunting involves the act of killing, but hunting is something more, much more. When I was a boy, a chicken dinner involved a hatchet and trip to the chicken coop. That is killing. Going afield and beating the brush for a plump blue grouse... that is hunting.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons hunting is mistreated is because as a community, we can recite reloading data but we can't recite Ortega y Gasset. We can talk about how we kill, but not fully explain why.

This might seem like splitting hairs but a mortal nonbreakdown shot isn't any more of an "intentionally wounding" shot on a buffalo than it is on an elk. It's a mortal wound, just not one that slows them down as much.

If that shot is so terrible than the guys that make the same shot on an elk to save a couple pounds of meat at the expense of a minute more suffering on the elk's part are just as cold and calculating as Buffhunter was....but for a slightly different reason.

So the reason makes the difference. We weigh the value of an additional minute of suffering against a few pounds of meat and call saving the meat moral. We do the same against what Buffhunter wrote about and it's wrong.

To me any rifle shot that doesn't drop the animal immediately leaves something to be desired. The means are in my hands to put the animals I hunt on the ground in a blink and if I fail to do so then I didn't quite live up to my end of the deal. I don't lose much sleep over it but I try to do better the next time.

That's my personal standard. I don't try to impose it on others.

I don't read Ortega y Gasset. I don't know him and he doesn't know me. He has no idea why I hunt. He might think he does but that's as far as it goes. I can articulate my feelings and beliefs on my own. Regurgitating some other guy's ideas isn't a mark of intellect or wisdom in my book. Then again that book hasn't been published.

Just a guess, but I think what got everyone pissed at Buffhunter, was the thread in "Long range hunting", where he actually states that he "INTENTIONALLY GUT SHOT" the cape buffalo. That statement and act(if it actually occured) is SICK and WRONG!..... Then he started this thread to try and justify it in his own twisted way. In this thread he has back pedalled a bit and the shot is now a lung shot(Based on the Quote that I responded to above). IF he had stated that he LUNG shot a Cape Buffalo in his original post, he would have only been guilty of "STUPIDITY" and "SELFISHNESS" for the lives he put in higher danger; NOT intensionally causing an animal to suffer more for his own pleasure. IMHO.

A front shoulders shot does NOT kill any faster than a heart/lung shot, it merely takes away the animals mobility to get to the hunter/s (or at least slows it down substantially to allow more time for follow up shots, if needed).

To respond to the above posters who are splitting hairs over "HUNTING vs. KILLING", WHY?? Does it really make a difference what led up to the animals death if the person who takes its life is doing it legally and with the intent to give it the most "humane" death possible. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

RO

Hampstead:

Is Ortega y Gossett the portugese hunter who went to Africa in the late 1800s? The name kind of rings a bell, and I remember reading a book this guy wrote. I gave the book to a friend, so I don't have it anymore, but I do remember some of the stories. One in particular, was about finding 4 natives bound hand and foot, with their legs and arms broken. They were suberged and staked at the rivers edge so that only their heads were above water. It was the local custom the cannibals used to "tenderize" the meat for 3 or 4 days before killing and eating the guys. Since none of his staff would risk the wrath of the cannibals by carrying the guys to the nearest town (about 100 miles, if I remember correctly). The hunter had to "put them down" as the guys were insane from the terror and pain. Is this the same guy?

Anyways, I understand your points about "the responsiblity of the nobles" (noblese oblige, or something like that in latin).

However, back in the '80s, I read a book by some anthropologist, who believes the intelligence of the human race was a necessary result of our decision to become active predators, instead of just gathers and scavengers. Not sure if I believe it completely, but it is an interesting thought.

River Otter:

As to the original post on the LRH thread, some poster had mentioned "gut shooting" in reference to long range hunting and I said more or less. "I did deliberately gut shoot a buffalo once,in an attempt to get a charge, but I immediately felt bad and quickly put two shots were were I should have from the first and the buffale died after a short charge." (these words are more or less verbatim.)

No one got excited about it for a few days until thor222 or something like that started making a big deal about it. At that time I tried to explain my thought processes. In truth, the buffalo was hit somewhere in the region of its lower lung and liver, definately "off shoulder" but not in the paunch. As I stated, my BIGGEST MISTAKE was not talking to my PH and letting him decide if I should take an "off shoulder" shot.

I still feel, however, that giving a buffalo a chance to even things up (on the shooter, not the tracker/PH), is not necessarily a bad thing.

I would never have tried the shot in jess or other thick cover and I'lll probably never try that again period, but to be honest I am an adrenlyn junkie (I just don't want anyone else to suffer needlessly (even the buff) for my bad habits).

rost:

The first buff I killed was hit on a centerline up the front leg, 1/3 up the body. This was were I was told to shoot by the PH (different PH, different country). When they took the buff to the butchery (packing house), the PH's dad ( a helluva nice guy, with tons of experience on buff, and a former Sealous Scout during the Rodesian bush war), stuck around to see how the .416 Rem Mag and the Swift A-frame performed. He told me the bullet retained something like 87% of its weight (more or less, I don't remember exactly), and broke both shoulders and took out part of the heart. Theory aside, I believe him.

Still, I am glad people are starting to talkabout hunting in a realistic manner and shedding the sugar coating.

What I'm reading, is that some people are acknowleging that they use less-than-ideal weapons, because they get more challenge and self-satisfaction from hunting that way. That is good and honest talk. I believe we need to be totally honest with ourselves if hunting is to survive in this country. Just my opinon.

Jose Ortega y Gasset was a Spanish philosopher who wrote, "Meditations On Hunting." It is considered one of the finest works on the philosophy of hunting ever written. One mark of intellect and wisdom is reading and knowing what others have thought and written before you.

Quoting great men like Aldo Leopold, Teddy Roosevelt or Ortega y Gasset is not "regurtitating." It is giving credit where credit is due. These men have built the foundation of what we understand as modern hunting. We owe them far more than prideful ignorance of their work.

Only "buffhunter" knows if he made a mortal breakdown shot or an old-fashioned gut shot. In my opinion, he made a decision that was impulsive and selfish. I don't know if this was an isolated case of poor judgment or one instance in a lifelong pattern of behavior. That is something only he can answer.

Not that I should drag this out, BUT if your shot description is as it sounds, and the buff was broadside, there is no way to break both shoulders. Anatomically its impossible.

rost, that was a different Buff, the way I took it... elliphino!! 721

"In the fall of 2003, I went to Zimbabwe for the express purpose of killing a bull elephant. This was my second trip to Africa in two years. The preceding year I went to the Republic of South Africa on a Cape Buffalo hunt."

Ok Buffhunter, just to establish your bona fides, can you tell us who you hunted with FOR BUFFALO IN RSA or at least tell us what you paid for the hunt including trophy fees for the buff? Oh yeah, pictures would really help. jorge

I think that if you keep fooling around with dangerous game the way you describe there will certainly be a day of reckoning. Unfortunately, you may not be the only one hurt or killed. Its not called "dangerous game" for nothing.

Most of us learned the hows and whys of hunting from sage, but unpublished men..like fathers, grandfathers, uncles, and such. Just because someone got their ideas printed doesn't make their stance unique or more worthy. Being able to quote them doesn't elevate anyone to a higher moral platform.

You don't have to be elequent, well read, or published to know in your own heart and mind why you hunt. You don't need those things to know right from wrong. Learning hunting ethics over luke warm coffee from a battered thermos or around a fire somewhere is just as effective, even moreso if the pupil is 12 or 13 years old.

jorge1:

I have always thought, that regardless of what people say or believe, it doesn't change reality. Therefore, I don't really feel any need or justification to "establish my bona fides". Having said that, I don't mind sharing hunting pictures or mounts with other hunters, so I will try and attach a shot of the mounted buffs and the ellie's tusks. (BTW the one in the middle is the Zim buff. I put it there, because it died valiantly.

To view the picture, you have to click on the attachment. I never got around to setting up a personal web page. Hope you can access it.

rost495:

Just about every antonomical drawing of cape buffs that I've seen, show the lower part of the humerus (big bone that slants forward) connects to that weird "elbow-looking" bone within an inch or so of that aiming point. Hit a little high and you take out the upper part of the heart. A little high and forward and you still catch the humerous. A little back and you catch that weird bone. Sure enough you ain't going to break the scapula (shoulder blades). Not much more I can say about that topic. Maybe the PHs could provide some information on where they tell clients to aim on buff?

To all:

One connection I've seen several posters make is that of "legality is linked to morality". Now I don't believe that at all. IMO sometimes, laws are condusive to morality, but many times they aren't. Slavery, rape, and cannibalism have been legal in some societys, at some point in recorded history. To my mind that doesn't make it moral. To me, morality, is living (or at least trying to) to your personal sense of what is right and wrong. This is usually developed through lifes experiences, training, influences, and personal inclinations and philosophizing (sp). That to me is what morality is "being true to yourself".

Independent thinking is high on my list of being true to yourself. Sure you will make mistakes (sometimes on purpose and maybe without regrets. "Honey, I ate all the Hagen Daze, and I'd do it again too).

logger:

In regards to bullfighting, according to Hemingway "Death in the Afternoon", that is one strange game. Guys with big spears on horses come in and inflict stab wounds (up to 12 inches deep) in the bulls neck in order to weaken the muscles and force the bull to drop his head. Makes it harder for him to see what he's doing. Then the bandalliros (sp), put in the big darts in an attempt to correct a smart bulls habit of hooking one way or the other.

Only then do the matordors start doing their thing. No doubt it takes one hell of a lot of courage and skill and sometimes the bull wins. Still, it is way too commercial for my tastes. But to each his own.

To anyone who joined in late, this thread was not started to justify or brag about hitting a buff to provoke a charge. It was started to get hunters to relate how they perceive hunting and what's moral or immoral. It actually started on the LRH forum where so many hunters attacked the concept of long-range hunting, even to the point where many opined that it wasn't even hunting.

To me, hunting is done in many different ways, calling upon different skill sets. Tracking, spotting, stalking, and shooting are the basics. In addition, the timing of the shot, using the right equipment, and more importantly, knowing when to pass up a shot are equally important. Putting up with physical and psychological hardship is also part of the sport.

I personally derive a lot of satisfaction in facing a dangerous situation and being able to face it effectively.

I also admire animals that can take one hell of a beating and still give their all in trying to eliminate their adversaries.

I read a story about two hunters who wounded a buff just before dark one evening. Since it was too late to go in after the buff, they decided to go back to camp and finish up the job the next morning. Their camp was a couple of miles from the area where they shot the buff.

The next morning they started out, and not 200 yards from their tent was the dead buffalo. Apparently, it tracked the hunters and was going to finish things up on its terms, but (forunately for the hunters), it died before it made it to the tent.

I don't know for sure if that is a true tail, but I could certainly believe it.

So again, is their a strong connection between what is legal and what is moral? What do you think?

BH: Those are really nice buffaloes and great elephant tusks. As to the "bona fides" I find that whenever there is a controversial post and I think yours meets that criteria, pictures and a description of who, what, when and where, go a long way in explaining one's position. For example, hunting buffalo in RSA is rare, albeit not unheard of. I still don't agree with your premise on the buffalo, but that was your choice, after all, you paid for it. So how much are trophy fees for buffalo in RSA these days? jorge

A sociopathic serial killer is "true to himself." He just is not very nice to his victims.

I am getting on a plane to Montana for opening day of rifle season on Sunday, so I really don't have the time to teach Philosophy 101. Think of ethics, morality and law as three circles in a Venn diagram. A religious prohibition against eating a particular food is a moral issue, but not one of ethics or (generally) law. Jaywalking is a legal issue, but not really a moral or ethical one.

Some acts--like murder--concern ethics, morality and the law. So does hunting. Buffhunter suggest that the hunter who follow his conscience is moral. This is windy old Polonius saying, "To thine own self be true." Unfortunately, my example of the serial killer points out one flaw in this argument.

The ethic of hunting is not about being true to yourself. It is about being true to hunting. As a community, hunters have developed ethical guidelines like fair chase. These guidlines are not mere personal opinions, but conclusions about ethical "rights" and "wrongs" based on philosophical inquiry and community consensus.

Now it may not matter to "buffhunter" if he is an ethical hunter. Frankly, he seems more concerned about feeding his Jones for adrenaline and following his own internal compass like a Nietzchean superman. That is his business, not mine. If he wants to engage in a serious discussion about philosophy, he needs to come to the table prepared.

Contrary to "steelyeyes," you don't learn about things like existential ethics sitting around the campfire. Hunting requires hard work... so does philosophy. And honestly, I have never hunting an animal as elusive as Kant's Prolegmena to Any Future Metaphysics. Reading is not as exciting as bungee jumping or hunting cape buffalo with tongs and a pasta fork. It is necessary, however, if you really want to learn about the ethics of hunting.

Uh oh... we have an educated fellow in our midst... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Excellent post, btw - that one will take a while to digest.

Reading is very imporant. I used to be a more avid reader before other parts of life intervened. At one point I was reading between four and five books a week. Having better things to invest my cash in at the time, I got a library card. For at least two of those years I never ventured outside the nonfiction section. My thoughts were that while I was reading I might as well learn about something concrete.

My education didn't result in letters behind my name unless you count my rank in the Navy, EM1/SS. It didn't involve philosophy or humanities, just physics, heat transfer, metalurgy, and dull subjects along that line. While I managed to learn to operate several nuclear propulsion plants I never did end up studying or reading much philosophy. I guess I missed out.


I suppose I could feel insulted by the idea that a person must read "the classics" to understand or to be able to discuss ethics but I choose not to. I'm in good company. I'd wager that 90% or more of ethical hunters learned from their elders in the field instead of a book. If the tweed coat crowd wants to make reading a book by the author of their choice the ticket to the discussion I suppose they can try.

I think that if ethics are developed by community consensus and the vast majority of us are excluded from the table by the required reading list the resulting ethical code won't be "ours", but "theirs". That's just what the hunting community needs, more divisions. *irony alert*

My guess is if we let "community consensus" determine the hunting ethics, we'll do all our hunting on video games (until the "community" decides that is wrong as well.

I would guess those smart hunter/poet/philosophers of old, did things, that even "sociopaths" like myself wouldn't have the stomach do to.

I have read some of the old hunting classics and I guarantee if any of us tried emulating some of their methods, we would be in prison. Still Mr. Hampstead makes some interesting points.

jorge1:

In 2003, I paid a trophy fee of 8k for the buff. In Zim in 2004, I paid 2k for the buff, but it was a last minute add-on to the elephant hunt in mid-September. Of course the RSA hunt only at a minimum of 4 days, while the Zim hunt had a minimum of 14 days (at 1k a day).

If you do a buff hunt in RSA, let me know by PM and maybe I can set you up with a good outfit (they will even let you bowhunt for buff, provided you can shoot well enough). They would certainly frown on you making an "off shoulder" shot on purpose though! LOL.

Good hunting to all.

Thanks BH. You know, the trophy fee in RSA is high, but when you offset it with less days afield it might make it worthwhile. What type of hunting area is it? jorge

PS: I don't bowhunt.

Buffty hunter wrote.....No one got excited about it for a few days until thor222 or something like that started making a big deal about it. At that time I tried to explain my thought processes. In truth, the buffalo was hit somewhere in the region of its lower lung and liver, definately "off shoulder" but not in the paunch. As I stated,.....

Yep buffty It most certainly was me that rightly called you on it.
the truth is you are nothing but a ****hole troll...so now its a low lung/liver shot, please make up your mind.
For me you have NO CREDIBILITY.
Thor222

For those who haven't read buffty hunters post on long range hunting,
[Re: buffhunter]
#556824 - 08/24/05 08:45 PM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply





_________________________________________________

QUOTE
For the record, I did deliberately shoot a buff a to wound it and provoke a charge...... A+ grade a**hole

Is that a nice thing to do. Hell no.........I don't like anything to suffer needlessly (except maybe for my enemies)........Please refer to above..errrr but you did gut shooter A+ AGAIN

Ask any PH, and they will tell you that a "gut shot" animal will be dead within a week, even quicker if there are lions and such around......Only a week of suffering needlessly if the buff had run off,not so bad really then A++ AWARDED

I make no apologies. The only real regret I have is the fact that I might have put the PH and tracker in a dangerous situation.......Firstly if the PH condoned that then A+ to him,if not then if they whipped you black and blue you would have deserved it A++ Awarded

The object of long range hunting is to make a one-shot, clean kill..........indeed any hunting DUH!! read above for what you actually did A++ Awarded

There are a lot of good, decent, experienced hunters on this forum.......Agreed there are indeed,I dont count you amongst them however

If you are an experienced hunter, than why don't you provide us some examples of your experience, rather than bad-mouthing people who have been there and done that.......been there and done what exactly?...deliberately cause suffering to a animal?...no thanks its always my aim for 1 quick shot kills

To the rest of you, I apologize for the tirade.......to the rest of the forum, you have been revealed for what you are.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ok BH thats it,but I hope some day that your gut shooting antics repay you.....them big AK kodiaks rip a mean hole.


Thor222

Dont let this guy cajole you into thinking he is something he is not,I am glad the PH's read this thread and commented.