"hunting" versus "shooting." 79 



There would be no amusement to the chess-player to come up to the board and 

 find the pieces so arranged that he could at once checkmate, and in the same way it 

 gives the hunter little pleasure to walk out and find an animal waiting for his 

 shooting. 



In such a case the animal would not have had its sporting chance. If it was a 

 much-coveted head the sportsman might shoot it, but he could not return and 

 pat himself on the back for his skill. 



The exercising of the bushcraft so necessary to be successful as a hunter is the 

 enchanting part of hunting. It is a match between man and animal, each having to 

 use all his wits and keep for ever on the alert. How different is the ordinary plain- 

 shooting, where, if the animal is only fool enough to stand until you get near enough, 

 you may bag him. 



" If all the pleasure is in the tracking and stalking," the humane reader will 

 remark, " why shoot the animal at all ? " 



That I do not know. I have spent many interesting days in following tracks 

 when I have had no intention of shooting and even when there has been no chance of 

 coming up with the animal followed. At such times one just takes notes of the 

 animal's habits and ways. 



However, if one always spent long days following up animals and, after infinite 

 trouble, came up with them and then just turned round and walked home again, there 

 would seem to be something lacking. The fitting climax to the day's work would not 

 have been reached ; there would be nothing tangible to show for the pains endured. 

 If one could hunt and stalk for a camera shot that would be a different matter. Such 

 a proceeding is unfortunately seldom possible in the bush, unless the time at one's 

 disposal is practically unlimited. There is hardly ever visible more than a small portion 

 of a wary bush animal at any time, the bulk of its body being always concealed by 

 bush even when one is quite close. It almost invariably^ too, is in shadow, and 

 thus but rarely is depicted in a photograph. Moreover, in most cases it would he 

 necessary to snapshot it as quickly with the camera as one does with a rille, for 

 the animal must be approached very closely to be seen well, and at such close 

 quarters part, at least, of the hunter must be visible to the animal. The slightest 

 movement made then at this close range is almost certain to betray his presence and 

 so send the animal off in a flash. Again, even where the bush is more open, there is 

 the inferiority of range of the camera as compared with that of the rifle, and always 

 the shadow of bush and forest to contend with, for the denizens of the bush seldom 

 let the sunlight play upon them. 



One's knowledge of the appearance of the bushfolk is generally confined to the 



