So you think you need to own a Stopping Rifle...

[mgstucson]

What one needs to do is make an accurate first shot more than anything else in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more. If you cannot hit standing game with a kill shot every time at whatever distance you choose to shoot, with whatever load and rifle you brought for the task, you have no business hunting at all, especially not DG. That is the hunting ethos I grew up with. Maybe take up ping pong instead of hunting.

A 375 H&H in the vitals is preferable to a gut shot with a 500 Jeffery.

Again, I could not agree more. That is a false dichotomy though. There are many cartridges between 375 H&H and 500 Jeff. There are differing degrees of vital kill shots as well. Some kill under 5 minutes, some kill in 5 hours, some in 5 days. Again if you cannot make a quick, reliable, kill shot on standing game with whatever you brought for the job, there is always ping pong.

Personally, I believe it should be law in every country, including the US, that EVERY hunter, EVERY year, should have to pass an accuracy test at distance off sticks and/or off hand, with whatever rifle you use. You can only hunt with cartridges and rifle types you have tested with. No pass/ No hunt. In addition, for ALL who hunt in DG TERRITORY, whether hunting DG or not, that test should include timed hits off hand at 50 yard targets. No Pass/ No hunt. This should have to be verified by independent authority, not the paid PH or paid concessionaire. This would go a long way toward limiting the foolishness of unprepared hunters endangering themselves and others. This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt.

 

[Tex .416]

….

Personally, I believe it should be law in every country, including the US, that EVERY hunter, EVERY year, should have to pass an accuracy test at distance off sticks and/or off hand, with whatever rifle you brought. You can only hunt with cartridges you have tested with. No pass/ No hunt. In addition, for ALL who hunt in DG territory, whether hunting DG or not, that test should include timed hits off hand at 50 yard targets. No Pass/ No hunt. This should have to be verified by independent authority, not the paid PH or paid concessionaire. This would go a long way toward limiting the foolishness of unprepared hunters endangering themselves and others. This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to make the attempt.

Exactly what we do NOT need, the government having the power to restrict a citizens’ rights. Ask someone in Australia, the EU, especially GB, or even New York how things are working out for them.

 

[hoytcanon]

Personally, I believe it should be law in every country, including the US, that EVERY hunter, EVERY year, should have to pass an accuracy test at distance off sticks and/or off hand, with whatever rifle you brought. You can only hunt with cartridges you have tested with. No pass/ No hunt.

How did a Biden voter sneak on here???

 

[Red Leg]

I couldn't agree more. If you cannot hit standing game with a kill shot every time at whatever distance you choose to shoot, with whatever load and rifle you brought for the task, you have no business hunting at all, especially not DG. That is the hunting ethos I grew up with. Maybe take up ping pong instead of hunting.


Again, I could not agree more. That is a false dichotomy though. There are many cartridges between 375 H&H and 500 Jeff. There are differing degrees of vital kill shots as well. Some kill under 5 minutes, some kill in 5 hours, some in 5 days. Again if you cannot make a quick, reliable, kill shot on standing game with whatever you brought for the job, there is always ping pong.

Personally, I believe it should be law in every country, including the US, that EVERY hunter, EVERY year, should have to pass an accuracy test at distance off sticks and/or off hand, with whatever rifle you use. You can only hunt with cartridges and rifle types you have tested with. No pass/ No hunt. In addition, for ALL who hunt in DG TERRITORY, whether hunting DG or not, that test should include timed hits off hand at 50 yard targets. No Pass/ No hunt. This should have to be verified by independent authority, not the paid PH or paid concessionaire. This would go a long way toward limiting the foolishness of unprepared hunters endangering themselves and others. This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt.

Uh no.

 

[mark-hunter]

Personally, I believe it should be law in every country, including the US, that EVERY hunter, EVERY year, should have to pass an accuracy test at distance off sticks and/or off hand, with whatever rifle you use.

In some countries this is the rule.
But still, this is unrealistic to expect "globally".

When you have a hunt valued 50k - 100k, or more, I am yet to see the outfitter to decline a client who is a poor shot.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I couldn't agree more. If you cannot hit standing game with a kill shot every time at whatever distance you choose to shoot, with whatever load and rifle you brought for the task, you have no business hunting at all, especially not DG. That is the hunting ethos I grew up with. Maybe take up ping pong instead of hunting.


Again, I could not agree more. That is a false dichotomy though. There are many cartridges between 375 H&H and 500 Jeff. There are differing degrees of vital kill shots as well. Some kill under 5 minutes, some kill in 5 hours, some in 5 days. Again if you cannot make a quick, reliable, kill shot on standing game with whatever you brought for the job, there is always ping pong.

Personally, I believe it should be law in every country, including the US, that EVERY hunter, EVERY year, should have to pass an accuracy test at distance off sticks and/or off hand, with whatever rifle you use. You can only hunt with cartridges and rifle types you have tested with. No pass/ No hunt. In addition, for ALL who hunt in DG TERRITORY, whether hunting DG or not, that test should include timed hits off hand at 50 yard targets. No Pass/ No hunt. This should have to be verified by independent authority, not the paid PH or paid concessionaire. This would go a long way toward limiting the foolishness of unprepared hunters endangering themselves and others. This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt.

Oh Sir. I must lsynmy.rifle on the ground brgore.you! For surely you are the only.hunter I have ever heard of that has.such great experience in the game field and has never !missed or made a hit that required follow up! Yay, I and the rest of the mere mortals here must surely recognize such flawless ability and surrender our guns!

I've said it before. Anyone who has much experience hunting and claims to have never missed or made a less than perfect shot is a liar.

 

[mark-hunter]

Yay, I and the rest of the mere mortals here must surely recognize such flawless ability and surrender our guns!

Even professional snipers (also common mortals, and human beings) have a shot/hit ratio 6-5.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Even professional snipers (also common mortals, and human beings) have a shot/hit ratio 6-5.

Yep.

 

[mgstucson]

Bit touchy aren't we?

No one said anything about "government" being involved at all. I said "Independent authority" as opposed to the people making a profit off the hunters, because as Mark-Hunter said, none of those folks are going to turn down a poor shot with 100 grand in his hand. Maybe they shouldn't turn them down, as long as there is a PH to clean up after them. I don't know. It seems disingenuous though, to pretend concern for the health, well-being, and families of courageous and decent PH's caused by incompetent hunters who "gut shoot a Cape Buffalo", then at the same time vigorously oppose ideas that could easily limit the vast majority of such incidents. The "indepedent authority" could be The Association of Retired PH's. That way they would have a vested interest in perpetuating the hunting industry, and PH safety at the same time.

No one said anything about restricting firearm ownership. I count myself very fortunate to live in a country and a state where it is constitutionally protected, unlike those countries named above.

Now that you bring it up though, as far as I know, there is not a country in the world where hunting isn't restricted by government permit or license ALREADY. Financial requirements, age requirements, concessionaire requirements, season requirements, professional hunter/guide requirements and sometimes knowledge of hunting regulation requirements among many others. So let's not stomp the soap box and pretend government regulation isn't already strong and vigorous in the area of hunting universally around the world. In some places it is outlawed entirely. Without it, many, many species all over the world, including the US, would have been hunted to extinction already. Where is all the indignance about the prominent and pervasive existing government INTRUSION into hunting? Adding shooting competency requirement to hunting regulation seems pretty small, benign and reasonable, especially where dangerous game may be encountered, stopping rifles are needed, and escaped wounded animals could become a public safety concern.

The real rub is that a hunter competency requirement would make hunting unavailable to the incompetent wealthy, and so deprive many poor countries, and more importantly hard-working individuals, including PH's, in those countries, of millions in much-needed foreign revenue. For this reason, the present system of requiring PH's be responsible for sorting things out when they go wrong, is probably the best we can hope for, as a practical alternative. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and deny that allowing the incompetent to hunt increases risks to PH's and their families, while at the same time allowing them a way to support themselves and their families. I think this web site that strongly encourages information, ethics, and competence in hunting is a vital piece of the equation. It's complicated.

No one said anything about being perfect. PH all have to pass shooting competency requirements. Are they all deluded into thinking they are perfect? Of course not. Just because I CAN shoot 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle of a target on a practice range under perfect conditions doesn't mean things can't and don't happen in the field. Allowing 12" at 100 yards on a rifle that will shoot under a inch from the bench can make plenty of allowance for shooter error even in the test. However, if you can't put 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle at a hundred yards in 3 tries, there is a serious problem, and maybe ping pong is the game for you after all. The last statement of the post above reads:

"This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt."

Did you read that? I know English may not be the first language of everyone here, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

The outcry over the mere mention of the idea of hunter competency requirement sure is telling though. There are endless posts in every corner of this forum redundantly and vigorously decrying incompetent hunters, yet when an idea to reduce incompetent hunters comes up, it receives an immediate and visceral reaction. It kind of reminds me of the old saying:

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to get up a trip and go." It's complicated.

Fear mongering and political rhetoric are ALWAYS very poor, but extremely overused, substitutes for substantive, rational ideas or argument. I avoid these forms of speech, but I vigorously defend a person's right to use them, and trust the listener to determine the intrinsic value of each form of speech.

Freedom of speech requires acceptance there will sometime be inane and asinine comments.

Freedom to hunt requires acceptance there will be some incompetent hunters.

Firearms freedom requires acceptance that some will abuse the privilege.

Acceptance that they will exist doesn't mean we don't confront them appropriately when they are encountered.

 

[Flipper Dude]

I can appreciate that you feel the need to defend your position so passionately, but……………………………. No.

Next.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Bit touchy aren't we?

No one said anything about "government" being involved at all. I said "Independent authority" as opposed to the people making a profit off the hunters, because as Mark-Hunter said, none of those folks are going to turn down a poor shot with 100 grand in his hand. Maybe they shouldn't turn them down, as long as there is a PH to clean up after them. I don't know. It seems disingenuous though, to pretend concern for the health, well-being, and families of courageous and decent PH's caused by incompetent hunters who "gut shoot a Cape Buffalo", then at the same time vigorously oppose ideas that could easily limit the vast majority of such incidents. The "indepedent authority" could be The Association of Retired PH's. That way they would have a vested interest in perpetuating the hunting industry, and PH safety at the same time.

No one said anything about restricting firearm ownership. I count myself very fortunate to live in a country and a state where it is constitutionally protected, unlike those countries named above.

Now that you bring it up though, as far as I know, there is not a country in the world where hunting isn't restricted by government permit or license ALREADY. Financial requirements, age requirements, concessionaire requirements, season requirements, professional hunter/guide requirements and sometimes knowledge of hunting regulation requirements among many others. So let's not stomp the soap box and pretend government regulation isn't already strong and vigorous in the area of hunting universally around the world. In some places it is outlawed entirely. Without it, many, many species all over the world, including the US, would have been hunted to extinction already. Where is all the indignance about the prominent and pervasive existing government INTRUSION into hunting? Adding shooting competency requirement to hunting regulation seems pretty small, benign and reasonable, especially where dangerous game may be encountered, stopping rifles are needed, and escaped wounded animals could become a public safety concern.

The real rub is that a hunter competency requirement would make hunting unavailable to the incompetent wealthy, and so deprive many poor countries, and more importantly hard-working individuals, including PH's, in those countries, of millions in much-needed foreign revenue. For this reason, the present system of requiring PH's be responsible for sorting things out when they go wrong, is probably the best we can hope for, as a practical alternative. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and deny that allowing the incompetent to hunt increases risks to PH's and their families, while at the same time allowing them a way to support themselves and their families. I think this web site that strongly encourages information, ethics, and competence in hunting is a vital piece of the equation. It's complicated.

No one said anything about being perfect. PH all have to pass shooting competency requirements. Are they all deluded into thinking they are perfect? Of course not. Just because I CAN shoot 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle of a target on a practice range under perfect conditions doesn't mean things can't and don't happen in the field. Allowing 12" at 100 yards on a rifle that will shoot under a inch from the bench can make plenty of allowance for shooter error even in the test. However, if you can't put 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle at a hundred yards in 3 tries, there is a serious problem, and maybe ping pong is the game for you after all. The last statement of the post above reads:

"This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt."

Did you read that? I know English may not be the first language of everyone here, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

The outcry over the mere mention of the idea of hunter competency requirement sure is telling though. There are endless posts in every corner of this forum redundantly and vigorously decrying incompetent hunters, yet when an idea to reduce incompetent hunters comes up, it receives an immediate and visceral reaction. It kind of reminds me of the old saying:

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to get up a trip and go." It's complicated.

Fear mongering and political rhetoric are ALWAYS very poor, but extremely overused, substitutes for substantive, rational ideas or argument. I avoid these forms of speech, but I vigorously defend a person's right to use them, and trust the listener to determine the intrinsic value of each form of speech.

Freedom of speech requires acceptance there will sometime be inane and asinine comments.

Freedom to hunt requires acceptance there will be some incompetent hunters.

Firearms freedom requires acceptance that some will abuse the privilege.

Acceptance that they will exist doesn't mean we don't confront them appropriately when they are encountered.

"...no one said anything about the 'government' being involved at all.' And yet you wrote that you wanted to see a law passed in every country requiring the passing of of a hunter competency exam. Once you pass a law the government is involved. Of course everyone wants to see better shooting and behavior in the field, but the situation is better handled through education and social pressure. Did you even think about what you wrote before you posted it?

 

[hoytcanon]

Bit touchy aren't we?

No one said anything about "government" being involved at all. I said "Independent authority" as opposed to the people making a profit off the hunters, because as Mark-Hunter said, none of those folks are going to turn down a poor shot with 100 grand in his hand. Maybe they shouldn't turn them down, as long as there is a PH to clean up after them. I don't know. It seems disingenuous though, to pretend concern for the health, well-being, and families of courageous and decent PH's caused by incompetent hunters who "gut shoot a Cape Buffalo", then at the same time vigorously oppose ideas that could easily limit the vast majority of such incidents. The "indepedent authority" could be The Association of Retired PH's. That way they would have a vested interest in perpetuating the hunting industry, and PH safety at the same time.

No one said anything about restricting firearm ownership. I count myself very fortunate to live in a country and a state where it is constitutionally protected, unlike those countries named above.

Now that you bring it up though, as far as I know, there is not a country in the world where hunting isn't restricted by government permit or license ALREADY. Financial requirements, age requirements, concessionaire requirements, season requirements, professional hunter/guide requirements and sometimes knowledge of hunting regulation requirements among many others. So let's not stomp the soap box and pretend government regulation isn't already strong and vigorous in the area of hunting universally around the world. In some places it is outlawed entirely. Without it, many, many species all over the world, including the US, would have been hunted to extinction already. Where is all the indignance about the prominent and pervasive existing government INTRUSION into hunting? Adding shooting competency requirement to hunting regulation seems pretty small, benign and reasonable, especially where dangerous game may be encountered, stopping rifles are needed, and escaped wounded animals could become a public safety concern.

The real rub is that a hunter competency requirement would make hunting unavailable to the incompetent wealthy, and so deprive many poor countries, and more importantly hard-working individuals, including PH's, in those countries, of millions in much-needed foreign revenue. For this reason, the present system of requiring PH's be responsible for sorting things out when they go wrong, is probably the best we can hope for, as a practical alternative. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and deny that allowing the incompetent to hunt increases risks to PH's and their families, while at the same time allowing them a way to support themselves and their families. I think this web site that strongly encourages information, ethics, and competence in hunting is a vital piece of the equation. It's complicated.

No one said anything about being perfect. PH all have to pass shooting competency requirements. Are they all deluded into thinking they are perfect? Of course not. Just because I CAN shoot 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle of a target on a practice range under perfect conditions doesn't mean things can't and don't happen in the field. Allowing 12" at 100 yards on a rifle that will shoot under a inch from the bench can make plenty of allowance for shooter error even in the test. However, if you can't put 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle at a hundred yards in 3 tries, there is a serious problem, and maybe ping pong is the game for you after all. The last statement of the post above reads:

"This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt."

Did you read that? I know English may not be the first language of everyone here, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

The outcry over the mere mention of the idea of hunter competency requirement sure is telling though. There are endless posts in every corner of this forum redundantly and vigorously decrying incompetent hunters, yet when an idea to reduce incompetent hunters comes up, it receives an immediate and visceral reaction. It kind of reminds me of the old saying:

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to get up a trip and go." It's complicated.

Fear mongering and political rhetoric are ALWAYS very poor, but extremely overused, substitutes for substantive, rational ideas or argument. I avoid these forms of speech, but I vigorously defend a person's right to use them, and trust the listener to determine the intrinsic value of each form of speech.

Freedom of speech requires acceptance there will sometime be inane and asinine comments.

Freedom to hunt requires acceptance there will be some incompetent hunters.

Firearms freedom requires acceptance that some will abuse the privilege.

Acceptance that they will exist doesn't mean we don't confront them appropriately when they are encountered.

Alot of self-righteous drivel...

What do you think would happen with mandated proficiency testing? I guarantee that participation in hunting and shooting sports would be cut in less than half... moreover the uptake by young people and new shooters would be a fraction of what it is currently AND that would compound over time. Do you think your hunting and firearms heritage would continue to be upheld and protected when very few participate? Not likely... it would result in a crash in the firearms and hunting industries and the lobby's... and the will of the non-firearms people (the other Biden/Harris voters) would begin to prevail. We NEED more participation, more ownership and more industry... I wish our own camps would stop participating in their own demise.

Having said this, I happen to agree with the premise behind your asinine suggestion... namely, we should ALL take seriously our responsibility to be as proficient and ethical as possible in the application of our pursuits... particularly with hunting.

 

[Rare Breed]

I think elephant hunting is the only real justification for a “stopping” rifle.

With buffalo and cats you need to disrupt the CNS to stop a charge. Shot placement is very unforgiving. With elephant energy from a near miss can be transferred to the brain through that big ole skull to stun the elephant stopping the charge.

According to folks who have killed a lot more elephant than me, 500 grains and up seems to have a lot more effectiveness when talking about a near miss.

I’m still shooting a .500/.416. I’ve debated moving up, but I shoot my rifle really well.

I was taught by Lon Denny anything starting with a 4 was good for elephant so I feel confident in my 404 Jeffery

 

[mgstucson]

@ hoyt and doug

I suggest the decaf fellas.

 

[VertigoBE]

Bit touchy aren't we?

No one said anything about "government" being involved at all. I said "Independent authority" as opposed to the people making a profit off the hunters, because as Mark-Hunter said, none of those folks are going to turn down a poor shot with 100 grand in his hand. Maybe they shouldn't turn them down, as long as there is a PH to clean up after them. I don't know. It seems disingenuous though, to pretend concern for the health, well-being, and families of courageous and decent PH's caused by incompetent hunters who "gut shoot a Cape Buffalo", then at the same time vigorously oppose ideas that could easily limit the vast majority of such incidents. The "indepedent authority" could be The Association of Retired PH's. That way they would have a vested interest in perpetuating the hunting industry, and PH safety at the same time.

No one said anything about restricting firearm ownership. I count myself very fortunate to live in a country and a state where it is constitutionally protected, unlike those countries named above.

Now that you bring it up though, as far as I know, there is not a country in the world where hunting isn't restricted by government permit or license ALREADY. Financial requirements, age requirements, concessionaire requirements, season requirements, professional hunter/guide requirements and sometimes knowledge of hunting regulation requirements among many others. So let's not stomp the soap box and pretend government regulation isn't already strong and vigorous in the area of hunting universally around the world. In some places it is outlawed entirely. Without it, many, many species all over the world, including the US, would have been hunted to extinction already. Where is all the indignance about the prominent and pervasive existing government INTRUSION into hunting? Adding shooting competency requirement to hunting regulation seems pretty small, benign and reasonable, especially where dangerous game may be encountered, stopping rifles are needed, and escaped wounded animals could become a public safety concern.

The real rub is that a hunter competency requirement would make hunting unavailable to the incompetent wealthy, and so deprive many poor countries, and more importantly hard-working individuals, including PH's, in those countries, of millions in much-needed foreign revenue. For this reason, the present system of requiring PH's be responsible for sorting things out when they go wrong, is probably the best we can hope for, as a practical alternative. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and deny that allowing the incompetent to hunt increases risks to PH's and their families, while at the same time allowing them a way to support themselves and their families. I think this web site that strongly encourages information, ethics, and competence in hunting is a vital piece of the equation. It's complicated.

No one said anything about being perfect. PH all have to pass shooting competency requirements. Are they all deluded into thinking they are perfect? Of course not. Just because I CAN shoot 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle of a target on a practice range under perfect conditions doesn't mean things can't and don't happen in the field. Allowing 12" at 100 yards on a rifle that will shoot under a inch from the bench can make plenty of allowance for shooter error even in the test. However, if you can't put 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle at a hundred yards in 3 tries, there is a serious problem, and maybe ping pong is the game for you after all. The last statement of the post above reads:

"This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt."

Did you read that? I know English may not be the first language of everyone here, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

The outcry over the mere mention of the idea of hunter competency requirement sure is telling though. There are endless posts in every corner of this forum redundantly and vigorously decrying incompetent hunters, yet when an idea to reduce incompetent hunters comes up, it receives an immediate and visceral reaction. It kind of reminds me of the old saying:

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to get up a trip and go." It's complicated.

Fear mongering and political rhetoric are ALWAYS very poor, but extremely overused, substitutes for substantive, rational ideas or argument. I avoid these forms of speech, but I vigorously defend a person's right to use them, and trust the listener to determine the intrinsic value of each form of speech.

Freedom of speech requires acceptance there will sometime be inane and asinine comments.

Freedom to hunt requires acceptance there will be some incompetent hunters.

Firearms freedom requires acceptance that some will abuse the privilege.

Acceptance that they will exist doesn't mean we don't confront them appropriately when they are encountered.

How about rather just instilling a sense of personal responsibility to be competent, instead of third party organisations that can then twist requirements into exclusion.

 

[grand veneur]

We can discuss the topic controversial, but in principle no one should go hunting with rifles they cannot handle. In my countries, people who want to be hunters have to take a practical shooting test as part of the general test to get the hunter permits. In some European countries, you have thereafter to take a shooting test every year in order to keep your hunting license and at nowadays in Germany, everyone who wants to take part in a driven hunt must prove that he has practiced with his rifle on a facility designed for this purpose. The hunting authorities regulate all this. In all cases all must remain under the control of hunters, otherwise the door is open to everything that seeks an opportunity to hinder the hunt or even to prohibited it.

The topic is about hunting in Africa with big bore rifles. I hunted in Africa almost exclusively with rifles of bigger calibers, not to play the old big white hunter with his big bore rifle, but because I believe in the better effectiveness of these kind of rifles. That's why I know that it's not that easy to master all of these rifles well, but as far as a test is concerned to check who has mastered it or not, I can hardly imagine something like that in practice. Such a test would have to be taken in every country before you can go hunting. It cannot be ruled out that it would lead to a considerable loss of clients, which is not exactly in the interest of many of these countries and certainly not of the local hunting industry. The current procedure before the hunt should theoretically be sufficient because a shooting test usually takes place in every hunting camp before the hunt. It should be checked whether the rifle of the client is well regulated, but also the ability of the shooter and how he controls his rifle. That's why ultimately the PH is the person who would have to decide who can it, must be assisted, should not do it and better have to use a borrowed rifle of a smaller caliber,.. and so on. Certainly not easy for a PH, even towards his employer the outfitter. I don't know whether client management is part of the training of a PH, but perhaps something could be done in this sector to maintain order in mass hunting tourism in Africa and the various devices and toy's that are brought for hunting purposes.

 

[CZDiesel]

We can discuss the topic controversial, but in principle no one should go hunting with rifles they cannot handle. In my countries, people who want to be hunters have to take a practical shooting test as part of the general test to get the hunter permits. In some European countries, you have thereafter to take a shooting test every year in order to keep your hunting license and at nowadays in Germany, everyone who wants to take part in a driven hunt must prove that he has practiced with his rifle on a facility designed for this purpose. The hunting authorities regulate all this. In all cases all must remain under the control of hunters, otherwise the door is open to everything that seeks an opportunity to hinder the hunt or even to prohibited it.

The topic is about hunting in Africa with big bore rifles. I hunted in Africa almost exclusively with rifles of bigger calibers, not to play the old big white hunter with his big bore rifle, but because I believe in the better effectiveness of these kind of rifles. That's why I know that it's not that easy to master all of these rifles well, but as far as a test is concerned to check who has mastered it or not, I can hardly imagine something like that in practice. Such a test would have to be taken in every country before you can go hunting. It cannot be ruled out that it would lead to a considerable loss of clients, which is not exactly in the interest of many of these countries and certainly not of the local hunting industry. The current procedure before the hunt should theoretically be sufficient because a shooting test usually takes place in every hunting camp before the hunt. It should be checked whether the rifle of the client is well regulated, but also the ability of the shooter and how he controls his rifle. That's why ultimately the PH is the person who would have to decide who can it, must be assisted, should not do it and better have to use a borrowed rifle of a smaller caliber,.. and so on. Certainly not easy for a PH, even towards his employer the outfitter. I don't know whether client management is part of the training of a PH, but perhaps something could be done in this sector to maintain order in mass hunting tourism in Africa and the various devices and toy's that are brought for hunting purposes.

And quite frankly the outfitter is not going to turn down a paying client because that is how they make a living! Aand that is specifically why the PH carries a backup rifle for when the client can’t get it done!
Now I obviously agree that the client should be accustomed to his rifle and have spent good quality time with it before the hunt but I think more importantly the client should be in good shape for the hunt.
I believe someone who is out of shape or has an undisclosed disability puts the PH at more risk then one who can’t handle his 470 Double very well…
JMO

 

[Odinsraven]

Does anyone really need anything more that a 6.5mm?

**Heavy Sarcasm**

But only creed. You have to keep the creed

 

[CZDiesel]

But only creed. You have to keep the creed

You mean manbun lol

 

[Challer]

Bit touchy aren't we?

No one said anything about "government" being involved at all. I said "Independent authority" as opposed to the people making a profit off the hunters, because as Mark-Hunter said, none of those folks are going to turn down a poor shot with 100 grand in his hand. Maybe they shouldn't turn them down, as long as there is a PH to clean up after them. I don't know. It seems disingenuous though, to pretend concern for the health, well-being, and families of courageous and decent PH's caused by incompetent hunters who "gut shoot a Cape Buffalo", then at the same time vigorously oppose ideas that could easily limit the vast majority of such incidents. The "indepedent authority" could be The Association of Retired PH's. That way they would have a vested interest in perpetuating the hunting industry, and PH safety at the same time.

No one said anything about restricting firearm ownership. I count myself very fortunate to live in a country and a state where it is constitutionally protected, unlike those countries named above.

Now that you bring it up though, as far as I know, there is not a country in the world where hunting isn't restricted by government permit or license ALREADY. Financial requirements, age requirements, concessionaire requirements, season requirements, professional hunter/guide requirements and sometimes knowledge of hunting regulation requirements among many others. So let's not stomp the soap box and pretend government regulation isn't already strong and vigorous in the area of hunting universally around the world. In some places it is outlawed entirely. Without it, many, many species all over the world, including the US, would have been hunted to extinction already. Where is all the indignance about the prominent and pervasive existing government INTRUSION into hunting? Adding shooting competency requirement to hunting regulation seems pretty small, benign and reasonable, especially where dangerous game may be encountered, stopping rifles are needed, and escaped wounded animals could become a public safety concern.

The real rub is that a hunter competency requirement would make hunting unavailable to the incompetent wealthy, and so deprive many poor countries, and more importantly hard-working individuals, including PH's, in those countries, of millions in much-needed foreign revenue. For this reason, the present system of requiring PH's be responsible for sorting things out when they go wrong, is probably the best we can hope for, as a practical alternative. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and deny that allowing the incompetent to hunt increases risks to PH's and their families, while at the same time allowing them a way to support themselves and their families. I think this web site that strongly encourages information, ethics, and competence in hunting is a vital piece of the equation. It's complicated.

No one said anything about being perfect. PH all have to pass shooting competency requirements. Are they all deluded into thinking they are perfect? Of course not. Just because I CAN shoot 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle of a target on a practice range under perfect conditions doesn't mean things can't and don't happen in the field. Allowing 12" at 100 yards on a rifle that will shoot under a inch from the bench can make plenty of allowance for shooter error even in the test. However, if you can't put 5 out of 5 in a 12" circle at a hundred yards in 3 tries, there is a serious problem, and maybe ping pong is the game for you after all. The last statement of the post above reads:

"This of course would not guarantee they could do the same under field conditions, but it should be the minimum required to legally make the attempt."

Did you read that? I know English may not be the first language of everyone here, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

The outcry over the mere mention of the idea of hunter competency requirement sure is telling though. There are endless posts in every corner of this forum redundantly and vigorously decrying incompetent hunters, yet when an idea to reduce incompetent hunters comes up, it receives an immediate and visceral reaction. It kind of reminds me of the old saying:

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to get up a trip and go." It's complicated.

Fear mongering and political rhetoric are ALWAYS very poor, but extremely overused, substitutes for substantive, rational ideas or argument. I avoid these forms of speech, but I vigorously defend a person's right to use them, and trust the listener to determine the intrinsic value of each form of speech.

Freedom of speech requires acceptance there will sometime be inane and asinine comments.

Freedom to hunt requires acceptance there will be some incompetent hunters.

Firearms freedom requires acceptance that some will abuse the privilege.

Acceptance that they will exist doesn't mean we don't confront them appropriately when they are encountered.

As much a system would be run like the DMV.

That said, I wish more people and more ranges had a running deer/pig setup. Loads of fun, not good for ego.