You seem to have left out two of my very favorite safari works:
Death in the Long Grass, by Peter Hathaway Capstick, and

Safari, A Chronicle of Adventure by Bartle Bull.

Otherwise, fantastic post. And for the hunting haters, consider this: whether you personally enjoy hunting or not, the best way to ensure the continued survival of animals is to put a commercial value on them. It’s not romantic, but it does align people’s interests with the animals’. Appeals to altruism are much less reliable.

At the same time, I respect the viewpoints of others here. Let’s not bait each other and call each other names, I think this is a respectful discussion and a worthy subject. What one man considers manly is not always going to be the same as another. I also think that the concept of ‘manliness’ has become more challenging in today’s world, but that’s a challenge for us to take on.

As usual, the PC crowd thinks that they know what is best for all. They fail to recognize that hunters and outdoorsmen make great contributions to the conservation movement around the world.

Crocodile Fever: A True Story of Adventure (River of Eyes) by: Lawrence Earl

I kinda expect that my invitation will go unaccepted, if for nothing else but the fact that under five feet of water, their little silky lace panties may get wet.

Hunt hard.

Shoot straight.

Make no apologies.

If anyone has any ideas, I would love to hear them.

Not to mention that they are fantastic adventure stories. Capstick is nothing short of brilliant.

Secondly, the tracking methods and mathematical modeling currently being used by those who monitor animal populations (including elephant populations) are actually now being challenged by many environmentalists. There is work being done to refine the process and bring it into the 21st century and the bad news is that elephant populations have been grossly exaggerated for quite some time now.

First, very good post highlighting some fine literature. Great work.

Second, to echo what Brian said, the notion that safaris in foreign lands are conducted solely for the purpose of achieving a trophy-kill is incorrect. It is illegal to transport meat harvested in Africa back to America (and to many other countries, from what I understand). As a result, most–if not all–of the game killed in Africa is donated to the local citizens.

Many of the citizens who benefit from this are very poor, hard-working, under-nourished people who often lack the means to effectively hunt and kill large game on their own. Additionally, oftentimes the animals harvested on safari are “problem” animals who have either begun attacking humans, destroyed local crops (which are lifeline keeping many poor villages alive), or otherwise become a serious threat. Hunting these animals and donating their meat to the local population is a form of charity that helps sustain many needy people, and I consider that very manly.

So, spineless poachers notwithstanding, the literature referenced in this post + the adventure of going on safari = very manly, in my book.

A good way to learn about Howard Hill and his exploits is to check out the website,
http://www.howardhillarchery.com/

“Classifying safari hunting as a “terrible thing,” is interesting, but a debate for another day. What I question is such a narrow-minded avoidance of any literature that speaks of things with which you disagree or find distasteful. Should we not read books about WWII because war is a terrible thing? Because they glorify war? Is there no reason to read Mein Kamp or the Communist Manifesto if you deeply disagree with their contexts and arguments? Should we avoid any literature of the past because it may glorify attitudes and behaviors that are now deemed unacceptable? I would hope not. That would certainly eliminate a wide swath of the greatest books in history. I would hope that a man could read a wide range of things, dark things and light things, books with which he agrees and disagrees, and take the good things from those books and leave the bad. That a man could read stories of bygone safaris and be inspired to journey to Africa not with a gun, but with a camera. That a man could read a book about war and be both inspired by the stories of courage but disgusted by the violence. I would hope that such a level of maturity would not be too much to ask for among today’s men.”

There’s a difference between saying that one should be exposed to a wide variety of experiences through books (I have made my students read slaveholder speeches and Nazi writings) and holding up a particular genre as a way to vicariously participate in (what the article calls) a “great adventure.”

You could point to, say, military literature, and say that this is something from which men can learn about courage and comradeship. But if your examples were the sacking of an undefended town, or the massacre of some weaker foe, people would correctly say you’re glorifying those causes.

If, to use an earlier example, this was about dogfighting or bear-baiting, and how powerful the winning dogs are, and how their tenacity and strength should be a model to any man, would you still think that we should just take the good from that, and ignore the bad?

Or to use another example. You know who was manly? The great slave-holders of the antebellum South. They were powerful and responsible for the well-being of dozens or hundreds of dependents. Many adhered to, even based their lives on, notions of honor and gentility. But if tomorrow somebody posted an article describing how men should learn from the example of southern patriarchs, I think (or hope) your tune would be different.

“After all, there is a great deal of interesting literature that glorifies terrible things, and you can’t separate them. ”

Classifying safari hunting as a “terrible thing,” is interesting, but a debate for another day. What I question is such a narrow-minded avoidance of any literature that speaks of things with which you disagree or find distasteful. Should we not read books about WWII because war is a terrible thing? Because they glorify war? Is there no reason to read Mein Kamp or the Communist Manifesto if you deeply disagree with their contexts and arguments? Should we avoid any literature of the past because it may glorify attitudes and behaviors that are now deemed unacceptable? I would hope not. That would certainly eliminate a wide swath of the greatest books in history. I would hope that a man could read a wide range of things, dark things and light things, books with which he agrees and disagrees, and take the good things from those books and leave the bad. That a man could read stories of bygone safaris and be inspired to journey to Africa not with a gun, but with a camera. That a man could read a book about war and be both inspired by the stories of courage but disgusted by the violence. I would hope that such a level of maturity would not be too much to ask for among today’s men.

While I must obviously not be as sharp as you are, I still think that the complaints against this post are justified. After all, there is a great deal of interesting literature that glorifies terrible things, and you can’t separate them. The context is an important aspect of what they’re recommending. For example, what if we got a post about the manly art of rhetoric, and it was people making capable, reasoned arguments for some sort of evil or harmful cause (what cause I’ll leave up to the reader, to avoid any additional controversy)?

“While I greatly appreciate the passionate comments of many of you in protest to this article, I ask you to consider what shortstack and Brucifer have already pointed out, that this article is written in praise of the literature and not the sport.”

Again, I don’t know that you can keep the two apart. I mean, I imagine dogfighting or cockfighting are very exciting and in their ways manly sports, but you’d rightly be appalled at a post that used bear-baiting or something like that as its basis.