Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Are we less than we were?

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Hunting >> Hunting in Africa & hunting dangerous game
Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39889
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Are we less than we were?
      #4641 - 29/10/03 07:13 PM

At the turn of the 19th century Europeans, Americans and others went to Africa for the "Great Adventure" and often to seek a fortune or a better life.

Malaria prevention was drinking gin and tonics, solar spine protectors kept the noon Sun fevers at bay, and the back up if things went wrong wasn't often there at all.

Now we have luxury safaris, medivac planes, PH's who shoot your elephant for you and fences to keep the eating beasts out of your tent.

Alright the Zimbabweans are doing their best to drive their country back to the stone age except they will this time have no animals but so far almost all clients have come and gone without any serious personal danger.

But we still have fears to go there or elsewhere.

While a lot of this is now unavoidable as hunting is now a business and an export industry for these countries I wonder how many of us would set out to say Zimbabwe or East Africa if the conditions were like they were in 1910?

Just a comment for discussion.


--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mikeh416Rigby
.450 member


Reged: 24/02/03
Posts: 6051
Loc: The beautiful Oley Valley, PA....
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #4645 - 30/10/03 12:40 AM

Interesting question. I probably would like to go, whoever I most likely couldn't afford it. The average workers earnings would preclude many of us from even attempting that sort or adventure in those days. Even the mode of travel would be daunting: traveling from the U.S. by steam ship or sailing vessel, horseback and foot once there. One would need several months, at least in order to complete the adventure.I don't think my manager would allow me to take that much time off from work . Another condition to take into consideration would be medical care. Back then, a bad scratch could lead to death due to infection due to antibiotics not being available then.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mickey
.416 member


Reged: 05/01/03
Posts: 4647
Loc: Pend Oreille Valley, Idaho
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #4648 - 30/10/03 02:55 AM

Since the cost and knowledge were very different back then the question could be put this way. If Bell, or Sutherland or Lyle asked you to accompany them for a 6 month sojourn would you go, knowing the risks involved?

I think that I would.

--------------------
Lovu Zdar
Mick

A Man of Pleasure, Enterprise, Wit and Spirit Rare Books, Big Game Hunting, English Rifles, Fishing, Explosives, Chauvinism, Insensitivity, Public Drunkenness and Sloth, Champion of Lost and Unpopular Causes.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Will
.333 member


Reged: 04/02/03
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #4651 - 30/10/03 04:03 AM

This is a complicated sort of subject that may have many answers.

Most of what I know about the early settlers is what I have read in the hunting books. Most of these authors were well educated and many were from wealthy families, which set off to seek adventure and not necessarily fortune.

Many of these settlers/adventurers died from war, disease, and animal attacks, as only a relatively few of the total population lived to write about it.

The early settlers here in the States suffered similar fates, and were much tougher than I could ever hope to be.

Also England was trying to settle many of its possessions, like British East Africa, etc. There must have been incentives, like cheap land, to get these people to go, which also may have helped to de-populate a supposedly crowned island back home.

I assume something similar occured with all you folks in Australia. You were just unlucky enough not to have any elephants or lions!

In this day and age where every genetic freak and mistake is alive and well, survival isn't too tough. I'm sure I would have been dust by now without all the anti-biotics I have taken over the years. It is not just the tough that survive now.

To be honest, though I hate to admit it, I doubt I would have been one of early adventurers without major incentives. But if my parents had been rich, I believe it would have been easier to be an adventurer, since if the situation doesn't work out, Mom and Dad could always bail me out.



--------------------
_________________________________________________
Bill Stewart

Once you have been amongst them, there is no such thing as too much gun.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
iqbal
resigned as a member


Reged: 05/02/03
Posts: 778
Loc: Karachi,Pakistan
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #4655 - 30/10/03 04:53 AM

I think most of the earlier hunters and adventurers,specially the hunters belonged to rich families.In India hunting was a sport of Nawabs,Princes and ofcourse the British.They were well equipped according to the times and every facility was available to them.Later when hunting became quite common and the average person could afford it,it became became more adventurious and difficult.When i hear of how my forefathers hunted i envy them because they did not have to rough it out as we sometimes do.In the case of Africa its different because its all arranged and as you said the animals are fenced and the PH is there to look after you,not so in other places where you have to stalk game, sleep in the open and make do with bare facilities.
All in all i'd say its not all that easy or luxurious now and i for one would like to do it as in the days of old.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
IronBuck
.300 member


Reged: 11/01/03
Posts: 237
Loc: Pittsburgh PA, USA
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: iqbal]
      #4672 - 31/10/03 02:06 PM

All good replys to a very good question. I think another thing to remember was that at the time Africa was largly unexplored by modern man. I am sure that not all of the people who went their knew exactly what they were getting into..........or maybe they would not have gone either! It was not just the animals& sickness that they needed to worry about, but also hostile tribes.

Not all of the people at the turn of century who traveled to Africa were rich. There were many who went there to make their fortunes in mining or ivory hunting.

I would like to think that I would have had the spirit to have been one of these few who went on the ultimate adventure of their times. But who knows. It's tough enough for me to get to Africa as it is LOL.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cazadero
.375 member


Reged: 17/10/11
Posts: 561
Loc: Texas
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #251152 - 28/07/14 02:58 AM

Quote:

At the turn of the 19th century Europeans, Americans and others went to Africa for the "Great Adventure" and often to seek a fortune or a better life.

Malaria prevention was drinking gin and tonics, solar spine protectors kept the noon Sun fevers at bay, and the back up if things went wrong wasn't often there at all.

Now we have luxury safaris, medivac planes, PH's who shoot your elephant for you and fences to keep the eating beasts out of your tent.

Alright the Zimbabweans are doing their best to drive their country back to the stone age except they will this time have no animals but so far almost all clients have come and gone without any serious personal danger.

But we still have fears to go there or elsewhere.

While a lot of this is now unavoidable as hunting is now a business and an export industry for these countries I wonder how many of us would set out to say Zimbabwe or East Africa if the conditions were like they were in 1910?

Just a comment for discussion.




Here's another interesting old post that unfortunately didn't generate many replies way back in 2003. It might have been interesting to see any micro-shift in opinion (if any exists) that might have presented itself between 11 years ago and now.

For comparison's sake - 11 years ago I bought a new truck that was top of the line. Among other things it was equipped with a CD player and a cassette deck. This week I bought a new truck to replace it - also well-equipped but now with blue-tooth enabled phone link, navigation system, MP3 auxiliary port, satellite radio, back up camera, remote start, tire pressure monitors, fuel consumption readout including averages and miles to empty, endless other on-demand statistical information, rear seat air conditioning, power folding mirrors, multiple power points including a 110 volt accessory power point, etc, etc, etc.

But ultimately what I wanted both times was a Ford truck with four doors and four wheel drive.

In blue.

Will I use all this extra stuff? Maybe.

Do I need it? Not really.

Is it nice to have? Of course.

Last year I read several articles by Boddington (and others) that touched on the subject of changes in Safari hunting over the years. With respect to the safety, speed and efficiency of travel and disease prevention, there is to me no question involved, though if I had nothing but time and money I'd probably be content to take the long way there (and back.)

But other things exist that the individual hunter can and maybe should hold onto with regard to the actual hunt itself. These come down to an individual's choices.

Did you use some sort of electronically-sighted weapon to kill that animal? From maybe a half mile away? Did you stalk that leopard with camera traps? Did that lion now in your den live his entire life behind a fence? Did that buffalo grow up eating alfalfa hay? Did the PH shoot your elephant? Did the tracker carry your rifle? Did you hunt from the vehicle? Did you wear the latest scent-covering camouflage or did you actually watch and work the wind while you stalked?

Are we less than we were? Maybe not. Maybe not all of us. But it's probably easier to be so. The question is one for each individual to answer to himself.

The political chaos of Zimbabwe and places like it is the modern equivalent of the tse tse fly. Hunting as in the days of old can survive for a while as long as economic development is checked, but if and when the political climate is gotten under control, industrial for-profit hunting will drive what's left to extinction.

Would I have gone back then? I'd surely like to think so.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kano
.300 member


Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 166
Loc: East Africa
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Cazadero]
      #251502 - 03/08/14 05:16 PM

From everyday observation, a significant number of people coming to Africa wouldn't even cope with the daily niggles of today's African life, and only enjoy their safari because they are sheltered from the local reality during their short stay.

A few take and can take whatever is thrown at them, and these would have fared as well 100 years ago as today.

They were few in those days, and they are few today. The difference is that now there is a whole support industry that allows people to reach far flung destinations in relative comfort and safety, whereas before you were on your own. That sorted things out quite fast...

--------------------
Philip

Edited by Kano (03/08/14 05:17 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
93mouse
.375 member


Reged: 17/08/07
Posts: 745
Loc: Slovenia
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #251504 - 03/08/14 08:51 PM

Quote:

While a lot of this is now unavoidable as hunting is now a business and an export industry for these countries I wonder how many of us would set out to say Zimbabwe or East Africa if the conditions were like they were in 1910?



It can be done today as well and I am giving it a serious thought:

http://selfguidedafrica.com/

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dumprat
.300 member


Reged: 20/02/14
Posts: 205
Loc: Vancouver island bc.
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: 93mouse]
      #251532 - 04/08/14 10:25 AM

Given time and money I would go and do quite fine I am sure.

My hunting partner and I still do trips like this into the bush, not for the same duration of course.

No sat phone, no support vehicles, no SPOT, no nothing. You don't need it.

Take a vehicles you can fix, stuff to fix tires, a rifle you can shoot with irons(if it even has a scope in my case) some food and the ability to hunt for the pot, build a fire and do some basic first aid.

No big deal, good fun too.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Dumprat]
      #251543 - 04/08/14 11:21 PM

Quote:

Given time and money I would go and do quite fine I am sure.

My hunting partner and I still do trips like this into the bush, not for the same duration of course.

No sat phone, no support vehicles, no SPOT, no nothing. You don't need it.

Take a vehicles you can fix, stuff to fix tires, a rifle you can shoot with irons(if it even has a scope in my case) some food and the ability to hunt for the pot, build a fire and do some basic first aid.

No big deal, good fun too.



What a great old post...

Agree, we have done similar trips in Alaska being dropped off for a week or so on our own as well as backpack into the Rockies for a week or two on our own. We cherish those times alone and away from the masses. BUT, agree with the earlier post, don't think the majority would be up for that. In fact, pretty sure of it.

The hunts I have had in Africa, sitting around the fire at night, sipping on a whiskey of choice and listening..can learn a lot by what is being said and seeing what is going on through the day. Watching that play out you know most of what is said at night is more dreams than fact. Think there are many who say they could do it, but few that could. Far too many have become very soft in today's world with all the modern conveniences and as such, could not handle hardship for a very prolonged period. Where some here would see this as adventure others would see it as intolerable.

Remember a sheriff I used to have lunch with once a week in YNP told me years ago. Given a rough month in the wild, 80% of the pop. would be dead in 90 days or less..that may or may not be true, but feel its not that far off..

As to 100 years ago, what a adventure that would be..and IF as others have stated, finances were available, have no doubt, those that could would still go..no doubt..

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Well_Well_Well
.333 member


Reged: 03/01/07
Posts: 305
Loc: Australia
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Ripp]
      #251607 - 06/08/14 08:09 AM

I think we are.

I, for example, would have died at a very early age but for medical advances made shortly before my birth. That said, other "advances" contributed to my poor health as an infant.

Although I have since grown into a normal adult, I represent an example of somebody who wouldn't have survived to an age where such adventures would have been feasible. Reflection of this trend can be found daily, in people who indulge in self destructive behaviour and yet are saved, if not from themselves, from being a warning to others.

The trend of opposing behaviour that forms a basic part of humanity is just one result of the "saving" of less resilient souls and will, more than anything else lead to the downfall of Homo sapiens.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dumprat
.300 member


Reged: 20/02/14
Posts: 205
Loc: Vancouver island bc.
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Well_Well_Well]
      #251610 - 06/08/14 09:03 AM

In stark contrast I would have been much better off 100 years ago, before they started putting chemicals in food.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39889
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Dumprat]
      #251613 - 06/08/14 11:06 AM

Interesting I asked that eleven years ago. I would probably be dead today if not for my medical advances from the last fifty years since I asked that question.

A hundred or more years ago, for the common man, daily life was tougher anyway. I know from farming life it was tougher then. When I think what they did with a saw, shovel, pickaxe, horse, oxen, cart, and probably a lot of men, and built canals, levee banks, cleared land etc and what we need to do the same today. What they did then with what they had, we would find impossible today. Ordinary life was also more of a chore, required more work and effort.

As Iqbal points out, for the very rich, it may not have been any more difficult at all. Hot and cold running servants or slaves. Doing whatever was needed.

For the average person they needed either to be an incredible adventurer to travel across the world for months just to get there, travelling as cheaply as possible, maybe even working their way. Or they were seeking their fortune. Or they were seeking a new life as a settler. It should be noted, that when my ancestors left Prussia in the 1830's they found life in raw and unsettled Australia easier than life at home. Lots and lots of work, but the open spaces, open and empty land for the taking meant a better life. I think where we think about does this modern convenience have blue-ray, they were thinking about food for the next day, and the next year.

The wealthy English and Europeans actually viewed Australia with distaste. It was a place of common and hard work. Not like East Africa, or an earlier time India, where luxuries existed and a good time could be had.

As a common person, and with some of the same influences as I had when younger, I know if I had been asked to accompany someone, like one of the local rich individuals who hunted tiger in India, or elephant or lion in Africa, I would definitely have gone. If it was instead, setting off on a steamer working my way there, then buying whatever coulkd be bought with whatever small amount of funds I might have and setting off to try to make a living or fortune from hunting ivory, from hunting skins, or meat for market, or what ever other opportunities one hoped to exploit, I don't know if I would have done that. I personally am a planner and need to see the chances a plan would work out. If such an opportunity looked feasible with proper contacts and chances, then yes, otherwise probably no.

As for - are we less than we were? Well if I grew up on the farm back then. Was able to be reasonably intelligent AND educated (education is a big plus today) yes I could have done it. I would have been tougher. Today probably not, if I was twenty-five again, younger and stupider, probably yes, but not today.

So the answer is YES, we are lesser than we were. But also many of us still are willing to face a challenge, so that doesn't mean we would say NO either.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39889
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #251614 - 06/08/14 11:07 AM

But for the average bubba boy client, the answer is a definite yes, we are lesser.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27003
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: NitroX]
      #251616 - 06/08/14 11:33 AM

Absolutely - the answer is yes. As a race, we've grown soft and many of those who think they are quite outdoors man, would not fair well without a stove in their tent, during a fall or spring hunts.

Every morning, Keith and I would get up and to go around to the clinet's tents and start fires in their stoves for them. Thus, they had a warm tent to get up in & get dressed - AND IT WASN'T EVEN FREEZING YET. My tent has never had a stove and I'm still using the same tent since 1984, a 12x9 cotton Eureka, w/aluminum frame - good tent - I do however like to to sit and palaver with the other guides in the cook tent until the coffee is ready - the stove does take the chill off. This, of course, after starting those stove fires, - first things first, for the 'clients'.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JabaliHunter
.400 member


Reged: 16/05/07
Posts: 1958
Loc: England
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Cazadero]
      #251660 - 07/08/14 02:40 AM

Quote:

For comparison's sake - 11 years ago I bought a new truck that was top of the line. Among other things it was equipped with a CD player and a cassette deck.


Ford were still putting cassette players in new vehicles 11 years ago? Wow!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.450 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 5062
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: DarylS]
      #251700 - 07/08/14 05:42 PM

Quote:

Absolutely - the answer is yes. As a race, we've grown soft and many of those who think they are quite outdoors man, would not fair well without a stove in their tent, during a fall or spring hunts.





Agree 100%.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cazadero
.375 member


Reged: 17/10/11
Posts: 561
Loc: Texas
Re: Are we less than we were? [Re: Rule303]
      #251869 - 10/08/14 01:50 PM

The question to me really centers on the things that are reasonably addressed.

Comfortable air travel, sat phones, malaria prevention, hot coffee in the morning, cold beer in the afternoon, why wouldn't you embrace these things?

I'm more interested in the questions regarding the manner of the actual hunt.

Unless we are all willing to spear a buffalo (like that guy in the other post) then the line has to be drawn somewhere after the invention of gunpowder, but before the inclusion of technological of commercial assists including camera's, fences, electronic devices, canned hunts, etc., otherwise then yes, we definitely are less than we were, - the thing is to remember that we don't have to be.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
0 registered and 160 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:   

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating: *****
Topic views: 4756

You rated this topic a 5.
Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved