Certainly I should say that a man charged from fifty yards or so

would have little chance for a second shot, provided he missed
the first. A hit seemed, in my experience, to the animal, by

sheer force of impact, long enough to permit me to throw in
another cartridge. A lioness thus took four frontal bullets

starting at about sixty yards. An initial miss would probably
have permitted her to close.

Here, as can be seen, is a great source of danger to a flurried
or nervousbeginner. He does not want that lion to get an inch

nearer; he fires at too long a range, misses, and is killed or
mauled before he can reload. This happened precisely so to two

young friends of MacMillan. They were armed with double-rifles,
let them off hastily as the beast started at them from two

hundred yards, and never got another chance. If they had
possessed the experience to have waited until the lion had come

within fifty yards they would have had the almost certainty of
four barrels at close range. Though I have seen a lion missed

clean well inside those limits.
>From such performances are so-called lion accidents built. During

my stay in Africa I heard of six white men being killed by lions,
and a number of others mauled. As far as possible I tried to

determine the facts of each case. In every instance the trouble
followed either foolishness or loss of nerve. I believe I should

be quite safe in saying that from identically the same
circumstances any of the good lion men-Tarleton, Lord Delamere,

the Hills, and others-would have extricated themselves unharmed.
This does not mean that accidents may not happen. Rifles jam, but

generally because of flurried manipulation! One may unexpectedly
meet the lion at too close quarters; a foot may slip, or a

cartridge prove defective. So may one fall downstairs or bump
one's head in the dark. Sufficient forethought and alertness and

readiness would go far in either case to prevent bad results.
The wounded beast, of course, offers the most interesting problem

to the lion hunter. If it sees the hunter, it is likely to charge
him at once. If hit while making off, however, it is more apt to

take cover. Then one must summon all his good sense and nerve to
get it out. No rules can be given for this; nor am I trying to

write a text book for lion hunters. Any good lion hunter knows a
lot more about it than I do. But always a man must keep in mind

three things: that a lion can hide in cover so short that it
seems to the novice as though a jack-rabbit would find scant

concealment there; that he charges like lightning, and that he
can spring about fifteen feet. This spring, coming unexpectedly

from an unseen beast, is about impossible to avoid. Sheer luck
may land a fatal shot; but even then the lion will probably do

his damage before he dies. The rush from a short distance a good
quick shot ought to be able to cope with.

Therefore the wise hunter assures himself of at least twenty
feet-preferably more-of neutral zone all about him. No matter

how long it takes, he determines absolutely that the lion is not
within that distance. The rest is alertness and quickness.

As I have said, the amount of cover necessary to conceal a lion
is astonishingly small. He can flatten himself out surprisingly;

and his tawny colour blends so well with the brown grasses that
he is practically invisible. A practised man does not, of course,

look for lions at all. He is after unusual small patches,
especially the black ear tips or the black of the mane. Once

guessed at, it is interesting to see how quickly the hitherto
unsuspected animal sketches itself out in the cover.

I should, before passing on to another aspect of the matter,
mention the dangerous poisons carried by the lion's claws. Often

men have died from the most trivial surface wounds. The grooves
of the claws carry putrefying meat from the kills. Every sensible

man in a lion country carries a small syringe, and either
permanganate or carbolic. And those mild little remedies he uses

full strength!
The great and overwhelmingadvantage is of course with the

hunter. He possesses as deadly a weapon: and that weapon will
kill at a distance. This is proper, I think. There are more lions

than hunters; and, from our point of view, the man is more
important than the beast. The game is not too hazardous. By that

I mean that, barring sheer accident, a man is sure to come out
all right provided he does accurately the right thing. In other

words, it is a dangerous game of skill, but it does not possess
the blind danger of a forest in a hurricane, say. Furthermore, it

is a game that no man need play unless he wants to. In the lion
country he may go about his business-daytime business-as though

he were home at the farm.
Such being the case, may I be pardoned for intruding one of my

own small ethical ideas at this point, with the full realization
that it depends upon an entirely personal point of view. As far

as my own case goes, I consider it poor sportsmanship ever to
refuse a lion-chance merely because the advantages are not all in

my favour. After all, lion hunting is on a different plane from
ordinary shooting: it is a challenge to war, a deliberate seeking

for mortalcombat. Is it not just a little shameful to pot old
felis leo at long range, in the open, near his kill, and wherever

we have him at an advantage-nine times, and then to back out
because that advantage is for once not so marked? I have so often

heard the phrase, "I let him (or them) alone. It was not good
enough," meaning that the game looked a little risky.

Do not misunderstand. I am not advising that you bull ahead into
the long grass, or that alone you open fire on a half dozen lions

in easy range. Kind providence endowed you with strategy, and
certainly you should never go in where there is no show for you

to use your weaponeffectively. But occasionally the odds will be
against you and you will be called upon to take more or less of a

chance. I do not think it is quite square to quit playing merely
because for once your opponent has been dealt the better cards.

If here are too many of them see if you cannot manoeuvre them; if
the grass is long, try every means in your power to get them out.

Stay with them. If finally you fail, you will at least have the
satisfaction of knowing that circumstances alone have defeated

you. If you do not like that sort of a game, stay out of it
entirely.

XII. MORE LIONS
Nor do the last remarks of the preceding chapter mean that you

shall not have your trophy in peace. Perhaps excitement and a
slight doubt as to whether or not you are going to survive do not

appeal to you; but nevertheless you would like a lion skin or so.
By all means shoot one lion, or two, or three in the safest

fashion you can. But after that you ought to play the game.
The surest way to get a lion is to kill a zebra, cut holes in

him, fill the holes with strychnine, and come back next morning.
This method is absolutely safe.

The next safest way is to follow the quarry with a pack of
especially trained dogs. The lion is so busy and nervous over

those dogs that you can walk up and shoot him in the ear. This
method has the excitement of riding and following, the joy of a

grand and noisy row, and the fun of seeing a good dog-fight. The
same effect can be got chasing wart-hogs, hyenas, jackals-or

jack-rabbits. The objection is that it wastes a noble beast in an
inferior game. My personal opinion is that no man is justified in

following with dogs any large animal that can be captured with
reasonable certainty without them. The sport of coursing is

another matter; but that is quite the same in essence whatever
the size of the quarry. If you want to kill a lion or so quite

safely, and at the same time enjoy a glorious and exciting gallop
with lots of accompanying row, by all means follow the sport with

hounds. But having killed one or two by that method, quit. Do not
go on and clean up the country. You can do it. Poison and hounds