Maybe the article is poorly written and Nitro got the crux of it?

Maybe the leopard #'s are down and the higher success rate of hound hunting is the issue, not "fairness" in the sense that using hounds is unethical?

Of course, on that score the article seems to be clear, but who knows.

Somewhat related, here in Idaho, all lion killed must be tagged and when a certain number of females are taken in any given Unit, the season can be suspended in order to preserve the population.

Interestingly, lion numbers are reported to have declined in the last ten years in some Units. There is some mystery about why, but the killing of cubs in dens by wolves and the driving off of kills by wolves {leading to starvation} are two factors thought to be a part of it. When Washington State banned hound hunting and baiting for lion and bear, many hunters moved to our state or began hunting here. It may be, like in Namibia, that this increase in hunting cost some numbers also, but the Game Department insists that their quota system prevents overharvest. So why cannot Namibia do similarly? Limit take, not method?

As for which is 'easier', Stand or Hound Hunting. Tough question! As a deer hunter, I've spent a ton of time in a stand in very uncomfortable conditions. As a bear hunter, I've put allot of miles under my wheels and boots following dogs in very tough country. Both have their challenges and both can be very frustrating...and rewarding! Stand or the Chase; a tough question indeed!

My point is; if hunters want to reduce harvest of leopard that is a legitimate management decision but they can do so without disparaging a harvest method and the sport itself.