Hunters Haunt
February 09, 2010, 01:00:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: The only wire you'll see to do with a hunt on this forum is the mountain radio aerial!
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bulls in the rain. By Robert Borsak  (Read 1348 times)
TOP_PREDATOR
Moderator
wildman
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243

"Living the dream"


View Profile
« on: June 29, 2008, 09:04:54 PM »

I hope this will be one of many Dangerous Game hunt reports.


Bulls in the Rain
By Robert Borsak

Well here we were Cheryl & I, in Bulawayo for the start of our two week trip into the Omay on Lake Kariba, northern Zimbabwe. Two bull elephants were on the agenda as we headed up the road north, through the rain, donkeys, cattle and goats that surrounded us in the Toyota Landcruiser.

Our Professional hunter on this trip was Deon Pistorius, a veteran PH, with 15 years hunting experience, just another day at the office for Deon.

Our original plan had been to fly by charter flight up to the Omay block, landing on the strip next the croc farm. No such luck, we faced a 10 hour trip by road, 6 hours on tar and the last 80 klms in 4 hrs, along rough dirt roads. The late season heavy rains, low cloud and generally untidy weather prevented the charter from flying.

The ride though uncomfortable at times was very interesting, as we sped through the morning, dodging & weaving around donkey carts and stray cattle. We hit the Bulembi Safaris camp at about 5.00pm, stiff and a bit sore, but ready for anything. The camp is located at the confluence of two rivers, the Ume & the Metaya, that then run north for a short distance to Lake Kariba. To the east over the Ume is the vast Matusadona national park, green & verdant, a dozen elephants already visible, as if taunting us.

The first hunting morning opened wet & dull, getting up for breakfast at 4.30 am, we were gone down the rough road by 5.15am. It rained hard on & off during the day, it turned into a real wash out. This was the story for the next two days, dark & wet, all tracks washed out and impossible to follow. We did several abortive tracking efforts as we hunted through the jess looking carefully for the elusive bulls. Several hunts ended in disappointment as we either lost the tracks or ran out of day light. Six and a half hours on the trail one day, ended up dry, as we gave up due to loss of light.

Several times what with being bogged to the axles & losing the trail, the tension of the hunt built. It was only a matter of time until we caught up with a nice bull. This happened on the fourth day out, we hooked onto his trail after a tip off in the maize from a young local. Shorty & Jumana our two expert trackers were veterans of the hunt. Neither smoked or drank, fit Shona?s, Shorty at least 65 & Jumana about 50 years of age. These two guys were amazing, true professionals, in the game their whole lives.

The bull lead us a merry chase through the thickest riverine jess, crossing the river a total of 5 times, each time causing me to remove my boots, whilst watching for the ever present crocs. As the crow flies, we did not cover more than 5 or 6 kilometres, a long arc that at first left the maize fields, then headed back. We trailed him for some three & a half hours, huge piles of droppings the size of soccer balls, greener and warmer as we got closer. They were flecked with corn & sorgum, the odd melon seeds interceded, bright yellow green. We were close.

Deon called us to a quick & silent halt, as he strained to listen, desperate whispered words were exchanged with the trackers as they moved ahead. Next a thundering crash as Deon passed me heading in the opposite direction, the bull was coming! I turned & dodged behind the largest tree I could find some 10 metres away, then nothing. The bull was not headed in our direction, but away from us, phew!! We had frightened him just as much as he had frightened us, we were about 5 metres from him when Shorty saw  him and the bull took off. Apparently he had not winded us, but was frightened away by the small noise that we made, on the wet grass and sand.

Whatever he thought we were, after his initial dash, he ran along the river and again crossed at a rapid pace. We followed, catching him again some 30 minutes later, in the thick stuff. Deon again heard him breaking branches and feeding, he motioned me forward beside him, on all fours we crawled up to him. There looking up some 20 metres away I first saw a leg, then tail and arse as he fed in a little break in the jess. ?Get ready Robert? Deon whispered, ?he may feed up to us?,  the bull turned slowly and revealed a tusk, I stood up.

I took a deep breath to settle my nerves & let it out slowly, it looked like he was going to walk right up to us through the green screen of bush. Mentally I went through the routine, rifle ready, safety off here he comes. In a matter of 5 seconds he was there, not walking straight up, but angling to my left, a great huge head with a small hazel eye stared down at me, clearing the jess, as I swung the Heym onto him. My reflexes took over as the rifle fired the right barrel at 6 paces from the brain of the giant, he went down, as if in slow motion. Deon on my left whispered ?fire again?, I put the second barrel into the top of his head and it was all over. He flattened a vast area of jess as he hit the ground, as silently as his approach. It was awesome, he did not know what had hit him.  I started to shake, this hunt was over.

Four days into the hunt I had taken the first of my two bulls. The 500 grain Woodleigh solid had found its mark, above the left eye, angling across the skull, through the lower brain, cleanly and instantly killing the bull. The fun was now only about to start, there in front of me lay 4 tonne of elephant meat, with tusks weighing in at about 45lb a side. It was 4.30pm, 12 hours since we had got up in the dark in quest of a shootable bull.

We headed foot sore and weary back toward the truck, 30 minutes in, we met the first of the locals heading with uncanny direction right to where the bull lay. A few short words from the PH, put them straight, the skinning and meat distribution would take place in the morning, on the morrow.

I had time to quietly contemplate what had happened there in the deep jess, as we bumped back toward camp. Days & days of anticipation, hours & hours of legging through the thick jess. Time & again straining myself to hear the tell tale sounds of the elephant in the bush. Wondering if he would wind us, hear us or sense us? Then all too soon it was over, in a flash, 37 years of shooting and hunting experience brought to bear with a shot at the bull just on a trunks length away. I could still see that small hazel eye, looking at me, without recognition, before the bullet put out his lights forever.

The following morning, after an early breakfast we headed back to the downed bull, over tar road & rough potted dirt tracks. Upon arrival we were greeted by over 200 local subsistence farmers, wives, children, young and the very old, all now ready to join in to the feast.

The process of skinning, chopping out the ivory and butchering of the bull took all day. Organised chaos accompanied us to where the bull lay, and the whole process ran from about 9.00am, until 4.00pm. We dropped dog tired back at camp that evening at 6.30pm, the events of the day before now a slowly fading memory, held forever in my mind and in the digital files of the cameras I used to take dozens of pictures. This is what I had come to Zimbabwe again and again for, the call of the hunt, the rhythm of the wild.

Now for the next hunt, I had just over one week to scout around for my second bull. I was really having a great time, the rain continued, but I didn?t care a bit.

"I hope i have these photos in the right place." Huh Huh







Part two.

The bull flung his head up as I touched the front trigger of the Heym 458 Win Mag, the jess obstructed him thoroughly, I couldn?t see a thing. I waited what seemed like an age for him to drop into the red ochre coloured wallow that he was knee deep in. It didn?t happen! The bull spun on the proverbial American dime piece, and rapidly headed for the hills.

Shooting with both eyes open, handling the Heym as if it were my Barretta 682 12 guage, the barrels flicked after him as the Brno 375 H & H carried by my PH Deon, barked out loud. Seeing no change in the passing pace of the bull I consciously swapped to the second trigger whilst locking onto the appearance of a side on huge red ochre rump, of the rapidly disappearing bull, with my left eye. The Heym barked again at a range of about 25 metres, placing the 500 grain FMJ Woodleigh though the hip into the spine. He crashed down immediately, skidding to a halt in amongst some obstructing branches of surrounding Jess.

As he came down there was an unearthly scream as the full weight of the falling bull collapsed his heaving lungs, expelling through the trunk and sending an involuntary shiver through me. On the ground now, on bended knee the ochre coloured wet bull thrashed around with its trunk, paralysed unable to move. I reloaded as the empties flicked over my shoulder & the PH yelled to drill him again. As I approached I moved in quickly, not being sure at all exactly at that time what had happened. As I approached with some caution he lunged as far forward as his trunk & position allowed, trying to grab me. At this I placed two frontal brain shots into the now almost defunct bull and it was all over.

All this took approximately 30 seconds of seething action, I had to literally reconstruct the events as I replayed them in my minds eye, to try and understand what I had just done! We had made the final stalk to this second bull on day 12 of my hunt to within 10 metres, again at an awkward three quarter angle, obstructed by the jess. The bull was wallowing & spraying himself with muddy red ochre coloured water in a knee deep (for the elephant) pool of fetid rain water. He stunk like a wet old billy goat. Muddy water sprayed all around, some even splashing on my shirt has he hoisted his trunk in preparation.

Crouching in awe of the bull, watching for an opportunity at a shot, he didn?t know we were even there. Standing almost directly in front of him, in his shadow, Deon whispered, ?take the shot when you see his fore head?.  That is exactly what I did, I waited what seemed ages as he moved, spraying & swaying behind the screen of obstructing green foliage. The bull moved into what I took to be a good position, I ideally would like to have moved even closer than the ten metres where we crouched, but to move now may have caused him to flee or charge.

Hoisting the Heym as his right eye & forehead appeared, I took the shot as carefully as the short window of opportunity would allow. The rifle barked, but as I have written the bull didn?t fall, this was not supposed to happen. The text book says even for an angling side brain shot the bullet should traverse the skull transversely taking the brain out as it penetrated through the skull. No such luck, this time, my later investigation showed one major problem, he was standing lower than I had realised. I had not made allowance for him standing knee deep in the muddy wallow. The angle, penetration & flight of the Woodleigh was good, what was not good was that it did not angle upwards any where near enough. The bullet passed harmlessly through the skull, under the brain, exiting in front of & subsequently through the left ear. So much for tall elephants and shooting from a semi crouching stance, through a peep hole in the jess!

As it turns out the saving grace of the second barrel of the double, along with plenty of two eyed wing shooting practice on quail & ducks with the 12 guage, kept the rifle swinging, eyes watching and mind ticking over. Without the instantaneous second barrel the bull would still be running the hills of Omay today, relatively unscathed, to wallow another day. The use of the old bolt rifle would not possibly have allowed the automatic reflex shooting afforded the hunter using a good quality ejecting double. 

My PH Deon flung what could possibly have been a good neck shot at the fleeing bull, but it missed the mark. He fired almost immediately I did, before I had a chance to recover from the recoil & realise what had happened. The bull had continued on his way until I put the left barrel into his rear spine. Deon complained that the short barrelled Heym was a little noisy at close quarters. It should be, the 500 grain Woodleighs were leaving the barrels at just over 2,250 feet per second, hand loaded by my old mate Garry Lendich so that he couldn?t get another grain of powder into those short stubby 458 cases. The most I could take on the Silverdale 50 metre range was 10 shots off the bench, as I regulated it before leaving for the Zambezi Valley. Even those left my shoulder black & blue. Yet as always with these things, in the heat of the hunt, one rarely hears or feels a thing, all senses strained at the quarry, not at all thinking about that heavy, noisy extension on the end of your arm!

The build up to this retrospective lesson in hunting followed from another 5 days wet grinding hunt, though the rutted roads of the north Omay concession. As with the first 7 days hunting many a kilometre was spent on the track of bulls & cows looking vainly for opportunities at a likely bull. As described in my previous article it was much the same hairy encounters with cranky old cows, not willing to take no for an answer. When they step out of a wall of jess onto the track in 15 metres in front of you, ears three metres wide, trunks extended, shit can very rapidly become trumps! This happened on the morning before we got onto the trail of the second bull.

We cut his trail on the sandy intersection of the fishing village road (loosely called a road by the mugs who drove it), about 5 klms from where we had seen them 2 days before. Deon insisted it was the same bull, his foot to my untrained eye seemed a little smaller then the big foot I had shot on day 7. Who am I to argue, I said to Deon ?there?s a bull out there today with our name on him?, so it turned out to be. He had become a little dejected by all the rain, and false starts, I was revelling in it!

The bull weaved his way back toward our main camp, though offcourse in practice he never really got anywhere near it, as he veered off to the north long before we would have taken the road down the peninsula to our camp on the river junction. He walked & we trailed him over 10 kilometres that day, parts of it on the road, at other times cutting across the bush, heading toward the thickest jess in the area. To our luck, he veered his course, away from the impenetrable tangle into more hunter friendly surrounds.

In what had become now familiar procedure Deon first heard him breaking branches & feeding in the jess at a range of about 100 metres. The wind being right, we closed the gap to the aforementioned shooting position, all the time pin pointing him in the jess by his gastronomic pleasures and bowel movements! Here and there also, steaming piles of still hot droppings, twisted broken branches, and chewed clumps of discarded grasses and fetid pools of bubbled yellow & white urine, strong in odour of it seemed to me ammonia and salt.

The rest of the action has been here already described, the hunt was great, this second bull a little smaller on the ivory front about 35 ? 37lb a side, not to shabby, a fitting end to an excellent two weeks hunting in the Omay! I?ll be back, to hunt the bulls again, possibly March of 2008.

 
 
 







« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 07:38:46 PM by TOP_PREDATOR » Logged

"I have carried out my official duties as long and faithfully as i can,and for the rest I have lived in such a fashion as seemed most agreeable to me...convinced that a good day's shooting is second in point of pleasure to nothing else on earth."

Lord Warwick
nicholas.welch
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2008, 07:46:54 PM »

Great hunt
Ive read many stories over the years but I think you have captured the excitement & pressure of elephant hunting really well.
I will get there some day.

Mike
Logged

Gotta be in it to win it
alfie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2008, 08:30:08 PM »

A great read - thanks. 
Logged
Rob of AHI
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2008, 08:53:17 PM »

Thanks Guys,
I'll try & post a few more in the future.
Off to Zimbabwe again in the middle of August, chasing the grey ghosts of the jess!
This time with a 500 Jeffrey bolt action Johansson Mag Express custom rifle.
Really looking forward to it! Cheesy
Cheers,
Rob
Logged
Sarah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2009, 02:49:40 PM »

Dear Rob,
I hope you read the letters in the SMH in relation to your grissly hunt.
Readers were appalled, sickened and disgusted by your triumphalism.
How do you feel in the knowledge that you personally are doing your
bit to prop up the corrupt and despicable Magabe regimen? And you are
happy to pay the regimen for the privilage and in the process keep a
despot in power. We do not want thugs and elephant butchers in the
NSW government. Elephants are an endangered and magnificent species.
Sadly, there is no shortage of thugs like you.
You said "the tusks belong to the Zimbabwean Government". But as one
astute reader noted "No..the tusks belong to the elephant".
Sarah
Logged
Rob of AHI
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2009, 02:09:34 PM »

Dear Rob,
I hope you read the letters in the SMH in relation to your grissly hunt.
Readers were appalled, sickened and disgusted by your triumphalism.
How do you feel in the knowledge that you personally are doing your
bit to prop up the corrupt and despicable Magabe regimen? And you are
happy to pay the regimen for the privilage and in the process keep a
despot in power. We do not want thugs and elephant butchers in the
NSW government. Elephants are an endangered and magnificent species.
Sadly, there is no shortage of thugs like you.
You said "the tusks belong to the Zimbabwean Government". But as one
astute reader noted "No..the tusks belong to the elephant".
Sarah

Hunters,
This is a form letter being sent out all over the place, I have had it from Fiona, Margie, luise etc etc etc, all the same AL idiots!

They are BS emails sent out by one or two people.

Listen to Rob Browns latest podcast for the real drum on hunting legislation change in NSW.

Connect via <http://www.ausvarmint.com/podcast>

Safe Hunting,
Robert
Logged
orlanda
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2009, 10:19:26 PM »

Well, this isn't a form letter, but rest assured your appalling story of elephant murder is going to be raised in the media again. I don't think there are adequate words in any language to describe the disgust and horror your actions and outright glee at murdering one animal that was feeding and at peace and another that was enjoying itself as nature intended, have inspired in me and my colleagues. We are members of the public. We are voters. I wonder how many voters you would get if your electorate was flooded with flyers of your story?

Tell me, what did these elephants do to you that makes you hate them so much that you find joy in stealing their lives? What did the quails do to you that makes you hate them so much that you feel their lives must be ended?

If you think the Game Bill amendments are going to go through, think again. The people of NSW are appalled and will stand against mindless killers such as yourself.

And, yes - you are supporting a corrupt regime in Zimbabwe which is recognised for its human rights abuses.

I wonder if they are allowing you to shoot human protesters as well while you are there? Someone with so complete a lack of regard for animals is only a heartbeat away from violence to humans, this is a well-researched fact.

All humans should care about animal protection because we have a moral and ethical obligation to those who are innocent and vulnerable, as they are our wards in this world we live in.

Cruelty to animals and mistreatment of animals in any way at all diminishes our own role as human beings and reduces our own capacity to live ethically and sustainably.

Given the quantity of animal suffering, the extent to which they are suffering and the stupid and glutinous reasons why they are intentionally made to suffer so horribly, helping animals is the moral imperative of our time.

The 18th century saw the beginnings of our democratic system.

The 19th century abolished slavery in the developed world.

The 20th century abolished child labour, criminalised child abuse, gave women the vote and gave African Americans wider rights.

The 21st century will be the one for animal liberation.

In the days of slavery not so many decades ago people in the US honestly believed that African men do not feel pain as white men do, that African women do not experience maternal love as white women do, and so it was quite acceptable to brand men’s faces with a hot iron, and to auction off slaves’ children and send them vast distances away from their mothers.

All evidence was to the contrary of course, yet highly educated people defied their own eyes and ears and common sense and their own ability to deduce by denying the facts before them, simply because society accepted the exploitation of these races and it takes a commitment to break away from the norm, even when the norm is ugly and wrong.

Today we have abolished human slavery, at least in theory, at least we know it is wrong. But we continue to enslave all the other animal species, who if we are honest with ourselves show us clearly that they experience maternal love as we do, that if you burn them they scream as we do, that they desire freedom from shackles as we do.

Examining our treatment of animals, these odd-looking others, is vital to our own personal development as moral agents. If we feel it is asking too much of us to open our hearts and minds to animals needs and their obvious inescapable desire to be free of pain, too much to ask that they be treated as if they feel, which they do, then perhaps it is too much for us to ask others to understand us.

It is time for all moral, decent and compassionate people to express kindness to the animal nations. The ultimate kindness being to leave them in peace and refrain from exploiting them. Something we do only because somehow without thinking, suspend our dearly held belief that might does not make right.

Moral and decent and compassionate people cannot stand silent while animals are murdered for some human fleeting pleasure.

Moral and decent and compassionate people cannot be complicit in the murder of animals.

Moral and decent and compassionate people cannot support frightening animals and stealing their lives.

People need to open their hearts and minds to the possibility that the way we treat animals is an issue that goes to the very heart of who we are as individuals and as a society.

A lack of empathy for others who are not exactly like us.

It is an interesting exercise that challenges our most ingrained prejudices just as we challenge others to confront theirs.

Faced with disinterest, disdain or even outright hostility to the idea of embracing those who we are conditioned to dislike or not care about.

We see human capacity for compassion and callousness all around us, not just in our treatment of animals, but in our treatment of other humans.

Animals are treated as inanimate objects these days. Whole lives kept in cages as nothing more than living toys or ornaments.

How thoughtless we can be when we do violent things to others who we happen not to relate to or who in many cases we simply dismiss as too unimportant to consider at all.

The question is why don’t enough good people care? It’s not as if reaching out to one group takes away from reaching out to another.

Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. The capacity for suffering is the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration.

All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

Animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. Every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.

Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable.


War is a frightening thing to all living beings.

Every day millions of animals which have pledged allegiance to no flag and who have done nothing to provoke aggression, are the victims of the longest running undeclared war in human history. The war on the animal nations. They are killed just because someone is powerful enough to steal their land, run them out of their homes, take their young from them, cut them up and eat them, experiment on them, use their skins, treat them as amusements for some human fleeting pleasure.

They never can feel secure, they must creep and run.

People who try to justify mistreatment of animals by saying that they are stupid and they are dirty are using arguments that have been used historically against those that are marginalised and dismissed.

Even if we believe ourselves to be superior, we are not entitled to be bullies.

It’s true, that we don’t comprehend the other animals’ languages. It doesn’t mean they don’t have them. It is true that most humans are ignorant of other animals’ cultures. It doesn’t mean they don’t have them.

Animal behaviours and needs are quite often misunderstood or just downright dismissed.

Mistreatment isn’t right for them any more than it is right for us.

Embrace justice for all, no matter their race, or their creed, or their colour, or their gender, or their species.

Ghandi asserts that the most significant moral characteristics of a nation are its capacity for charity and that one can measure a nation’s greatness not by its achievements, its scientific advances, or its contribution to arts and literature, or by its power and influence in the world, but by its treatment of animals.

Why?

Because animals are so alien to us. They are so dissimilar in their appearance that it is hardest for us to relate to them. That is our test.

After hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans superdome, which is a giant football stadium, was used to temporarily house tens of thousands of mostly poor people who were left homeless by the floods. Conditions inside quickly deteriorated and emergency food and water rations weren’t delivered. One man appeared and said on television, “They are leaving us here to die like dogs.”

We hear that expression and the implication of it that somehow it is an appropriate fate for a dog to be abandoned without food and water but not an acceptable fate for humans.

Ironically, most animals aren’t treated like animals. Their miserable existences as meat on the hoof, beasts of burden forced to carry heavy loads, almost to the breaking point and sometimes to the breaking point, the way they are warehoused together like boxes on a shelf, their lives in cages and irons, denies them everything natural about their lives.

Treated like animals is the wrong metaphor. These animals are not treated like animals, they are treated like things, like commodities, machines, like objects. They are treated like everything but as animals.
Animals are not “what”. Their very name animal comes from the Latin word anima which means life. There are thousands of examples of animals clearly demonstrating high degrees of abstract thinking, complex communication, emotions, individuality, unique transmission of culture, and all the other characteristics, talents and abilities, that some think are exclusively human.

The average dog it has been discovered painstakingly masters 200 words of his family’s language without being taught. A mouse hears the door opening and in sheer anticipation of bad things to come, his heart starts to pound, his adrenalin levels rise and his pulse races. All these things have been measured, witnessed, studied, published.

We are sometimes afraid to be compared to the other animals, and that is a matter of vanity. Frightened people speak of the danger of anthropomorphism, attributing what they call human nature to animals. But it isn’t human nature. It’s shared nature. All animals experience emotions. To say they do not is anthropo denial. Denial that we have erected these false barriers to keep these others out.

No one has to choose between animals and humans. We are obviously all important. Similarly, the news that many elderly citizens in New Orleans were left to drown in their nursing home beds is a tragedy in itself without having to have their lives ranked against the youth or the able bodied. All are important. Our compassion is not some mean thing like a cake with only a few slices you can take from it.

Since we all inhabit the Earth, we are all earthlings. There is no sexism, no racism, no speciesism in the term earthling. It encompasses each and every one of us, warm or cold blooded, mammal, vertebrate or invertebrate, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, and human alike.

Humans, therefore, being not the only species on the planet, share this world with millions of other living creatures, as we all evolve here together. However, it is the human earthling who tends to dominate the earth, often times treating other fellow earthlings and living beings as mere objects.

This is what is meant by speciesism. By analogy with racism and sexism, the term “speciesism” is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of other species. If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.

No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that one’s suffering can be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being.

Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. In each case, the pattern is identical.

Though among the members of the human family we recognise the moral imperative of respect (every human is a somebody, not a something), morally disrespectful treatment occurs when those that stand at the power end of a power relationship treat the less powerful as though they were mere objects. The rapist does this to the victim of rape, the child molester to the child molested, the master to the slave.
In each and all such cases, humans who have power exploit those who lack it.

Might the same be true of how humans treat other animals, or other earthlings?
Undoubtedly there are differences, since humans and animals are not the same in all respects. But the question of sameness wears another face. Granted, these animals may not have all the desires we humans have; granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend; nevertheless we and they do have some of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things.

The desires for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and the avoidance of pain. These desires are shared by non human animals and human beings.

As for comprehension, like humans, many non human animals understand the world in which they live and move. Otherwise they could not survive. So beneath the many differences, there is sameness. Like us, these animals embody the mystery and wonder of consciousness. Like us, they are not only in the world, they are aware of it. Like us they are the psychological centres of a life that is uniquely there own. In these fundamental respects, humans stand “on all fours” so to speak, with hogs and cows, chickens and turkeys, elephants and quails. What these animals are due from us, how we morally out to treat them, are questions whose answer begins with the recognition of our psychological kinship with them.

Today most animals are invisible. They are non-beings because people are too self important and too ignorant to see them, except perhaps as accessories to their own greedy desires, as things.

All animals feel hungry and thirsty just as we do. When they are delighted they skip with joy just as we do. They value their family, they love their friends. They hurt like we do. Animals may come in different packages, but inside, they like us are just emotional beings. They are full of thoughts and full of feelings.

Animals are individuals like us. They may not look like us, but they are like us in all the important ways. And I wonder how many of us realise, as the British philosopher Henry Baston once said, “That they are actually other nations.” That’s how we can think of them. Other nations who have their own cultures, their own languages, their own interests just as people from other countries that we meet who may be remote to us have theirs.

Mahatma Ghandi said that Indians were invisible to the British during British rule because colonialists thought that they were so important themselves they were too ignorant to see Indians as actual people. They were non-people. What a hideous state of affairs.

If they have previously been invisible to you now start to see them because they are sharing the very same world as you and they share the very same needs and wants, they are just not as lucky as you.

It requires so little of us to respect animals enough to simply say no to using them and abusing them. We have to be careful not to rob them of their joy, of their lives, just for our own interests.

It only takes an understanding of who animals are. The realisation that they are living, feeing individuals who like us want to live free from misery and pain, and who should enjoy life and have love and be understood.

So once you know who animals are it must be out of the question to hurt them. Once we make that decision to respect the animal nations and leave them in peace a world of kind choices opens up to us.
Logged
Oscar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2009, 11:14:42 AM »

Hi orlanda - hope you'll stick around.

I agree with you on democracy, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery etc. However, you've made the error of confounding those aberrations of our culture, with a natural behaviour, hunting.

Humans have hunted and/or eaten meat throughout our history. In fact, omnivory is a large part of what made us human. The enslavement or oppression of other sexes and races and classes by contrast is a behaviour that has arisen out of our more sedentary agricultural/industrial culture. Hunting is natural for humans. Sexism and racism are not.

There are clearly differences between species, just as there are differences between races and sexes and ages. Recognising those differences is not speciesist, nor racist or sexist or ageist. It is only when those differences are used as an attempted justification of immoral or inhumane treatment that those terms can be used, in the perjorative sense.

It is clearly not specieist for one species, be it omnivore or carnivore, to view another as prey. All life requires the utilisation of other life for existence - including a cultural practice such as veganism. For prey animals, it matters not a jot whether the predator is a human or a wolf or a lion or a tiger or a pig. In fact, humans are unique in self-regulating their predation, by concepts of humaneness, animal welfare, and ethics.

If carnivory is immoral, are we then required to take action to prevent it by other species as well? Should we force the lion to lie down with the lamb?



Logged
Bellbird
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2009, 12:29:13 PM »

Great story.
The bugger was well fed on the local crops so given the earlier hardship from drought over there must be a good thing to cull them back and the meat,money you spent there in the local economy.
Must be great to track them and then the anticipation builds up.
Cheers
Logged
TOP_PREDATOR
Moderator
wildman
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243

"Living the dream"


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2009, 07:46:09 PM »

I'm sure Rob will reply on his return.

At present he is out saving the Australia outback from plagues of Feral Camels Grin

Maybe all African countries should ban hunting,as it has worked so well in Kenya Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Logged

"I have carried out my official duties as long and faithfully as i can,and for the rest I have lived in such a fashion as seemed most agreeable to me...convinced that a good day's shooting is second in point of pleasure to nothing else on earth."

Lord Warwick
orlanda
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2009, 08:14:42 PM »

-----I agree with you on democracy, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery etc. However, you've made the error of confounding those aberrations of our culture, with a natural behaviour, hunting.

Killing sentient creatures is an aberration.


----Humans have hunted and/or eaten meat throughout our history. In fact, omnivory is a large part of what made us human.

But we don’t need to, and in fact the eating of animal products is the highest cause of heart disease. It is one of the major causes of cancer. And the only source of cholesterol – a major health concern.
Dietary cholesterol is lipid sterol compound found exclusively in foods of animal origin such as dairy products, eggs, beef, pork, lamb, poultry and fish. The most concentrated sources of dietary cholesterol are liver and other organ meats, egg yolk, and shellfish. Plants contain sterol analogues of cholesterol called phytosterols.

There are nations who are predominantly vegetarian such as India. I don’t notice Vegans or Vegetarians keeling over from lack of meat.



---------The enslavement or oppression of other sexes and races and classes by contrast is a behaviour that has arisen out of our more sedentary agricultural/industrial culture. Hunting is natural for humans. Sexism and racism are not.

---------There are clearly differences between species, just as there are differences between races and sexes and ages. Recognising those differences is not speciesist, nor racist or sexist or ageist. It is only when those differences are used as an attempted justification of immoral or inhumane treatment that those terms can be used, in the perjorative sense.


Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice based on physical differences.[1] "I use the word 'speciesism'", he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species [...]. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."[2]
The term is used mostly by advocates of animal rights and veganarchism, who believe that it is irrational or morally incorrect to regard animals (which are acknowledged to be sentient[3] beings) as mere objects or property. The view is motivated by an acceptance of Darwinism and the logical upshot which suggests that humans as they are today would be just as speciesist towards their lesser evolved forms.[4] Some philosophers and scientists, however, disagree with the condemnation of speciesism, arguing that it is an acceptable position and behaviour, as a form of human supremacy.
Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both argued against the human tendency to exhibit speciesism. Regan believes that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants and the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of their being members of the supposedly superior human species.[5] Singer's philosophical arguments against speciesism are based on the principle of equal consideration of interests.


I suggest you read Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation”. I finished it a few weeks ago, and most of your statements are countered quite rationally and effectively there. I’d rather the experts counter opinions rather than rely on my poor words.

------It is clearly not specieist for one species, be it omnivore or carnivore, to view another as prey. All life requires the utilisation of other life for existence - including a cultural practice such as veganism. For prey animals, it matters not a jot whether the predator is a human or a wolf or a lion or a tiger or a pig. In fact, humans are unique in self-regulating their predation, by concepts of humaneness, animal welfare, and ethics.


-------If carnivory is immoral, are we then required to take action to prevent it by other species as well? Should we force the lion to lie down with the lamb?

Ah, these old chestnuts are answered succinctly by Peter Singer. You appear capable of trying to hold a rational argument. I suggest you read Peter Singer’s work. It will answer all these questions and more.



You will notice above that the term human supremacist is used. I would be appalled to be linked to such a term with all the connotation of white supremacy (still rife in the world) and Aryan supremacy (also rife).

We share this world with the other animal nations. There is no ground in claiming human supremacy for anything but shame.

Unlike some prey animals humans do not need to eat meat, in fact it is counteractive to our health. We have the ability to make a decision to not kill which non-human animals do not. By killing sentient beings, hunters show quite clearly they have not evolved from Neanderthalism.

Another interesting fact: If we stopped all animal farm production and put the agricultural resources toward plant material for food, the world’s food shortage would be at an end. In fact there would be a surplus.

All of these facts can be googled or you can research the data at your local University. I am a University Science Graduate with Hons and post grad qualifications. The information is out there.

In one hundred years I will be a footnote as a soldier fighting on the animals’ side and speaking for the voiceless. This is a war we will win. We are winning battles every day that 30 years ago we would lose, and we have major judicial figures and lawyers entering the fray. We are not going away. And public opinion is with us. It is a tactic to label animal rights activists as extremist or radical.

In fact in the USA a man who fed the homeless people in his neighbourhood has been labelled as one of the top ten terrorists in the USA because his work mushroomed across the country. I’ll repeat that – for feeding the homeless humans. The USA doesn’t like their homeless population.

Personally, I’d be giving him a medal. (btw – the meals were vegetarian)

If being a caring, compassionate, empathetic human being equals being a terrorist, a radical, a bleeding heart or an extremist, I have no problem with those labels.

I’d rather those labels than being called an animal murderer.

The abolition of hunting will happen. The abolition of all negative practices toward animals will happen. More and more people are seeing the moral imperative to do the right thing. In a hundred years, my descendants will recall my name with pride, while those descendants of hunters will cringe.

Go read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, or Animal Law in Australasia: A new dialogue. Edited by Peter Sankoff and Steven White. 2009

If only to make sure you don’t use the same easily countered chestnuts.
Logged
Bellbird
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2009, 09:25:21 PM »

Quote
By killing sentient beings, hunters show quite clearly they have not evolved from Neanderthalism.

So we meat eaters are your missing link. Wink
But that kinda blows a hole in the beast as you've pointed to our inherant nature being meat hunters.
So my nature to hunt is insinctive then fine stop being so prejudiced.
I don't care if you eat only plants.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 08:25:11 AM by Bellbird » Logged
orlanda
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2009, 11:50:17 AM »

Hunting is natural? Hmmm

Can someone explain what is natural about guns or weapons? I'd bet you brave macho hunters would run a mile from most of your prey if you had your 'unnatural' weapons removed. How brave would you be then? You are not brave people. You inflict violence against those that are more helpless. Is that how you get your kicks?

As for controlling ferals, please don't make me laugh.

As for those of you who say you hunt to feed your families - we're in the 21st century now, not the stone age. Try getting with the times, please. And if someone wants to argue that killing that elephant was to feed Zimbabwe people, then answer this: How much grain or other supplies could have been bought for those people with the 20K plus it cost to pay for the hunt? Seriously - you guys suck at spin.

At a meeting the other day a hunter got upset saying he felt the reaction he got when he identified himself as a hunter to people in society was that they treated him on the same level as though he was a paedophile. It's good to know that he's aware of society's feeling about hunters.

We, the animal advocates, are proud to stand up and declare ourselves kind and compassionate and empathetic toward our sentient fellow beings. I have had many of the public come up and say, "we agree with you though we did nothing. We are glad someone has the guts to stand up for what is right." The groundswell of community feeling is immense. I didn't know that until I started campaigning. Yes, people tend to be apathetic by not taking a public stance, but the vast majority are silently on the animal's side. But as our victories increase, more and more of the public are coming out of the closet and joining us.

You guys are starting to feel the pressure of public condemnation. You guys are starting to get marginalised whereas our ranks are growing.

Anyway - I'm signing off to go and talk to more intelligent, caring, compassionate people than I will ever find here. Don't cry too much when your Game Bill amendments go down.

Oscar - go do some reading - it'll be good for your soul.

Logged
Oscar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2009, 09:36:42 AM »

You disappoint me, orlanda. You come to our place and issue some challenges, yet when I question you in turn, your response is to refer me to books and Google. Surely you can do better than that. If my questions to you are indeed "easily countered chestnuts", why can't you do it?

I am a University Science Graduate with Hons and post grad qualifications.

Ditto. Doesn't mean a thing though, it's the quality of the argument and reasoning that counts, not bits of paper.

Have you read any books on the essential moral goodness of hunting, and philosophical defenses of it? Have you read hunters and writers like Ted Kerasote and David Petersen, who raise spirited defences of careful hunting?

I have read Singer. Several times. A very interesting read, and a good argument for animal welfare. Less convincing on animal liberation.

(For what its worth, I've read Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" too. Have you?)

What Singer doesn't mention, nor do you it would appear, is that no species has a right not to be prey, with all the attendant fear and pain that that brings. If I swim in the ocean, I have no right not to be eaten by a shark, nor by a lion if I walk in the Serengeti, for example.

What every species does have, is the right to be able to attempt to avoid and evade predation by the means at their disposal. Hunters recognise this, with our hunting codes of ethics and especially the codes of Fair Chase and Free Range.

It's interesting that you claim our weapons and tools to be un-natural. Are you aware of the concept of irony? As I presume you are wearing clothes (I guess made of synthetic fabrics?) while you sit in a buidling and use a computer to access the internet? And if you are vegetarian or vegan, your diet relies on far more sophisticated and powerful tools to produce and harvest it than our hand held weapons. Are you vegan, orlanda?

I do quite agree with you that an omnivorous diet can be bad for humans. But so too, you will agree, can vegeterian and vegan diets, without care and planning. Meat eating is perfectly healthy provided it is not taken to excess. The recent studies suggesting a link between red meat and cancer in the US related to red meat intakes 3-4 times the amount a NZer eats.

And the meat production systems in the US are long overdue for overhaul. The production of huge amounts of maize to in turn feed feedlot animals is inefficient and unhealthy, for us, the animals and the environment. The future is in pasture based animal production, more efficient, more humane, and healthier.

However, to produce calories from plants is still going to be responsible for the deaths of animals. Cropping instead of pasture requires annual cultivation or no-till drilling. This kills mice, rats, and ground-nesting birds. Instead of 5-10 lambs killed per hectare per year, say, cropping for cereals, pulses, legumes or especially vegetables will kill probably twice that number of sentient beings. Vegetarian or vegan - you still have blood on your hands if you eat.

And by the way - we already have more food in the world than we need. It is the distribution of it that is the problem. And for a country like NZ, with huge food surpluses, it is more efficient to ship calories in the form of animal proteins and fats (more kilojoules per kg) than in plant form. If we are to do our bit to feed the world, animal products will be the means.

Wild meat requires much less fossil fuel to harvest than obtaining the equivalent calories from vegetables and legumes - Prof David Pimental of Cornell University found that locally hunted venison requires about 52% of the fossil fuel energy of an equivalent amount of calories from potatoes, and less than 20% of the fossil fuel of soy or rice calories. Sourcing and using fossil fuel indirectly results in animal deaths, so the veggie options almost certainly have more blood on their hands, metaphorically speaking, than the hunter.

It is interesting that anti-hunters idealise themselves as the new suffragettes or emancipators. In reality, history will show that a more appropriate comparison is with the homophobes. Many homophobes cited profound academic arguments in their support, yet homosexuality is a natural human activity, even though it is practiced by a minority. Fortunately, as our civilisation evolved, we increasingly moved beyond homophobia, in statute at least. Your anti-hunting arguments ('morally wrong', 'unnatural' and 'not needed') mirror very closely those of the anti-homosexual campaigners.

The unfortunate news for you, orlanda, is that hunting is growing in popularity and participation here in NZ, and around the world. Michael Pollan in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" makes the case succinctly - a locally based diet, killed or harvested personally, is better for the body and soul than the products of industrial agriculture, plant or animal.

Have you read any of Professor Paul Shepard's writings, orlanda? He was a Human Ecologist and Philosopher, and in particular studied Pleistocene era human communities. These were forager/gatherer/hunter societies, and are the orgins of humans and humanity. It is our nature, orlanda, to hunt and to eat meat. If you choose not to, so be it. I must admit to being partial on occaision to vegetarian and vegan meals as well. Eschewing meat is the truly un-natural path, however, and so too is denying the reality of prey.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 09:58:31 PM by Oscar » Logged
Oscar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2009, 09:51:55 AM »

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership.


Unlike some prey animals humans do not need to eat meat

Can you reconcile a contradiction here, orlanda - Wild pigs eat meat, but don't need to. Is it alright for them to choose to eat meat? If so, when you argue that it is not OK for humans to choose to eat meat, aren't you being speciesist?


Regan believes that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants and the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of their being members of the supposedly superior human species.

Given you cite Darwinism, what about the Darwinian concept of kin selection? That provides a clear evolutionary reason why we should treat infant or mentally impaired humans differently from other species.


Quote
In fact in the USA a man who fed the homeless people in his neighbourhood has been labelled as one of the top ten terrorists in the USA because his work mushroomed across the country. I’ll repeat that – for feeding the homeless humans. The USA doesn’t like their homeless population.

That of course has nothing to do with omnivory, but what is this guys name?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
  Link to Calendar  
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!