Self cateringWednesday, May 19, 2004
The Large African Predator Project – Progress & Guidance To Participants
By H O de Waal, University of the Free State
African Indaba carried several references to the African Large Predator Research Unit (ALPRU) at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa. In an article (AI #1,3 - “Measuring large African predators”) ALPRU stated its objective to establish a database for among others the African lion (Panthera leo). Professional and visiting hunters, outfitters and scientists were invited to participate in this project.
This issue of African Indaba is pursuing the topic further with a view to provide some guidance on the measuring procedures as well as feedback on the progress thus far.
Background on the Project: a growing concern was expressed in some quarters that trophy quality of African lions is declining. Therefore, ALPRU initiated this project through which hunters and scientists could co-operate in collecting reliable data of trophy quality, area, habitat and prey availability. This data can then be evaluated and among others be integrated into game management plans.
The standardized procedures of ALPRU to measure the body mass and dimensions of large African predators have been de-signed to measure specimens and record data collected from dead or immobilized animals and will assist in measuring all vari-ables on hunted large African predators. Scientists will use the same procedures to collect data on immobilised animals across the continent. These procedures are now available in *.pdf format on ALPRU's Web site. Each pro-cedure contains very specific instructions that are easy to follow. If you are still unsure of how to do it, contact HO de Waal & Sarel van der Merwe for more infor-mation and guidance. Be it as it may, you are welcome to pop us a note/message/letter or e-mail to show your interest.
It should not be too difficult to perform these chores, namely to weigh and measure the animals. We can assure you that the anatomy of these animals will fascinate and impress you if nothing else while you measure them! Collecting biological samples are just as simple! ALPRU only require a sample of hair for DNA analysis to accompany the physical data set. The hair is plucked between thumb and forefinger from the skin at the base of the tail. The hair must still contain its follicles - that is the roots in layman's terms. The hair sample is then placed in a paper envelope; the envelope is inserted in a small plastic bag or a pillbox to keep it dry and stored in a cool place or refrigerator. Clearly mark the container with the corresponding identifying info reported on the ALPRU Field Data Sheet. Once ALPRU has been informed about the number and detail of hair samples the necessary arrange-ments and quarantine procedures for export/import of pathology specimens will be issued. Contact ALPRU timely in advance for more detail.
You may still ask why this new initiative? During discussions it became evident that techniques to capture and record mor-phometric data from hunted animals in Africa are either non-specific, inadequate or non-existent. Hence, valuable data that could serve as justification for sustainable use and management of wildlife are lost to science and conservation efforts, especially for large African predators. It seems that the measuring of large animals is perceived to be difficult and for that reason, or simply because it is not regarded as necessary or a priority by profes-sional and visiting hunters, very few authenticated measurements are available to science. The need for greater co-operation be-tween science and the hunting fraternity, specifically to "…recognize their obligations towards age-old traditions of hunting and more recent needs for scientific based conservation activities” has previously been stated eloquently by the Editor of African Indaba.
The specific procedures and the ALPRU Field Data Sheet have been developed to suit all large African predators. Although a male lion has been used as example, the ALPRU procedures have been tested successfully with several species such as im-mobilised leopard (Panthera pardus) and cheetah (Acinonyx juba-tus), as well as dead black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), caracal (Caracal caracal) and Cape fox (Vulpes chama). Thus far ALPRU have received requests for info and procedures on detail from within South Africa, but also from Namibia, Botswana, Zam-bia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania to measure legally hunted lion and leopard.
In exchange for the effort in co-operating with ALPRU, sa-fari outfitters and professional hunters will be provided with previously unknown detailed statistics of their trophies and a Certificate of Appreciation for Participating in a Scientific Endeavour issued by ALPRU. Check also African Lion Work-ing Group (ALWG) for further information on the African Lion
Article courtesy African Indaba volume 2
African Indaba carried several references to the African Large Predator Research Unit (ALPRU) at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa. In an article (AI #1,3 - “Measuring large African predators”) ALPRU stated its objective to establish a database for among others the African lion (Panthera leo). Professional and visiting hunters, outfitters and scientists were invited to participate in this project.
This issue of African Indaba is pursuing the topic further with a view to provide some guidance on the measuring procedures as well as feedback on the progress thus far.
Background on the Project: a growing concern was expressed in some quarters that trophy quality of African lions is declining. Therefore, ALPRU initiated this project through which hunters and scientists could co-operate in collecting reliable data of trophy quality, area, habitat and prey availability. This data can then be evaluated and among others be integrated into game management plans.
The standardized procedures of ALPRU to measure the body mass and dimensions of large African predators have been de-signed to measure specimens and record data collected from dead or immobilized animals and will assist in measuring all vari-ables on hunted large African predators. Scientists will use the same procedures to collect data on immobilised animals across the continent. These procedures are now available in *.pdf format on ALPRU's Web site. Each pro-cedure contains very specific instructions that are easy to follow. If you are still unsure of how to do it, contact HO de Waal & Sarel van der Merwe for more infor-mation and guidance. Be it as it may, you are welcome to pop us a note/message/letter or e-mail to show your interest.
It should not be too difficult to perform these chores, namely to weigh and measure the animals. We can assure you that the anatomy of these animals will fascinate and impress you if nothing else while you measure them! Collecting biological samples are just as simple! ALPRU only require a sample of hair for DNA analysis to accompany the physical data set. The hair is plucked between thumb and forefinger from the skin at the base of the tail. The hair must still contain its follicles - that is the roots in layman's terms. The hair sample is then placed in a paper envelope; the envelope is inserted in a small plastic bag or a pillbox to keep it dry and stored in a cool place or refrigerator. Clearly mark the container with the corresponding identifying info reported on the ALPRU Field Data Sheet. Once ALPRU has been informed about the number and detail of hair samples the necessary arrange-ments and quarantine procedures for export/import of pathology specimens will be issued. Contact ALPRU timely in advance for more detail.
You may still ask why this new initiative? During discussions it became evident that techniques to capture and record mor-phometric data from hunted animals in Africa are either non-specific, inadequate or non-existent. Hence, valuable data that could serve as justification for sustainable use and management of wildlife are lost to science and conservation efforts, especially for large African predators. It seems that the measuring of large animals is perceived to be difficult and for that reason, or simply because it is not regarded as necessary or a priority by profes-sional and visiting hunters, very few authenticated measurements are available to science. The need for greater co-operation be-tween science and the hunting fraternity, specifically to "…recognize their obligations towards age-old traditions of hunting and more recent needs for scientific based conservation activities” has previously been stated eloquently by the Editor of African Indaba.
The specific procedures and the ALPRU Field Data Sheet have been developed to suit all large African predators. Although a male lion has been used as example, the ALPRU procedures have been tested successfully with several species such as im-mobilised leopard (Panthera pardus) and cheetah (Acinonyx juba-tus), as well as dead black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), caracal (Caracal caracal) and Cape fox (Vulpes chama). Thus far ALPRU have received requests for info and procedures on detail from within South Africa, but also from Namibia, Botswana, Zam-bia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania to measure legally hunted lion and leopard.
In exchange for the effort in co-operating with ALPRU, sa-fari outfitters and professional hunters will be provided with previously unknown detailed statistics of their trophies and a Certificate of Appreciation for Participating in a Scientific Endeavour issued by ALPRU. Check also African Lion Work-ing Group (ALWG) for further information on the African Lion
Article courtesy African Indaba volume 2
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Hunting behind high fences
Editorial Comment by Gerhard R Damm - courtesy Africa Indaba
Boone & Crockett Club – the universally respected North American hunting and conservation organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt and recognized for its stringent Fair Chase defi-nitions and the concomitant hunting ethics and morals – has tack-led, as B&C President Robert Model said in his president’s mes-sage in the Club Magazine “Fair Chase” Spring Issue 2004 – the so-called high fence issue. Model challenged all B&C members to participate in a policy formulating exercise to develop a sensitive and workable solution. In Model’s words, the challenge centers on “to recognize what composes appropriate management within high fenced areas and what is and is not fair chase hunting”.
B & C realizes that in North America there are more and more legally established “high fenced areas”. In Southern Africa this trend has started already several decades ago in South Africa, and has spread to Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. The important issue on hand – and we in Africa know about this from painful experiences – is how hunting takes place (or should take place) within those fenced areas.
We have been bombarded for some years with criticism for the so-called “canned hunts” (I still prefer to say canned killing or shooting, since even the thought of it makes my hunter’s soul recoil in horror) and more recently the issue of “put & take” has justifiably gained momentum. I have written frequently – and not only in hunting magazines – about it. Therefore I am encouraged that an American organization like Boone & Crockett Club tackles the matter in a very serious way. Last not least, most of the visit-ing hunters going on safari in Africa come from the United States – and if such a respected association like B & C develops a credi-ble solution it might very well be applicable in Africa as well, re-spectively the African professional hunting associations could use it as a blue print to develop acceptable universal policies together with the international hunting associations.
I am impressed by the democratic and pluralistic approach of B&C and the courage to involve all members in the effort to find a solution. The club recognizes that the deliberations will provoke debate and even controversy, but that the inescapable realities require decisive actions!
Africa will closely watch the discussion at B & C and it is more than likely that we will use the expertise of some B & C members to assist us in solving a few of the fair chase related problems on our continent.
Many American hunters look at the one African safari as a unique achievement of a livelong dream, others come back to Africa whenever personal economics make it possible. These hunters expect in Africa a quality hunting experience.
Great clubs like B & C have created the foundations for such quality hunting experience in North America. Their principles are based on valuable traditions, but at the same time consider the necessity of change in an ever changing world.
Change is a difficult process there and here. The challenge is that we use our combined knowledge and expertise to come to conclusions which serve at the same time the furthering of biodi-versity conservation objectives, the sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of biodiversity AND the local rural popu-lation, the preservation of hunting and the public acceptance of the contributions modern trophy hunters make to conservation.
SCI has also recognized the importance of the issue with the recent press release dealing with the SCI Board’s policy on fenced wildlife operations (see separate article in this issue). The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CIC has already put “Best practices in Trophy Hunting in Africa” high on its African agenda and the professional hunting organizations in Af-rica have tackled the problems repeatedly over the past years.
The end result of a future combined effort could be a funda-mental guideline for safari hunting within and outside fenced areas in Africa.
Some years ago the burning issue of fair chase hunting within and outside fenced areas had been tackled already by a select group of prominent African and American hunters. These efforts resulted at that time in a statement which read:
Every sport hunter shall pursue an animal only by engaging in fair chase of the quarry. Fair chase is defined as pursuit of a free ranging animal or enclosed ranging animal possessed of the natural behavioral inclination to escape from the hunter and be fully free to do so. A sport hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual of a wild sustainable population, located in an area that meets both the spatial (territory and home range) and tem-poral (food, breeding and basic needs) re-quirements of the population of which that in-dividual is a member. Sport hunted animals should, wherever possible, be sustained within an ecologically functional system.
Said animal is to be hunted without artificial light source, or motorized mode of transport and in an area that does not by human design concentrate animals for a specific purpose or at a specific time, such as artificial water-holes, salt licks or feeding stations. No ethical hunter whilst sport hunting shall take female animals with dependant young.
In my opinion this statement does already incorporate most – if not all – basic requirements covering hunting behind and outside fences. The statement also addresses concerns voiced by a num-ber of people in various discussions I had. Most of these concerns evolve around the issue “what is actually the difference of shoot-ing a canned lion, since ‘put and take’ shooting involves also spe-cies like certain antelopes and especially white rhino?”
I want to make my point of view again absolutely clear – and I know that I am not standing alone on this issue! The important point which distinguishes hunting from mere shooting must be the uncertainty of the outcome of the hunting activity. Those “guaran-teed hunts” which some callous outfitters and agents offer (see page 16 – News from Africa) and in which so-called hunters par-ticipate have nothing to do with hunting. The often used argu-ments by proponents of these killing excursions “that killing a canned animal actually serves conservation since it protects the wild populations”, “the ethics and morals of an activity cannot be prescribed” and “what’s the difference between breeding cattle for slaughter and breeding lions for being shot” are unscrupulous and fact-twisting.
Unfortunately the public and the media regularly mix hunting and canned shooting to the detriment of all true hunter-conservationists.
The core issue in the above statement is clearly “A sport hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual of a wild sustainable population, located in an area that meets both the spatial (territory and home range) and temporal (food, breeding and basic needs) requirements of the population of which that individual is a member”. Of essential importance are the under-lined words.
Looking at the high fence issue in combination with fair chase, one can clearly deduce that any form of “put & take shooting” (i. e. when an animal is released on a property irrespective of size for the sole purpose of being shot as soon as possible after release) and the even more perverted form of “canned lion shooting” (when the lion – often enough an aged zoo or circus lion imported from Europe – is sometimes released only hours before its being killed) have nothing in common with hunting and neither do they have any conservation benefit. They have also nothing to do with the livestock industry, since an animal destined for slaughter is killed by professionals under very controlled conditions.
Some may argue that it is a form of free enterprise and per-sonal choice – and there I concur, as long as the perpetuators do not call themselves hunters and/or conservationists. If a govern-ment deems it fit to curtail such activities (as a draft legislation in South Africa for large carnivores suggests), these proponents of free enterprise should not complain, since a modern welfare state has the right and obligation to subject unbridled free enterprise to certain restrictions!
The age-old traditions of hunting, the objectives of the sus-tainable use of natural resources, the Africa-specific objectives of poverty relief, as well as the challenges of biodiversity conserva-tion and wildlife management on finite (i.e. fenced) and open ar-eas require that the organized hunting community around the globe takes stock and develops a clear vision for the future. Open and necessarily controversial discussions are essential to analyze problem areas and to find solutions. An inclusive and honest in-formation and media policy is as necessary as good public rela-tion work. I sincerely hope that the Boone & Crockett initiative will focus our attention again on this important issue and that all hunt-ers worldwide see the necessity to join forces.
Sincerely,
Gerhard R Damm
Boone & Crockett Club – the universally respected North American hunting and conservation organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt and recognized for its stringent Fair Chase defi-nitions and the concomitant hunting ethics and morals – has tack-led, as B&C President Robert Model said in his president’s mes-sage in the Club Magazine “Fair Chase” Spring Issue 2004 – the so-called high fence issue. Model challenged all B&C members to participate in a policy formulating exercise to develop a sensitive and workable solution. In Model’s words, the challenge centers on “to recognize what composes appropriate management within high fenced areas and what is and is not fair chase hunting”.
B & C realizes that in North America there are more and more legally established “high fenced areas”. In Southern Africa this trend has started already several decades ago in South Africa, and has spread to Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. The important issue on hand – and we in Africa know about this from painful experiences – is how hunting takes place (or should take place) within those fenced areas.
We have been bombarded for some years with criticism for the so-called “canned hunts” (I still prefer to say canned killing or shooting, since even the thought of it makes my hunter’s soul recoil in horror) and more recently the issue of “put & take” has justifiably gained momentum. I have written frequently – and not only in hunting magazines – about it. Therefore I am encouraged that an American organization like Boone & Crockett Club tackles the matter in a very serious way. Last not least, most of the visit-ing hunters going on safari in Africa come from the United States – and if such a respected association like B & C develops a credi-ble solution it might very well be applicable in Africa as well, re-spectively the African professional hunting associations could use it as a blue print to develop acceptable universal policies together with the international hunting associations.
I am impressed by the democratic and pluralistic approach of B&C and the courage to involve all members in the effort to find a solution. The club recognizes that the deliberations will provoke debate and even controversy, but that the inescapable realities require decisive actions!
Africa will closely watch the discussion at B & C and it is more than likely that we will use the expertise of some B & C members to assist us in solving a few of the fair chase related problems on our continent.
Many American hunters look at the one African safari as a unique achievement of a livelong dream, others come back to Africa whenever personal economics make it possible. These hunters expect in Africa a quality hunting experience.
Great clubs like B & C have created the foundations for such quality hunting experience in North America. Their principles are based on valuable traditions, but at the same time consider the necessity of change in an ever changing world.
Change is a difficult process there and here. The challenge is that we use our combined knowledge and expertise to come to conclusions which serve at the same time the furthering of biodi-versity conservation objectives, the sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of biodiversity AND the local rural popu-lation, the preservation of hunting and the public acceptance of the contributions modern trophy hunters make to conservation.
SCI has also recognized the importance of the issue with the recent press release dealing with the SCI Board’s policy on fenced wildlife operations (see separate article in this issue). The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CIC has already put “Best practices in Trophy Hunting in Africa” high on its African agenda and the professional hunting organizations in Af-rica have tackled the problems repeatedly over the past years.
The end result of a future combined effort could be a funda-mental guideline for safari hunting within and outside fenced areas in Africa.
Some years ago the burning issue of fair chase hunting within and outside fenced areas had been tackled already by a select group of prominent African and American hunters. These efforts resulted at that time in a statement which read:
Every sport hunter shall pursue an animal only by engaging in fair chase of the quarry. Fair chase is defined as pursuit of a free ranging animal or enclosed ranging animal possessed of the natural behavioral inclination to escape from the hunter and be fully free to do so. A sport hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual of a wild sustainable population, located in an area that meets both the spatial (territory and home range) and tem-poral (food, breeding and basic needs) re-quirements of the population of which that in-dividual is a member. Sport hunted animals should, wherever possible, be sustained within an ecologically functional system.
Said animal is to be hunted without artificial light source, or motorized mode of transport and in an area that does not by human design concentrate animals for a specific purpose or at a specific time, such as artificial water-holes, salt licks or feeding stations. No ethical hunter whilst sport hunting shall take female animals with dependant young.
In my opinion this statement does already incorporate most – if not all – basic requirements covering hunting behind and outside fences. The statement also addresses concerns voiced by a num-ber of people in various discussions I had. Most of these concerns evolve around the issue “what is actually the difference of shoot-ing a canned lion, since ‘put and take’ shooting involves also spe-cies like certain antelopes and especially white rhino?”
I want to make my point of view again absolutely clear – and I know that I am not standing alone on this issue! The important point which distinguishes hunting from mere shooting must be the uncertainty of the outcome of the hunting activity. Those “guaran-teed hunts” which some callous outfitters and agents offer (see page 16 – News from Africa) and in which so-called hunters par-ticipate have nothing to do with hunting. The often used argu-ments by proponents of these killing excursions “that killing a canned animal actually serves conservation since it protects the wild populations”, “the ethics and morals of an activity cannot be prescribed” and “what’s the difference between breeding cattle for slaughter and breeding lions for being shot” are unscrupulous and fact-twisting.
Unfortunately the public and the media regularly mix hunting and canned shooting to the detriment of all true hunter-conservationists.
The core issue in the above statement is clearly “A sport hunted animal should exist as a naturally interacting individual of a wild sustainable population, located in an area that meets both the spatial (territory and home range) and temporal (food, breeding and basic needs) requirements of the population of which that individual is a member”. Of essential importance are the under-lined words.
Looking at the high fence issue in combination with fair chase, one can clearly deduce that any form of “put & take shooting” (i. e. when an animal is released on a property irrespective of size for the sole purpose of being shot as soon as possible after release) and the even more perverted form of “canned lion shooting” (when the lion – often enough an aged zoo or circus lion imported from Europe – is sometimes released only hours before its being killed) have nothing in common with hunting and neither do they have any conservation benefit. They have also nothing to do with the livestock industry, since an animal destined for slaughter is killed by professionals under very controlled conditions.
Some may argue that it is a form of free enterprise and per-sonal choice – and there I concur, as long as the perpetuators do not call themselves hunters and/or conservationists. If a govern-ment deems it fit to curtail such activities (as a draft legislation in South Africa for large carnivores suggests), these proponents of free enterprise should not complain, since a modern welfare state has the right and obligation to subject unbridled free enterprise to certain restrictions!
The age-old traditions of hunting, the objectives of the sus-tainable use of natural resources, the Africa-specific objectives of poverty relief, as well as the challenges of biodiversity conserva-tion and wildlife management on finite (i.e. fenced) and open ar-eas require that the organized hunting community around the globe takes stock and develops a clear vision for the future. Open and necessarily controversial discussions are essential to analyze problem areas and to find solutions. An inclusive and honest in-formation and media policy is as necessary as good public rela-tion work. I sincerely hope that the Boone & Crockett initiative will focus our attention again on this important issue and that all hunt-ers worldwide see the necessity to join forces.
Sincerely,
Gerhard R Damm
Friday, December 19, 2003
First time African bow hunters: Beginners package
First time hunters - introductory offer to African bow hunting - 2004
$ 2,200-00/person all inclusive
Min 2 max 4 hunters 6 nights ***
2/4 X Hunters : 1 X PH
$2,200-00 /person
ALL INCLUSIVE
The above price includes day fees and the following species:
Female Kudu
1 Warthog (sow or young boar)
Female Impala
2 Warthogs " FREE" should time allow (sows or young boars)
The package is designed for the beginner who wants to experience bow hunting but can't afford the normal trophy prices. If an animal is not taken for any reason then there will be a credit of 40% of the trophy list price.
**Note: 6 Days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Please visit our web site for the terms and conditions, what these packages include and exclude.
$ 2,200-00/person all inclusive
Min 2 max 4 hunters 6 nights ***
2/4 X Hunters : 1 X PH
$2,200-00 /person
ALL INCLUSIVE
The above price includes day fees and the following species:
Female Kudu
1 Warthog (sow or young boar)
Female Impala
2 Warthogs " FREE" should time allow (sows or young boars)
The package is designed for the beginner who wants to experience bow hunting but can't afford the normal trophy prices. If an animal is not taken for any reason then there will be a credit of 40% of the trophy list price.
**Note: 6 Days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Please visit our web site for the terms and conditions, what these packages include and exclude.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Last minute hunting products at sportman's guide
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
ONCE-OFF OFFER TO BOW HUNTERS ONLY
Valid for 2004 - first come, first serve basis only.
1 Hunter, 6 Days** (1:1)
$6,170-00 ALL INCLUSIVE
Sable (33 inch - problem animal)
Warthog
Impala
**Note: 6days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Terms and conditions as stipulated on the web site
For details visit Africa Travel Mart
Monday, December 15, 2003
Beginners bow hunting package - 2004
$ 2,200-00/person all inclusive
Min 2 max 4 hunters 6 nights ***
2/4 X Hunters : 1 X PH
$2,200-00 /person
ALL INCLUSIVE
The above price includes day fees and the following species:
Female Kudu
1 Warthog (sow or young boar)
Female Impala
2 Warthogs " FREE" should time allow (sows or young boars)
The package is designed for the beginner who wants to experience bow hunting but can't afford the normal trophy prices. If an animal is not taken for any reason then there will be a credit of 40% of the trophy list price.
**Note: 6 Days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Please visit our web site for the terms and conditions, what these packages include and exclude.
$ 2,200-00/person all inclusive
Min 2 max 4 hunters 6 nights ***
2/4 X Hunters : 1 X PH
$2,200-00 /person
ALL INCLUSIVE
The above price includes day fees and the following species:
Female Kudu
1 Warthog (sow or young boar)
Female Impala
2 Warthogs " FREE" should time allow (sows or young boars)
The package is designed for the beginner who wants to experience bow hunting but can't afford the normal trophy prices. If an animal is not taken for any reason then there will be a credit of 40% of the trophy list price.
**Note: 6 Days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Please visit our web site for the terms and conditions, what these packages include and exclude.
Sunday, December 07, 2003
Beginners bow hunting package - 2004
$ 2,200-00/person all inclusive
Min 2 max 4 hunters 6 nights ***
2/4 X Hunters : 1 X PH
$2,200-00 /person
ALL INCLUSIVE
The above price includes day fees and the following species:
Female Kudu
1 Warthog (sow or young boar)
Female Impala
2 Warthogs " FREE" should time allow (sows or young boars)
The package is designed for the beginner who wants to experience bow hunting but can't afford the normal trophy prices. If an animal is not taken for any reason then there will be a credit of 40% of the trophy list price.
**Note: 6 Days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Please visit our web site for the terms and conditions, what these packages include and exclude.
$ 2,200-00/person all inclusive
Min 2 max 4 hunters 6 nights ***
2/4 X Hunters : 1 X PH
$2,200-00 /person
ALL INCLUSIVE
The above price includes day fees and the following species:
Female Kudu
1 Warthog (sow or young boar)
Female Impala
2 Warthogs " FREE" should time allow (sows or young boars)
The package is designed for the beginner who wants to experience bow hunting but can't afford the normal trophy prices. If an animal is not taken for any reason then there will be a credit of 40% of the trophy list price.
**Note: 6 Days = 6 nights and 5 hunting days.
Please visit our web site for the terms and conditions, what these packages include and exclude.
