Shannon, I don't really see them as being that far apart.


"So basically someone is paying to tranqualize an animal for scientific and/or research purposes and so the Vet Society can learn about the migration patterns, etc of the animals?"

I guess if you accept on theface their statement that it is strictly for research and not for commercial reasons then you could try to make an argument but when they're getting thousands of dollars from clients willing to pay to shoot these animals do you really think it can be solely managed in the interest of science? I'm sure that the needs of science will be adjusted to meet whatever demand there may be for animals to dart. It's all about money or the "scientists" wouldn't be allowing amateurs to fling dart tipped arrows at them to begin with.

"They are not drugging the animal just to score it? And the person who fires the dart is not going to make loads of money (is in fact PAYING money for this)?"

In effect is is darting them just to score it, at least from the hunters perspective. Some measurements will be taken (I'm sure whatever scoring system is used on that particular species will be measured and documented for the "hunter") a bunch of trophy pictures will be shot and a lot of back slaping will ensue. Is it really a stretch to envision that being a whitetail in those pictures and the "hunter" hoping that nobody darts a bigger deer so he can win some prize money to boot? Money is exchanging hands either way, large sums of money, and the practice has already made its way onto television.

"And these animals are not born and raised in an enclosed area?"

Actually, my understanding is that most hunting in South Africa takes place on fenced game preserves. Larger than the 1,200 acres that was mentioned earlier in this thread for sure but maybe not larger than say a good sized Texas fenced operation. I guess I'm not sure where the dividing line on fair chase vs. unethical is. Is 1,500 acres too small? How about 10,000? 20,000? 50,000?