Strict Standards: Declaration of KHttpUri::set() should be compatible with KObject::set($property, $value = NULL) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/koowa/http/uri.php on line 454

Strict Standards: Declaration of KHttpUri::get() should be compatible with KObject::get($property = NULL, $default = NULL) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/koowa/http/uri.php on line 454

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::register() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/joomla/cache/cache.php on line 19

Strict Standards: Declaration of JCacheStorage::get() should be compatible with JObject::get($property, $default = NULL) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/joomla/cache/storage.php on line 173

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::register() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/joomla/document/document.php on line 19

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/koowa/http/uri.php:454) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/templates/ja_purity_ii/libs/ja.template.helper.php on line 130
The Dark Side of the Hunting Debate

Bushdrums.com


Strict Standards: Declaration of ComNinjaHelperDefault::__call() should be compatible with KObject::__call($method, array $arguments) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/administrator/components/com_ninja/helpers/default.php on line 19

Strict Standards: Declaration of KControllerAbstract::__call() should be compatible with KObject::__call($method, array $arguments) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/koowa/controller/abstract.php on line 24

Strict Standards: Declaration of KViewTemplate::__call() should be compatible with KObject::__call($method, array $arguments) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/koowa/view/template.php on line 22

Strict Standards: Declaration of KModelAbstract::__call() should be compatible with KObject::__call($method, array $arguments) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/koowa/model/abstract.php on line 19

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::register() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/administrator/components/com_ninja/models/settings.php on line 10

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Declaration of ComNinjaboardDatabaseTableSettings::_getDefaultsFromXML() should be compatible with ComNinjaDatabaseTableSettings::_getDefaultsFromXML() in /www/htdocs/w006b358/administrator/components/com_ninjaboard/databases/tables/settings.php on line 20

Strict Standards: Declaration of ComNinjaboardDatabaseTableAssets::insert() should be compatible with KDatabaseTableAbstract::insert(KDatabaseRowInterface $row) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/administrator/components/com_ninjaboard/databases/tables/assets.php on line 41

Strict Standards: Declaration of ComNinjaboardTemplateHelperPaginator::pagination() should be compatible with ComNinjaHelperPaginator::pagination($config = Array) in /www/htdocs/w006b358/components/com_ninjaboard/templates/helpers/paginator.php on line 13

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /www/htdocs/w006b358/libraries/loader.php on line 186

The Dark Side of the Hunting Debate

Link to this post 20 Mar 07

A View to a Kill: How Safari Club Int'l Works to Weaken ESA Protections


Gerald & Buff Corse, California Academy of Science
By Michael Satchell

What weighs 21 pounds, contains 2,560 pages, and lists thousands of names and numbers? It's not the New York City telephone directory, but here's a hint: Its listings run from Addax to Zebra.

The answer is Safari Club International's three-volume compendium of trophy hunters who are immortalized in this record book for doing nothing more than killing animals-an entire alphabet of animals-to win SCI awards competitions. The catalog is a macabre scorecard detailing who shot what animal, where and when. Thousands and thousands of animals, covering more than 1,100 species, are figuratively buried between the covers here.

You can learn, for example, that in 1910 in the Sudan, Theodore Roosevelt killed a rhino whose horns measured 24 4/8 inches and 7 4/8 inches, scoring 67 1/8 points to make the former U.S. president the No.1 hunter of Northern white rhino. Or that one Marc Pechenart shot an elephant in the Central African Republic in June 1970, earning a score of 302 points for the biggest pachyderm. The animal's left tusk weighed 154 pounds and the right 148 pounds.

With its photographs of grinning hunters posing with lifeless animals and its meticulous rankings for the biggest tusks, horns, antlers, skulls and bodies, the SCI record book perfectly encapsulates what trophy hunting is all about: killing for killing's sake. The book lays bare the hunters' obsessions: a craving to shoot the largest animal, a desire to kill the most animals and rack up SCI awards, or a fetish to bring home the animal's head and hang it on the wall.

The mother of all these obsessions, though, is the awards competition. SCI members shoot prescribed lists of animals to win so-called Grand Slam and Inner Circle titles. There's the Africa Big Five, (leopard, elephant, lion, rhino, and buffalo); the North American Twenty Nine (all species of bear, bison, sheep, moose, caribou, and deer); and the Antlered Game of the Americas, among many other contests.

To complete all 29 award categories, a hunter must kill a minimum of 322 separate species and sub-species-enough to populate an entire zoo. This is an extremely expensive and lengthy task, and many SCI members take the quick and easy route. They shoot captive animals in canned hunts, both in the United States and overseas, and some engage in other unethical conduct like shooting animals over bait, from vehicles, with spotlights, or on the periphery of national parks.

Wayne Pacelle, HSUS senior vice president for communications and government affairs, captures the essence of SCI members and their motivation:

"It's a perverse and destructive subculture," he says. "Thousands of animals suffer and die for the amusement of wealthy elites who have the means to pursue any form of recreation, but choose to shoot the world's rarest and most beautiful animals. There's no societal value to the exercise, just a selfish all-consuming mentality of killing, collecting, and showing off trophies. They know the price of every animal, but the value of none."

High-Powered Rifles

It's easy to parody and criticize Safari Club International, but it's a mistake to underestimate the club's power and influence on shaping policies that are detrimental to wildlife-and beneficial to those members who stand tall over freshly killed animals in the SCI record books.

Since it was founded in 1971, the Tucson-based non-profit has grown to some 40,000 trophy collectors. More than half boast an annual income of more than $100,000 (compared to 6% of hunters nationwide). The average member owns 11 rifles, six shotguns, five handguns and a bow. Two-thirds spend about one month hunting each year, and a quarter of the members more than 50 days.

The club contributes large sums to mostly Republican candidates and, not surprisingly, has been able to ingratiate itself with various administrations, most notably the Bush Administration, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). With the help of friendly members of Congress and officials in USFWS, SCI has consistently attempted to navigate around the intent of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and import once-banned trophies of endangered and threatened wildlife. Sometimes, the club has succeeded, sometimes not.

The latest example of SCI's growing influence in Washington is the Bush Administration's initiative to "save" the world's endangered species by killing or selling them, and then using the revenues as an incentive for poor countries to improve their conservation efforts. This scheme to protect rare wildlife is a formula for disaster. It will reverse 30 years of ESA protections for hundreds of exotic creatures who are heading for, or teetering on, the brink of extinction.

The proposal, which conveniently dovetails with SCI's agenda, offers several examples of how wildlife can be exploited for profit. It suggests imports, such as wild-caught Asian elephants for circuses and zoos, Morelet's crocodile skins for luxury leather items like shoes and handbags, and Asian bonytongue tropical fish to supply the aquarium trade. American trophy hunters could shoot and import trophies of straight-horned markhor, a rare goat found in Pakistan, and then head north on a quickie expedition to nail Canadian wood bison.

These are only examples. If approved, the proposal portends open season on many disappearing species, particularly large mammals, the so-called charismatic megafauna. It would also be a huge incentive for poaching and smuggling. Imagine how much rich trophy hunters would offer China to shoot giant pandas-arguably the world's most beloved animal-if they were allowed to import their stuffed remains. Picture furriers importing the hides of endangered snow leopards to swathe the ethically challenged. And now that pet tigers have earned a bad rap, might cheetahs become the newest rage among exotic pet owners?

For three decades and under strict controls, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed only a few rare animals, such as pandas, to be brought in for scientific research and breeding. Until SCI began to push its agenda in Congress and at the Interior Department, USFWS very rarely approved the importation of endangered-species trophies. Now, the agency is proposing not only to ease those trophy import restrictions but also to allow the import of live animals for entertainment (or the pet trade) and the import of skins and hides for luxury apparel.

Such a plan goes against USFWS's historic rationale, which quite correctly notes that fostering a commercial market for disappearing wildlife will inevitably hasten its demise.

No Trickle-Down Economics

Encouraging the sale and import of heads, hides, and live animals to enhance survival efforts in the wild may sound logical-until you examine the sorry history of other purported "sustainable" wildlife-use programs. The record shows that few of the dollars trickle down to benefit either wildlife or local people in the impoverished range states because corrupt officials inevitably divert the money.

During the 1990s, in a well-intentioned-but-misguided conservation effort, the U.S. government spent more than $12 million to underwrite sustainable wildlife-use programs in Zimbabwe. The idea was to give local people the opportunity to raise money for community projects by selling hunting permits for African elephants. The program ended up subsidizing trophy hunting, and little of their trophy fees reached the villages.

USFWS's new endangered species proposal doesn't offer much hope to alter this historical course. Despite agency assurances, the plan isn't the product of careful scientific assessment or innovative thinking. It's driven, in large part, by the working relationship between the Bush Administration and SCI, and by the administration's apparent hostility toward the Endangered Species Act.

SCI's membership includes former President George Herbert Walker Bush, who has lobbied the government of Botswana on the group's behalf to lift the ban on killing the nation's dwindling lion population. What's more, President George W. Bush appointed Matthew J. Hogan, SCI's former Government Affairs Manager, as one of the two current deputy directors of USFWS-a classic example of the fox guarding the hen house. Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, in turn, has worked to weaken the ESA, from abandoning federal efforts to restore grizzlies in Idaho to undermining a key provision that allows citizens to sue the government to speed up protection of imperiled species.

Aiming High...Shooting Low

SCI got off to a shaky start during its early forays into Washington politics. In 1979, when the organization was not even a decade old, it sought government approval to circumvent the spirit of the law and import an astonishing 1,125 trophies of 40 animals on the endangered species list. They included gorillas, cheetahs, tigers, orangutans, and snow leopards.

With a straight face, SCI said its goal was "scientific research&incentive for propagation&survival of the species." There was one small problem. The trophies weren't dead yet. The prospect of permitting the wholesale slaughter of more than 1,000 rare animals was a bit too much, even for USFWS, and the request was denied.

As its lobbying became more sophisticated, SCI began pouring money into national political campaigns. Since the 1998 election cycle, it has contributed $596,696 to Republican candidates and $92,500 to Democrats. Not coincidentally, Congressional Republicans have made repeated attempts to amend and weaken the ESA, while USFWS, turning its back on decades of precedents, has proposed to allow hunters to import trophies of endangered animals killed in the wild. These import easements are critical to one of SCI's true aims.

All those pictures in the SCI record books, and in the club's glossy magazines like Safari and Hunt Forever, are a form of pornography to the blood sports crowd. Would-be big-game hunters can pore over photos of triumphant and sated trophy collectors holding up the head of a dead ungulate by its horns or standing atop the hulk of a dead elephant or posing with a dead leopard draped around his neck. But like all pornography, the image is never enough. The hunter eventually wants a taste of the real thing. And, of course, he must have a trophy to savor the experience.

As former SCI president John J. Jackson III once wrote: "A trophy of any species attests that its owner has been somewhere and done something, that he has exercised skilled persistence and discrimination in the agile feat of overcoming, outwitting, and reducing game to possession."

Trophy collectors may rhapsodize about their spiritual love for the quarry, the hunter's path to self-actualization, the thrill of the chase, the test of manhood, and other such philosophical jabberwocky. But at the end of the day, and after a $65,000 safari, the only thing that matters is hanging that head on the wall-and the rarer the animal, the better it feels.

An example: Kenneth E. Behring, who donated $100 million to have the Smithsonian memorialize him with the Behring Family Hall of Mammals on the Washington D.C. Mall, went to Kazakhstan in 1997 and paid the government enough to allow him to shoot a Kara Tau argali sheep.

The animal, even SCI acknowledges, is critically endangered; the species is listed on CITES Appendix I and can not be imported into the United States as a trophy without the help of a museum. Behring, who like all SCI members, regards himself as a conservationist, killed his Kara Tau argali when only 100 remained and shipped it to a Canadian taxidermist. The Smithsonian then petitioned USFWS for an import permit, but withdrew the request in the storm of negative publicity that followed.

But Behring isn't the only SCI member with questionable ethics. Back when Teddy Roosevelt was laying waste to Africa's wildlife, hunting may have embraced those mythic elements that SCI still loves to invoke: a Hemingway-esque mantra of danger, romance, bravery, and the thrill of slaying the beast.

On today's safari, however, the customer is coddled in luxury tent camps, replete with flush toilets, hot showers and gourmet dining. All he (or she) has to do is shell out tens of thousands of dollars, pull the trigger when instructed, and pose for the money shot. He doesn't even get blood on his hands. A professional guide stalks the target, lines up the shot, tells the client when to take it, acts as a backup shooter if the animal is wounded, and supervises the gutting, skinning and decapitation.

And that's in the wild. From South Africa to New Zealand to Texas, many of these trophy collectors shoot captive animals in canned hunts staged in fenced paddocks on game ranches, a practice the Boone and Crockett Club calls "unfair and unsportsmanlike." The animals are habituated to humans and are shot at feeding stations, salt licks and watering holes. The "spirit of fair chase," supposedly enshrined in SCI's code of ethics, is conveniently ignored.

SCI's highly flexible "fair chase" code also urges members to "comply with all game laws and demonstrate abiding respect for game, habitat and property." That admonition regularly falls on deaf ears.

In 1998, several top SCI leaders, including Behring and then-president Alfred Donau, reportedly went on a wildlife killing spree in Mozambique. According to a published report, they left animals wounded and dying and shot elephants in alleged violation of national law. Other SCI members have been convicted of killing endangered species and trying to smuggle them into the U.S.

Wealthy hunters, including SCI members, have also been caught in federal tax scams. In one celebrated case, a museum in Raleigh, North Carolina, gave trophy hunters the title of "associate curator," which helped them persuade foreign officials to grant permits to shoot rare animals. Hunters went on to donate low-value trophies to the museum and receive wildly inflated appraisals, which were then deducted from their federal taxes. In some cases, the mounts were reacquired by the donors. Before authorities busted the ring, the museum took in 1,800 specimens and valued them at a whopping $8.4 million. At SCI's 1999 annual convention, members were offered a document titled Secrets of Tax Deductible Hunting, advising them to declare their home trophy rooms as museums, call themselves curators, and "donate your record-book animal for the mouthwatering tax deduction."

Incidents like these fuel the club's negative image. Most Americans are largely ambivalent about hunting wild animals for food, but polls show strong public opposition to killing exotic animals for fun, competition, and bragging rights. To counter this perception and burnish its reputation, the club donates meat to food banks, stages "sensory safaris" where the vision-impaired can touch and feel stuffed animals, and arranges hunting for the disabled.

To Matthew Scully, author of the highly acclaimed book Dominion, such window dressing is humbug. "They practice a socially conscious sadism here," Scully writes. "Ethics at the Safari Club is ordered libertinism, like teaching cannibals to use a table napkin and not take the last portion."

Michael Satchell is a senior consultant for The HSUS.

Link to this post 21 Mar 07

Comments on the above article by fellow hunters.

"The HSUS and Wayne Pacelle are at the tip of the spear so to speak of the anti-hunting, animal rights groups. What this article tells me is that they are concerned that groups like SCI are having an impact and are in fact getting the ear of governments and others with "the facts" and their shrill rhetoric may not be as effective as it once was. Although it is easy to see the warped logic and lack of facts in a piece like this, don't take it lightly. These people are as fanatical about their position as the most extreme terrorists in the world and will stop at nothing and do and say virtually anything they believe advances their agenda. Equating hunting with pornography is an example of tactics of demonization that these folks practice daily." EB

"Words of wisdom EB. Excellent message. And yes, we should all take it very seriously. That's exactly why I joined SCI and am changing my NRA life membership to Endowment. Personally, I didn't join these organizations to promote my personal agenda or to give myself a ticket to hunt anything. I believe in our Constitution (and we are blessed to have one), the 2nd Amendment and the right and privilege to hunt. I also respect those who choose to hunt with a camera, but I do not try to ram my views down their throat by spreading any and every lie I can conceive. It's all about money. HSUS is no different. How many of their top officials work for free? How many millions of dollars world wide support their agenda? Instead of spending it on law suits and illegal terrorism, why not put it directly into wildlife conservation? Money and power: Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Link to this post 22 Mar 07

bwanamich:

I admit one reads between the lines on the article. However, I know some of it to be true. I can remember during the Behring debacle how irate everyone was with the Smithsonian for even thinking about taking in the body of that endangered animal because of a large donation.

As with any field, some of these hunters will stop at nothing to get what they want. I'm sure you've probably been offered big bucks to help someone do something shady. Being an honest person who cares about wildlife you would probably turn them down. However, the poor indigenous person would look at a bribe like that as food for his family and would be more apt to take the bribe and let the guy do what he wanted.

There is just no way at the present time to put the necessary controls on this kind of thing whether it be hunting, cropping, culling, etc. And as you can see from the lion situation in South Africa, once you let an industry start it is almost impossible to put a stop to it without causing even more frustration and hardships to those who have been making their living doing it.

Link to this post 22 Mar 07

Jan,I agree that 100% control is not achievable. But what industry can? Even the much touted non-consumptive tourism industry is flawed with the same.

One visible distinction between the two forms of wildlife utilisation is that in the photo industry, the operators are simply "visitors" to the wildlife areas. Even camps and lodges have no or very little participation in the management of the wildlife area. They pay a lease and leave the rest to the Gov body (This is different if they lease a conservancy). A hunting operator always fills the role of "landlord". Most management aspects of the area are generally under his control with supervision from the Gov. If the area "belongs" to you, you WILL do more to look after it than if you are just "renting".

Carsten explained it very well in another post when he said that so long as the operator reduces the poaching take-off of animals in his area to a point where the off-take form hunting is less than that of poaching before the intervention of hunting, then it is a better trade off.

Zimbabwe had a very controlled and accountable cropping scheme up until it was closed. There was very little margin for foul-play. Why, because the management comprised of ethical and responsible individuals.

What happened in South Africa is indeed a shame. However, it arised due to a lack of regulations to cover all aspects of the industry. This is quite normal for any industry that is still young and growing. As problems arise, they eventually get solved as it did in this case. The important thing is that regulations are ammendable so that corrections can be done. The process for such change can never be quick as it involves legislative changes which are always delayed by beaurocracy and red tape.

Link to this post 22 Mar 07

some excerps from www.africanhuntingsafaris.com regarding ehtical hunting - as far as such a thing exists.........

AFRICA BOW HUNTING SAFARI IN NAMIBIA

africa hunting namibia

Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris is a bow hunting outfitter and nationally registered bow hunting ranch. We were one of the first bow hunting ranch to offer bow hunting in Namibia and were at the forefront of Namibia bow hunting legalization, which finally gained approval in 1997. Bow hunters, familiar with the country, consider the overall conditions for bow hunting in Namibia particularly suited to their sport. Possessing some of the highest populations for plains game hunting and variety of African trophy hunting species makes it a paradise for any hunter, but climate and terrain are the features that make it so well-adapted to bow hunting. The driest months for trophy hunting Namibia are May through October and therefore are the most conducive for a bow hunting safari. Principally, plains game hunting is done from strategically positioned bow hunting blinds, ground hides and elevated stands near water holes and salt licks. Our bow hunting blinds are constructed specifically for bow hunting, they are very comfortable, roomy and you can stand up in them to bow hunt. Click here to view our bow hunting blind pictures and here to view our Africa bow hunting trophy photos. Within the bow hunting ranch vast territory there are over thirty water holes where everyday hundreds of head of plains game congregate, you will certainly see a large number of plains game and have ample opportunity for success on your plains game hunting safari. The challenge of a walk and stalk bow hunt in full camouflage may be undertaken by those wishing to test their africa bow hunting skills in Namibia’s competitive environment.

Our clients consistently leave with top quality trophies, in the 2003 trophy hunting season 4 of the top 10 trophies in Namibia were taken at Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris according to Namibia Professional Hunter Association (NAPHA). In the last decade more than 85% of our hunting trophies reach NAPHA Gold Medal standards or higher, which is why so many of our clients have returned to hunt Namibia with us again and have sent their friends.

Bow hunting for trophies in Namibia may only take place on a bow hunting ranch which is registered for this purpose with the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris meets all of the qualifications required to conduct bow hunting in Namibia. To be a bow hunting outfitter in Namibia, the hunting territory must be inspected and approved to become a nationally registered bow hunting ranch, and the outfitter must have one Professional Hunter in possession of a valid Namibia bow hunting license. Bow hunting permits for all species must be obtained by a licensed bow hunting outfitter. Please note that Namibia bow hunting safari rules dictate that each bow hunter may hunt only two animals of each species. Additionally, Namibia does not allow dangerous game hunting by bow, with the exception of Cheetah hunting. Click here for the following species to be hunted by bow, Leopard hunting, African Lion hunting, Cape Buffalo hunting, Elephant hunting, Rhino hunting or Hippo hunting.


MINIMUM EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR BOW HUNTING NAMIBIA
BIG GAME

MEDIUM GAME

SMALL GAME

Bow
Kinetic
Energy
ft/lbs
65 Arrow
Weight
grain 450 Bow
Kinetic
Energy
ft/lbs 40 Arrow
Weight
grain 400 Bow
Kinetic
Energy
ft/lbs 25 Arrow
Weight
grain 350
Greater Kudu
Warthog
Springbok
Cape Eland
Cheetah
Impala
Oryx / Gemsbok
Nyala
Blesbok
Red Hartebeest
Chacma Baboon Gray Duiker
Blue Wildebeest

MINIMUM
EQUIPMENT
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
BOW HUNTING
NAMIBIA


Steenbok
Black Wildebeest
Ostrich
Hartmann's Zebra
Caracal
Burchell's Zebra
Black-Faced Impala
Giraffe
Red Lechwe
Sable Antelope
Damara Dik-Dik
Roan Antelope
Klipspringer
Waterbuck
Black-Backed Jackal
Tsessebe
Game Birds


they even hunt cheethas.........(((


A CHEETAH HUNT
A Cheetah hunt is challenging because a Cheetah hunting territory is vast so they are constantly on the move. Even more complicating is the fact that a Cheetah only eats freshly killed meat so they don't respond to baiting as is commonly done for Leopard hunting. Suffice it to say that Cheetah hunts are mostly done on an encounter basis and some tracking can also be conducted. It does take a bit of chance to encounter them, though we have key areas such as play trees, rock formation, plains and water holes that are frequented by Cheetahs who pass through Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris territory. We have an excellent native tracker in particular at Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris who has been tracking and hunting Cheetahs with us for over 20 years who is an expert at locating them, he has even been featured on the Discovery Channel for his expertise, that’s as good as it gets, when it comes to Cheetah hunting. Needless to say, with the exceptional abilities of our trackers, we have an excellent Cheetah hunting success rate. In a typical year 10% or higher of the total number of Cheetahs hunt ed in Namibia are taken at Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris game reserve. Please note that the USA, as well as some other countries, does not permit the importation of a Cheetah hunting trophy.

The better months to hunt Cheetahs at Ozondjahe Hunting Safaris are June through November, although Cheetahs are present throughout the year. Dangerous game hunting, meaning Cheetah hunting and Leopard hunting, require a minimum of 12 hunting days and are combined with a plains game hunting safari. Should a Cheetah or Leopard be encountered on an plains game only hunt, it may be taken ONLY upon approval by the Professional Hunter and payment by the client of a special tariff of US$ 1500.00 per animal in addition to the regular Trophy Fee rate. Although Namibia does not allow dangerous game hunting by bow such as Leopard hunting, bow hunting cheetah is permitted.

Considering the challenging nature of a Cheetah hunt, we offer no guarantee. Be aware that any African hunting outfitter who offers a Cheetah hunting guarantee, should be looked upon with great skepticism.
- Edited by pippa on 22.03.2007, 22:31 -