OK guys,

Over the past week or so, spurred on by the latest Mark Sullivan bashfests, there has been much discussion on the actual technique of hunting dangerous game. Some, like Saeed, prefer to remove all the danger element and snipe buffalo with a scoped 375 from 100 yards or more, often resulting in a one shot kill by the time you walk up on the downed animal. Others, like myself, prefer to get up close, often in thick bush, and take them on with an open sighted big bore, possibly a double rifle. It has been suggested that this method is endangering the hunting party, even foolishly in some opinions.

Put simply, IMO, hunting DG at 100 yards or more is nothing more than plains game hunting and if one is going to do it in that fashion, why not just stick to impala and warthogs as they are much cheaper and offer a smaller target to boot. Discussing this back and forth, one side beating up on the other has not advanced the discussion very far. As Cal put the actual data forward concerning the number of Sullivan's charges and shots fired in an attempt to graphically present facts for the forum's review, I have attempted to do the same here.

I am putting forth two buffalo hunt video clips. In the first, the buff is sniped at 100 yards or more with a scoped 375. Yes it is a cow, but there were several very nice bulls in the herd that could have been taken if remaining on quota so the hunt would have been identical. The only reason I took this buff in the manner depicted is that we were on a late season hunt, cleaning up the last of the quota in Makuti, and were scheduled to travel to Dande to hunt buff bulls and sable once this cow was taken. In the second, the buff is hunted the way I like to do it. I've posted this one before but felt it shows a good contrast in style from the first.

Please take the time to view both. They are short video clips. Forgive my nervousness in the first video as it was exactly the second day I had ever had a camera shoved into my face while on a hunt! After viewing the two clips, please take the time to vote on which method you prefer, and do consider that a buffalo hunt today is running upwards of $15,000 with the new cost structure in Zim. Which method provides you with the value for your dollar? Let the chips fall where they may! Enjoy:

Video A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...UxI&feature=youtu.be

Video B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzo-37MjN5E

Question:
Do you prefer the Dangerous Game hunting technique depicted in video A or Video B?

Choices:
Video A
Video B
Both
Neither

 

Todd,

Great footage, thank you for the link.

I voted both.

How far you shoot an animal does not a hunt make.

How hard you have chased an animal does not a hunt make.

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him.

We have had occasions where we have chased buffalo for days, and never managed to get a shot.

We have had occasions where we followed buffalo, and the only chance we got for a shot is a long one.

The secret is to achieve what YOU want from the hunt.

I voted "B", but I'm afraid that your two videos, and video in general, cannot capture the huge differences in feel and flavour that these two styles of hunt represent. By constantly zooming in and out, changing the focal length and thus the perspective of the image (in other words: doing exactly what they are supposed to do!) the videographers strive to produce the best image at all times. This tends to "even out" the apparent distance to the target. I'll bet that the buff in A was much further away than she appeared in the video, while the bull in B was 'way closer! I agree with your contention re: close vs. far, but it's tough to make a really convincing argument for it on video.

I think PH`s are like conducters in a symphony.Richard did a fine job of setting up the shot or creating the perfect opportunity.I think the one with Blake was rushed and that is what caused the long follow-up.

I voted for B. For me that is what DG hunting is all about. When you get in close you have to be so much more carefull. One little mistake, a change in the wind, will send them running off. There seemes to be a certian distance, in my case it is about 25 yards, when I can litteraly feel the presents of the animal, It's almost palpable. My heart is pounding, my palms are sweating, and every sound , and smell seems to be amplified. That is what seperates DG hunting from other hunting, and that is what brings mr back.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I think PH`s are like conducters in a symphony.Richard did a find job of setting up the shot or creating the perfect opportunity.I think the one with Blake was rushed and that is what caused the long follow-up.

Thus being exactly the point George. The long sniped shot gives one all the time in the world to pick and choose when the shot is taken and on a usually unaware animal with no adrenaline going which often puts it down with a single shot. It might as well have been an impala! The up close in the thick stuff approach, especially when the animal has been alerted to your presence, forces you to think and act quickly before the animal flees, or possibly in rare instances fights. Your comment shows that you've missed the point entirely! Because he has his adrenaline going due to being surprised at close range, multiple shots and pursuit is often required. I'll take option B any day and will never do option A again unless there is a pressing reason to do so. In this instance there was such a pressing reason, that being that buff bulls and sable awaited us in Dande and we were not leaving Makuti until this cow was taken as it was the very last animal on quota for the year. The follow-up on Video B was something Blake and I enjoyed every second of!! I can only hope my future buffalo hunts offer as much excitement!!

Saeed,

I can't say that I disagree with your statement that sometimes we take what the hunt gives us. At least not 100% as I've described the reason I chose to go to the the scoped 375 in this instance. BUT, if the Dande quota had not been calling, Richard, Blake, and I would have preferred to do it a bit differently. Specifically, if time wasn't ticking with other more pressing items at hand, we would have let the heard continue to mill about, not showing our presence, and simply continued to follow them, perhaps for a few days as you described, in an attempt to get close enough to use the double 500NE. And should we have failed to do so in the time allotted, I would have gone home without the trophy but the memory of a hunt well conducted. In fact, that is exactly what happened later in this hunt once we arrived in Dande. I took the sable on day 4 but we spent the next 6 days crawling on hands and knees and doing the butt scoot in thick cover attempting to close the distance with a Dugga Boy for the double rifle. We were very close to pulling it off on numerous occasions. I had an opportunity on day 5 but turned it down as the bull was on the small side of size and we had 5.5 days remaining with no additional quota available. But it didn't happen. I left Dande without a bull but damn if Rich and I didn't have one hell of a good time mixing it up with those buff! When I think back on the safari, I don't think of the buff I turned down nor do I think about the fact that I didn't connect. What comes to mind is all of those great stalks we did, twice being interrupted by lions. So yes sir, I understand what you say when you state that we sometimes take what the hunt gives us, but when possible, which is most of the time, I prefer to, as shootaway said, conduct the tune to my way of enjoyment.

Venda Axe,



One additional comment here folks. TO EACH HIS OWN!! Not for a second do I profess to tell you how you must conduct your hunt. Not at all. However you enjoy hunting, so be it and we should all be thankful for the opportunity to hunt. Furthermore, we must continue to support each other's right to do so. I'm simply attempting to add to the discussion and stating my preference for DG hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

Great footage, thank you for the link.

I voted both.

How far you shoot an animal does not a hunt make.

How hard you have chased an animal does not a hunt make.

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him.

We have had occasions where we have chased buffalo for days, and never managed to get a shot.

We have had occasions where we followed buffalo, and the only chance we got for a shot is a long one.

The secret is to achieve what YOU want from the hunt.

If I had to write my thoughts on this subject I could not improve on what Saeed has written.

Mark

A 50" bull in open country where one can't get closer than 100 yards....is going down! No shame in that if it's all that is offered.

I don't know about those hunts but I can tell you one thing for sure. That hunter in both videos was so ugly, they should take away his SAG card.


I've done both and they both types offer enjoyment and satisfaction but I much prefer up close and personal with an iron sighted double.

The last one I killed with a scoped .375 just didn't give me the feeling of accomplishment that my others killed with an iron sighted double did. personal preferences being what they are of course...

While I prefer to hunt in close and sneak, I am not against taking the shot that has presented itself at further ranges. I chose both. To pass up a 45 - 50" bull because I couldn't get within 25 yards isn't going to happen with me. Saeed put it very nicely.

I voted "both".

I have a grand total of one buffalo to my name and it was shot at 110 yards.

During the course of the hunt, we (Thierry Labat and I) had several close encounters with buffalo (30-40 yards) but there wasn't a shooter bull in the in-close buffalo groups. So while we didn't shoot one at close range, we certainly could have. I definitely got to experience some up close and personal encounters.

On the buffalo I shot, we tracked the buffalo for quite a ways (couple miles probably) and saw them at about 300 yards standing in the shade of a tree with not much cover between us. We did a lot of crab-walking followed by a final 100 yards of belly crawling to get as close as we could and took the shot at 110 yards.

I felt like we worked hard for the buffalo and we certainly got as close as we could considering the circumstances and I sure as hell didn't feel cheated.

Too many variables to say I'd rather shoot one close or prefer to "snipe" one as it all depends on the particular situation IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

Great footage, thank you for the link.

I voted both.

How far you shoot an animal does not a hunt make.

How hard you have chased an animal does not a hunt make.

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him.

We have had occasions where we have chased buffalo for days, and never managed to get a shot.

We have had occasions where we followed buffalo, and the only chance we got for a shot is a long one.

The secret is to achieve what YOU want from the hunt.

This perspective is exactly why I find ARF such an inviting place on the web. Thank you for that Saeed.

Me: I'm 43 years old, in reasonably good athletic shape, possessed of a will to drive and succeed in the face of challenges. I personally enjoy the pursuit of game - chasing them over hill and dale and pushing my body to the limit.

I'd rather get up close and personal with game, even if that means I get busted on a stalk.

And yet I also understand the value of hunting from a blind, of long range hunting shots. Sometimes Diana just doesn't offer the hunter a great shot...or the perfect trophy. Sometimes it's a small, whackingly odd critter that makes people think three times about "what kind of person is this hunter". Invariably there's a story involved about that trophy...

Saeed, you nailed it on the head: the hunt is whatever YOU the Hunter chooses to make of it. That choice and attitude is also something very likely to change over time as well.

I understand both shots, however I prefer using the double rifle and not a scope any more.

Todd, fine shooting.

Mike

I want to try and redirect this discussion just a bit as the actual intent is being missed a little. This is turning into a "do you take advantage of whatever is offered" slant instead of a discussion of do you avoid all elements of "danger" by taking a stand off shot at DG, or do you actually even expose yourself to "danger" at all when choosing to hunt up close and personal. I've posted this thread in response specifically to the discussions of "danger" that were going on over the past several days that were spawned by the latest Mark Sullivan DVD release. I'm hoping to frame this discussion in those terms and how it relates to the previous threads. Certainly, an opportunity at an exceptional animal would be snapped up by most. That judgement call isn't what I was attempting to present.

Specifically, over the past several days in those threads, some had made comments along the lines that up close and personal hunting of dangerous game is foolishly exposing one's self and the hunting party to unnecessary "danger". Saeed started a thread asking if anyone purposefully exposed themselves to "danger" for the purpose of "danger" itself. My response was that up close and personal hunting of DG has an element of POTENTIAL danger but it's the excitement that I'm after, not the "danger" itself. So, what I was attempting to portray here is that Video B, while certainly exciting, does not strike me as foolishly dangerous. Others may disagree and decide that it isn't for them at all.

So, leaving the 50" buffalo at 100 yards out of the equation, what say you? For example, neither of these animals were exceptional "trophies" from the standpoint of measurements. The experience of the two were drastically different however. I do know for a fact that Video A does not have to be accepted because it's all that was presented, unless as previously stated other factors are present such as getting it done to move to another area for a more desired animal hunt, or that exceptional 50" buffalo is standing there at a distance. The main point being I don't believe Video B was realistically more "dangerous" than video A.

Having only done the first one, but WISHING I could do it like the second one, I voted for both. Why? I'll take it anyway I can. Now had I the opportunity to hunt as many of you do, No way I'd EVER do it using the first method. j

Todd:

I voted for both as they were two totally different scenarios, the first being a mixed herd in conditions that did not offer much cover and where the target was a cow; the second, which offered cover and involved two ninjas, also gave you a better chance at closing in to a shooting distance favorable to the .500

That was an expensive buffalo though - but definitely a more exhilarating encounter than the first.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
I don't know about those hunts but I can tell you one thing for sure. That hunter in both videos was so ugly, they should take away his SAG card.


I've done both and they both types offer enjoyment and satisfaction but I much prefer up close and personal with an iron sighted double.

The last one I killed with a scoped .375 just didn't give me the feeling of accomplishment that my others killed with an iron sighted double did. personal preferences being what they are of course...

SS,

Agree!! But I don't know about that ugly hunter comment!! Must be an April Fool's thing!

Both.

I picked A, because it was quick and humane, especially when hunting for lion bait. Hunt B - also a hunt for lion bait - was unethical and inhumane, resulting in unnecessary suffering. Certainly, they could wait to find something that they didn't have to shoot through the thick bush, wherein the chances of significant bullet deflection were very high resulting in a wounded animal.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

Great footage, thank you for the link.

I voted both.

How far you shoot an animal does not a hunt make.

How hard you have chased an animal does not a hunt make.

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him.

We have had occasions where we have chased buffalo for days, and never managed to get a shot.

We have had occasions where we followed buffalo, and the only chance we got for a shot is a long one.

The secret is to achieve what YOU want from the hunt.

I'm afraid I must disagree on some of these comments. One does not "have to accept whatever the hunt gives you." One should always be certain the hunt is proceeding ethically and that the animal will be killed in the most humane fashion. We should always respect our quarry and consider them in the hunt. Also, it is not just what "you want" from the hunt - one must consider the entire circumstances, which includes not only the hunter but also the animal(s), the locals, and the region.

I voted "Neither". With a good scoped bolt gun, there would have been no need for so many follow-up shots :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

Great footage, thank you for the link.

I voted both.

How far you shoot an animal does not a hunt make.

How hard you have chased an animal does not a hunt make.

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him.

We have had occasions where we have chased buffalo for days, and never managed to get a shot.

We have had occasions where we followed buffalo, and the only chance we got for a shot is a long one.

The secret is to achieve what YOU want from the hunt.

Let me repost saeed's exact words here......"I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him."

Did you really just say that???? hahahahahahahahahaha

to this point i wasn't sure if I liked saeed. However when one sees a buff from the truck and jumps out and clobbers it that tells me one thing! Hes a REAL hunter. What I mean by that is that he hunts for the thrill of the hunt. He's looking for that fabled, "BIG ONE", that only exists in his mind. TV hunters don't get it, the grammar Nazi's on this site don't get it, and people hunting simply for bragging rights don't get it. I truly have been turned off by this site. People brag about simply being better than anyone else. I sure as heck don't see anyone else putting their ethics on the line by claiming they jumped off the truck and shot their buff.

It seems that in internet hunting forums all people are worried about is coming off as a better hunter than anyone else on here. Somewhere in all the BS that flies back and forth amid all the infighting most of us have forgot why we hunt. Who cares if its from 1000 yards (like I prefer), or 5 feet like others prefer. Who cares if the lines of our double look nice, or if our clothing is vintage enough. We hunt for one reason and thats for the sheer excitement of the entire experience.

Sorry to single you out saeed but that one single comment, for me, speaks volumes to the fact that you truly love hunting and the adrenaline rush it gives you. I'd hunt with you any day saeed. I think saeed "gets it".

The day I see a "big one" from the truck and I don't bail out and go clobber him is the day I quit hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
I picked A, because it was quick and humane, especially when hunting for lion bait. Hunt B - also a hunt for lion bait - was unethical and inhumane, resulting in unnecessary suffering. Certainly, they could wait to find something that they didn't have to shoot through the thick bush whereing the chances of significant bullet deflection were very high.

AIU,

Firstly, hunt A was not for bait at all. Simply trying to clean up quota and move to a different area.

But please tell me how hunt B was "unethical"? I'm certainly open to hearing everyone's opinions and respectful of our differences on what they prefer but I'll not stand by and be accused of participating in an UNETHICAL and INHUMANE hunt without direct response!

After you explain how hunt B was unethical, can you give us some insight on how "ethical" your Heli Hunt in NZ was? You know, the one you removed from AR when questioned about the helicopter hovering in the background with you standing over your hard earned Tahr shot a couple of steps off the chopper!

quote:

Originally posted by stomper:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

Great footage, thank you for the link.

I voted both.

How far you shoot an animal does not a hunt make.

How hard you have chased an animal does not a hunt make.

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him.

We have had occasions where we have chased buffalo for days, and never managed to get a shot.

We have had occasions where we followed buffalo, and the only chance we got for a shot is a long one.

The secret is to achieve what YOU want from the hunt.

Let me repost saeed's exact words here......"I have had occasions when we saw a bull while driving, and I jumped out of the truck and clobbered him."

Did you really just say that???? hahahahahahahahahaha

to this point i wasn't sure if I liked saeed. However when one sees a buff from the truck and jumps out and clobbers it that tells me one thing! Hes a REAL hunter. What I mean by that is that he hunts for the thrill of the hunt. He's looking for that fabled, "BIG ONE", that only exists in his mind. TV hunters don't get it, the grammar Nazi's on this site don't get it, and people hunting simply for bragging rights don't get it. I truly have been turned off by this site. People brag about simply being better than anyone else. I sure as heck don't see anyone else putting their ethics on the line by claiming they jumped off the truck and shot their buff.

It seems that in internet hunting forums all people are worried about is coming off as a better hunter than anyone else on here. Somewhere in all the BS that flies back and forth amid all the infighting most of us have forgot why we hunt. Who cares if its from 1000 yards (like I prefer), or 5 feet like others prefer. Who cares if the lines of our double look nice, or if our clothing is vintage enough. We hunt for one reason and thats for the sheer excitement of the entire experience.

Sorry to single you out saeed but that one single comment, for me, speaks volumes to the fact that you truly love hunting and the adrenaline rush it gives you. I'd hunt with you any day saeed. I think saeed "gets it".

The day I see a "big one" from the truck and I don't bail out and go clobber him is the day I quit hunting.

You can jump out of the truck and shoot him but throughout the years that moment will play out over again in your mind as one of the failures in your life-at least for me.Same with shooting him with a scope-unless you have really poor eyesight.

well lets put another mark against someone who won't be getting their ethics trophy this year?????

well you'd be appauled to find out that I held the gun for my 3 year old son while he aimed and pulled the trigger and killed his first impala and warthog. My daughter killed her first bushpig and impala at 5 and they are both going to africa this year to do plains game and neither of them are over 8 as of this year. I Don't much care what you think about me but my kids love hunting and they love their daddy. I guess they can judge my "ethics" later

quote:

One does not "have to accept whatever the hunt gives you."

Overall I agree with your post with one caveat: "Acceptance of the Hunt" doesn't mean you have to pull the trigger. It simply means "that's what it was".

We don't always get what we want...but we do get an experience nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:

quote:

One does not "have to accept whatever the hunt gives you."

Overall I agree with your post with one caveat: "Acceptance of the Hunt" doesn't mean you have to pull the trigger. It simply means "that's what it was".

We don't always get what we want...but we do get an experience nonetheless.

100%

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I voted "Neither". With a good scoped bolt gun, there would have been no need for so many follow-up shots :-)

Jon,

Did you watch the videos? Video A was a one shot kill using a scoped 375H&H. Just sayin!

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
You can jump out of the truck and shoot him but throughout the years that moment will play out over again in your mind as one of the failures in your life-at least for me.Same with shooting him with a scope-unless you have really poor eyesight.

Coming from you that is funny.

At least he has shot something.

Why not jump out of the truck and clobber him.
Invariably on Water Buff if we see a Buff during transit, it gets whacked but very few times it just involves jumping out and shooting.


Todd
Great thread.

quote:

Did you watch the videos? Video A was a one shot kill using a scoped 375H&H. Just sayin! Wink

Yeah, but it was a cow :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:

quote:

Did you watch the videos? Video A was a one shot kill using a scoped 375H&H. Just sayin! Wink

Yeah, but it was a cow :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

If you hunt long enough, you will find that you have to accept whatever the hunt gives you.

Saeeds entire post was spot on, but this one line sums it up.

I chased a herd, jogging, walking, sweating cussing, panting ... You get the idea.

I had my 450 Dakota, with iron sights. When all was said and done, "He" stepped out at about 100 yards. I drilled him. It was an incredible hunt that started on Buffalo at 8:00 am and I shot him at noon.

I shot another Buff after 5 minute stalk at about 12 yards.

Of the 6 I have taken, four were 100 yards or more. The other two were 12-20 yards.

5 of the 6 were taken with iron sight rifle. The 6th was too far so I borrowed AAZ's rifle and sniped him. Would have loved to shoot him with my 470, just no way to get closer.

Each one was its own experience, I do not regret for a second shooting any of them the way I did. Two of them were foolish attempts where luck (and some skill) landed on my side. Lets just leave it at that.

Todd, I stand corrected on the motives for hunt A – apparently, it was not for lion bait; but, the motive is not important. I have no issues with hunt A - a clear one-shot humane kill – good shooting.

It’s about taking unnecessary risks in hunt B that resulted in a wounded animal that had to be subsequently shot multiple times over the course of an hour or so, as stated in the video. After the animal was wounded from the first shot, of course, you had to follow-up. But, the animal suffered. I’m not critical about "missing" the first shot – we all miss the kill zone sometimes. I’m critical of the shooting through the thick bush, wherein bullet deflection by branches was highly likely resulting a wounded animal and an inhumane death. Moreove, it's scenarios like bunt B that give the animal right people ammunition to get us banded from hunting - such as in Kenya and Botswana. I'm hoping you decide to delete video hunt B, such that the animal right people don't get their hands on it.

Your remark regarding the New Zealand tahr has nothing to do with this discussion. The tahr was hunted in 100% concordance with New Zealand customs and game laws and died immediately following one shot. These customs and game laws were put into effect by the New Zealand people - a democratic country.

If you have a problem using motorized transportation into the hunting area, maybe you should walk & row to Africa next time, rather than flying there on a big jet, and/or maybe you should walk to the hunt area from camp and not use a truck, land cruiser, or whatever. I noted the presence of a motorized vehicle in first video. Did you not ride it to the hunting area?

I have to agree with Surestrike. One ugly hunter.

Biebs,
it's dangerous game, you can't use a .22 on them.

quote:

I have to agree with Surestrike. One ugly hunter.

With a face like that he could turn a freight train down a dirt road. There should be a law against filming that kind of ugly!

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

I have to agree with Surestrike. One ugly hunter.

With a face like that he could turn a freight train down a dirt road. There should be a law against filming that kind of ugly!

About time you boys attempted a rally in response to all my Blaser comments!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Some, like Saeed, prefer to remove all the danger element and snipe buffalo with a scoped 375 from 100 yards or more, often resulting in a one shot kill by the time you walk up on the downed animal. Others, like myself, prefer to get up close, often in thick bush, and take them on with an open sighted big bore, possibly a double rifle. It has been suggested that this method is endangering the hunting party, even foolishly in some opinions.

First off Todd those are excellent film clips. Makes my trigger finger twitch!

In regard to the above excerpt from your post above, it covers all types of situation that come into play when hunting Cape buffalo. I think everyone who has hunted Cape buff for any length of time will have taken them both ways. Like you the second clip is my choice, but as I said I have taken them both ways and I doubt that there is anyone who shoots both scoped bolt rifles, and double rifles that has not taken them both ways.

The film with your 577NE double rifle is not what I would consider to be unnecessary risk or foolishness, nor do I believe anyone else with any buff experience would either.

On the first cow with the scoped rifle the final approach was done properly by approaching from the downed cow from her back, so that if she started to rise as the hunter came close the spine was well exposed so she could be dispatched very easily. If approached from her front so she could see the hunter would cause her to use her last breath trying to get up to protect herself. THAT would have been a FOOLISH move, and that is the UNNECCESSARY RISK we dis agree with.

However in both cases final approaches were well done, with the double bull, being shot till he was down and out, with the approach no closer that 20 yds or so, and kept shooting till he was down and still a very careful final testing of the eye.

I saw no evidence of an attempt to muster a charge from either of these buffalo. And I consider both done properly. Certainly the getting close with the bull still on his feet was more of an adrenaline rush inducing finish, but was not IMO, a fool hardy operation.

……………………………………………....................................................... .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14WMSjA49o

Here is a video clip of my dad taking his second buff in the Makuti area, in 2011. Done with a scoped 500NE Sabatti (gasp) at 40 yds. Not bad for 80 years young.....one dagga boy taking down another dagga boy!

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
Todd, I stand corrected on the motives for hunt A – apparently, it was not for lion bait; but, the motive is not important. I have no issues with hunt A - a clear one-shot humane kill – good shooting.

It’s about taking unnecessary risks in hunt B that resulted in a wounded animal that had to be subsequently shot multiple times over the course of an hour or so, as stated in the video. After the animal was wounded from the first shot, of course, you had to follow-up. But, the animal suffered. I’m not critical about "missing" the first shot – we all miss the kill zone sometimes. I’m critical of the shooting through the thick bush, wherein bullet deflection by branches was highly likely resulting a wounded animal and an inhumane death. Moreove, it's scenarios like bunt B that give the animal right people ammunition to get us banded from hunting - such as in Kenya and Botswana. I'm hoping you decide to delete video hunt B, such that the animal right people don't get their hands on it.

Your remark regarding the New Zealand tahr has nothing to do with this discussion. The tahr was hunted in 100% concordance with New Zealand customs and game laws and died immediately following one shot. These customs and game laws were put into effect by the New Zealand people - a democratic country.

If you have a problem using motorized transportation into the hunting area, maybe you should walk to Africa next time, rather than flying there on a big jet, and/or maybe you should walk to the hunt area from camp and not use a truck, land cruiser, or whatever. I noted the presence of a motorized vehicle in first video. Did you not ride it to the hunting area?

AIU,

Delete Video B. Are you smoking weed man! That was just about as good as it gets IMO concerning buffalo hunting. Certainly less ammo for the anti hunters than your chasing a Tahr to the point of exhaustion with a helicopter! By the way, brush did not deflect the first shot. I placed it about 3 inches to far to the left of where it should have been, but it did go exactly where I aimed, and entered the animal making a straight entrance wound, thereby no deflection.

If you really believe that line of crap, may I ask why you felt so ashamed of your actions that you deemed it necessary to remove all the pictures and all of your comments concerning the way you herded and chased those Tahr to the point of exhaustion, just before you got out of the chopper to snipe them? Rest assured, I value each and every hunter's right to pursue dangerous game in either manner depicted in the videos. Hell, I did them both. But you certainly cross the line when you accuse a man of behaving in an UNETHICAL AND INHUMANE manner. I enjoyed both of the hunts depicted, but certainly felt Video B was just about perfect in terms of how I imagine a buffalo hunt should go down. As I said earlier, I can only hope the next will be as exciting. Anyone who disagrees is entitled to their opinion.

But let's put it in perspective. UNETHICAL and INHUMANE are labels reserved for deliberately taking action to cause suffering to an animal. I challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that we deliberately set about to cause undue pain and suffering to that buffalo, aside from the fact that the intent was of course to kill it straight from the beginning.

May I ask, how humane and ethical was it to watch that Tahr being herded and chased to the point of exhaustion before you stepped off the chopper and shot it? Obviously, you must have had second thoughts concerning your actions because you were shamed into removing all reference to the hunt and your defense thereof. Did you forget about herding and chasing the animals to exhaustion, then hiding the evidence? Here, let me help you remember:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...201005371#6201005371

As you probably know, I also did a NZ hunt last year. I also booked with one of the 16 outfitters before I learned of the Heli Hunting issue. Once made aware, I insisted against using the chopper for anything other than access to the mountain, whereby we struck out on foot for the remainder of the day, including the descent and hike back to the base camp. I knew what was and wasn't ethical in terms of herding the animals to exhaustion. Stood my ground against doing it to the point that the outfitter nearly took me back to the airport. Right is right and you know that as well, otherwise your hunt report would still be up for all to see, just as mine is!!