quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
Courage is the ability and willingness to confront fear. I think Mark's usage is spot on.

Instigating unnecessary charges and prolonging the suffering of animals is selfish and STUPIDITY,
but MS finds it necessary to do such in order prove to the world he aint scared,
in other words to prove his bravado and manhood....in 'battle' against primitive dumb animals.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Instigating unnecessary charges and prolonging the suffering of animals is STUPIDITY,
but MS finds it necessary to do such in order prove to the world he aint scared,
in other words to prove his bravado and manhood....in 'battle' against primitive dumb animals.

I see you just like to argue. I am not your man. You can have the last word. Perhaps you might be interested in providing input about SCIs undocumented actions against Mark Sullivan?

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:


I see you just like to argue. I am not your man.

There is no argument. >> You yourself have confirmed that MS does what he does simply to prove
his bravado and manhood, i.e; to prove he aint scared.
....nuff said.

Using primitive dumb animals to prove ones bravado and manhood could be deemed a SoFt option and the cowards approach.

There are much tougher much more challenging arenas out there in the world, with much better matched,
much more worthy & capable opponents.

There is much more danger on offer out in the world than DG hunting, why is MS not actively involved in 'Battles'
[professions or activities] that represent much more threat & danger than DG hunting?

Why is MS limiting himself to the softer,easier, more cowardly less dangerous profession-activity?

BY choosing the 'soft' option [or less dangerous task] of DG hunting, MS actively seeks to actively avoid far greater risks and dangers
that are on offer from other professions.

Which makes the statements by MS below rather hypocritical and impotent....

quote:

If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible?...

If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

DSC has banned him many years ago, long before SCI did.

I have shot many buffalo, and have never, ever waited to follow them if wounded.

In fact, we try to get it all over as quickly as possible.

Shawn has started this thread to show SCI in a bad light.

I have repeated that Mark Sullivan has been asked, repeatedly, to stop showing his silly video.

He posted above this very fact.

But, the cheerleaders still believe I was wrong!

Bloody hell, it came straight from his own mouth!

He was asked numerous occasions to stop, he had to call his lawyers!!

The only people known to have done "battle" with dangerous animals (Lions) were initially the Roman Gladiators armed with a net, shield and sword.
Their encounter was not by choice; it was a form of entertainment for the "upper class" and was a simply a case of 'kill or be killed'.

The second category, the Maasai Morani, also went into battle with Lions but mostly in middle to large groups greatly reducing the Lion's chances of survival though quite a few ended up scratched, mauled and the rare demise of a participant. It was however a traditional and cultural event where the Lion's aging was never given any consideration.

The Third category is attributed to the Spanish Matador who battles a domesticated version of the Cape Buffalo to entertain the public - this form of entertainment has been viewed dimly by our friendly animal rights activists and is all but banned.

In all 3 quoted examples the animal was given the fair opportunity of choice of dying and on equal footing with a possible exception to the bull in the ring that gets worn and bled before the Matador attempts to finish him off.

MS however doesn't really do battle at all, the animal is always in full view, pretty much shagged out from its wounds and in no mood to quarrel. There comes a point in time that some of these critters will call it a day and make a last stand - the "warrior" is ready and waiting for the expected reaction and it is no more about dick length or ball circumference than a steady aim and knowing when to shoot.

MS is without doubt a master at this game and nobody can really deny him his qualities as a marksman with a double rifle of the extra heavy kind.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
DSC has banned him many years ago, long before SCI did.

I have shot many buffalo, and have never, ever waited to follow them if wounded.

In fact, we try to get it all over as quickly as possible.

Shawn has started this thread to show SCI in a bad light.

I have repeated that Mark Sullivan has been asked, repeatedly, to stop showing his silly video.

He posted above this very fact.

But, the cheerleaders still believe I was wrong!

Bloody hell, it came straight from his own mouth!

He was asked numerous occasions to stop, he had to call his lawyers!!

Saeed...my reason for starting the thread was pretty clear I thought:

I am interested in what AR members think about this action by SCI. I realize that there are some here who do not like Mark for various reasons, which is fine, and also that SCI is a private organization. For those who do not favor Mark, I would ask for your opinion as well...I am interested in reading your thoughts.

It was not simply done to show SCI in a bad light as you suggest. In fact I support and advertise for SCI on my Website as I also do for DSC.

Regarding your posting “I have repeated that Mark Sullivan has been asked, repeatedly, to stop showing his silly video. He posted above this very fact. But, the cheerleaders still believe I was wrong! Bloody hell, it came straight from his own mouth! He was asked numerous occasions to stop, he had to call his lawyers.”

Actually what you describe above is taken out of context as you know and does not accurately reflect what was presented by Mark. You are referencing excerpts that you highlighted in red from what Mark said to support your position. Refer back to your highlighted post for clarity but also consider the additional narrative that you did not hightlight. Makes for a different meaning and understanding.

Mark has described that aspect very clearly and in detail for us all to understand. You simply choose to ignore this and keep repeating comments related to condensed excerpts until they can eventually become factual.

Shawn,

What don't you understand from what I have highlighted in red above?

Did SCI ask him to stop showing his videos or not?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Shawn,

What don't you understand from what I have highlighted in red above?

Did SCI ask him to stop showing his videos or not?

Saeed. I could be wrong, but my understanding was,at the beginning at least. Stop showing the videos in order that the dignitaries could get past the crush around Mark's audience.
Who brought pressure to bear after that initial request ???.........jc

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:
Who brought pressure to bear .........jc

Disgusted SCI members.

well, no shortage of those......

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Shawn,

What don't you understand from what I have highlighted in red above?

Did SCI ask him to stop showing his videos or not?

Saeed. I could be wrong, but my understanding was,at the beginning at least. Stop showing the videos in order that the dignitaries could get past the crush around Mark's audience.
Who brought pressure to bear after that initial request ???.........jc

John,

That was just one of the occasions he talked about.

And this is coming from him too.

How do we know how many times SCI has asked him?

From what I have heard, quite a few times, and he utterly refused.

And he got kicked out.

It would be interesting to find out why DSC has never allowed him to be in their show.

==============

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
I received an email today from Mark that is pertinent to something that was recently posted in this thread. I checked with Mark to affirm I could post this on his behalf. He wanted this information to be known:

Dear Shawn:

Saeed has said many times it was his understanding that SCI had repeatedly asked me to stop showing my movies and I refused. And that is the reason I am no longer permitted to exhibit. That is not true. Here are the facts.

I do not recall the exact years but the events are as clear today as they were when they happened. Upon arriving at my booth early one Wednesday morning to prepare for the start of that year's convention, officials from SCI were there to tell me I would only be allowed to conduct business if I covered my TVs with paper so people passing by could not see what was showing; only the audio was permitted. I did as they asked without complaint or protest.

Several conventions later much the same happened. Upon arriving at my booth opening morning I was greeted with a hand-written note signed by the Convention Chairman ordering me not to turn on my television sets and effectively telling me to pack up and go home. I telephoned my attorneys who were en route to the convention floor and soon afterwards we were meeting with the Chairman. After a very cordial 45 minute discussion, the Chairman gave me permission to return to my booth and continue "as I was" without restriction. He let it be known that he owned a number of my movies and liked them. The pressure came from above.

After the events of 9/11 and my return home from Tanzania I got a call from SCI Headquarters in Tucson. They asked if they could use my charging buffalo and hippo footage as they wanted to play it on a giant screen overlooking the main floor of the convention. They believed this would heighten crowd excitement and generate sales for safari companies offering dangerous game hunts. I gladly gave my permission and provided them the footage. I did not ask for any compensation.

On yet another opening day, an SCI representative was there to greet me. This time to ask if I would "turn-off" all TV sets and stop doing business (completely) whenever a "dignitary" was being escorted past my booth. Because of my contributions over many years, I had earned my way into a great location. It was simply not possible to walk through the convention without passing my booth. I agreed without hesitation or protest. Eight or 10 times during the show I shut down everything as requested for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes each time and let whoever it was pass. On one such occasion the "dignitary" was President George H. W. Bush. It was my sincere honor to spend a couple of minutes with him as we chatted in my booth. This afforded me the opportunity to present him with a book and DVD for which he was extremely grateful.

It must be noted that for each convention SCI would assign a high-ranking representative (watch-dog) to monitor, observe and report everything that went on in and around my booth. This person was there every day, all day long. Over the years I got to know each representative well. As time permitted, I would each day inquire as to "how are things going (with me)? Not one time over all the years I exhibited at SCI was there a single complaint, argument, disruption, vulgar language, bad behavior, unhappy member or protest. From the beginning I knew I was under a microscope. I did everything I was asked without complaint. I was respectful and nice to everyone. Nary a day passed that my attorney was not in the booth making sure things ran smoothly and they did.

I am sure my being at SCI was not easy for professional hunters as literally hundreds of people were jammed around my booth every day, all day, buying movies, books, posing for pictures and signing autographs. From first bell to last, my booth was a bee-hive of activity. SCI always told me, "Mark, people come to the Convention to see three people...President George H.W. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Mark Sullivan, but not necessarily in that order!"

I miss SCI and always will.

Mark

Secret Service/security in arrangement with SCI brass, gave MS the opportunity to discreetly shut his comedy show down himself, while important high risk VIPs went past his booth.
IF so required, the US-SS would and could have terminated his video spectacle by their own hands, whether MS liked it or not, in preparation for the US Prez. to pass by at lower exposure to risk.

Funny that the US presidents SS, go to concerted effort to avoid-prevent or reduce risk and danger,
while MS goes to concerted efforts to pursue and increase it.

SS are in a constant 'battle' to minimise or prevent exposure of the Prez. to potential risk and danger.
In the case of MS, if there aint enough risk& danger,..he will battle to create it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

There are much tougher much more challenging arenas out there in the world, with much better matched,
much more worthy & capable opponents.

There is much more danger on offer out in the world than DG hunting, why is MS not actively involved in 'Battles'
[professions or activities] that represent much more threat & danger than DG hunting?

Why is MS limiting himself to the softer,easier, more cowardly less dangerous profession-activity?

BY choosing the 'soft' option [or less dangerous task] of DG hunting, MS actively seeks to actively avoid far greater risks and dangers
that are on offer from other professions.

Which makes the statements by MS below rather hypocritical and impotent....

and you would know this how? do you even hunt, trax? with each subsequent post i doubt more and more your experiences (though you do google and cut and paste well) in the game fields and i doubt youve got any combat experience either. so where in the hell are you going with all of this? i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

Never hunted with Mark, but according to some friends who have done it is a great PH.
About those charges caused not see anything wrong, even as other PH's do this a few years in order to promote their safaris and sell your books / dvd 's

quote:

i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

I think Shawn takes the prize for arguing.

In plain English, Sullivan himself states that they have asked him to stop showing his videos, numerous times.

But according to Shawn he hasn't!!

Talk about being blinded by hero worship!

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

There are much tougher much more challenging arenas out there in the world, with much better matched,
much more worthy & capable opponents.

There is much more danger on offer out in the world than DG hunting, why is MS not actively involved in 'Battles'
[professions or activities] that represent much more threat & danger than DG hunting?

Why is MS limiting himself to the softer,easier, more cowardly less dangerous profession-activity?

BY choosing the 'soft' option [or less dangerous task] of DG hunting, MS actively seeks to actively avoid far greater risks and dangers
that are on offer from other professions.

Which makes the statements by MS below rather hypocritical and impotent....

and you would know this how? do you even hunt, trax? with each subsequent post i doubt more and more your experiences (though you do google and cut and paste well) in the game fields and i doubt youve got any combat experience either. so where in the hell are you going with all of this? i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

Max,

Don't waste your time on Trax. If there ever was a pure definition of internet troll, it is he. The guy has never hunted a day in his life, at least not Africa. He has no frame of reference for Safari or the enjoyment it brings. In his troll world, the only hunters afield would be Professional hunters and no clients. Who they would guide in order to make a living from the "profession" is unknown, other than in the days of old where ivory poaching generated income for guys like Bell.

If you go back and read his "cut and paste" masterpieces, he has never engaged a member here in a true discussion of ideas, but rather seeks to bait and instigate, twisting each comment to create conflict. Attempts to degrade and belittle is his M.O. Every once in a while, someone new actually engages him a bit and without fail, quickly learns that whatever position one takes, Trax takes the opposite, simply to argue and instigate.

The funny thing is that Trax will often go off on a tangent with multiple "cut and paste" rants, spooling himself into a fury, not realizing that each subsequent post is more irrelevant than the previous, and securing his position on the forum as being the only guy around that actually challenges Shootaway in terms of ridiculousness!

So yeah, Max, this troll is a waste of time!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

There are much tougher much more challenging arenas out there in the world, with much better matched,
much more worthy & capable opponents.

There is much more danger on offer out in the world than DG hunting, why is MS not actively involved in 'Battles'
[professions or activities] that represent much more threat & danger than DG hunting?

Why is MS limiting himself to the softer,easier, more cowardly less dangerous profession-activity?

BY choosing the 'soft' option [or less dangerous task] of DG hunting, MS actively seeks to actively avoid far greater risks and dangers
that are on offer from other professions.

Which makes the statements by MS below rather hypocritical and impotent....

and you would know this how? do you even hunt, trax? with each subsequent post i doubt more and more your experiences (though you do google and cut and paste well) in the game fields and i doubt youve got any combat experience either. so where in the hell are you going with all of this? i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

Max,

Don't waste your time on Trax. If there ever was a pure definition of internet troll, it is he. The guy has never hunted a day in his life, at least not Africa. He has no frame of reference for Safari or the enjoyment it brings. In his troll world, the only hunters afield would be Professional hunters and no clients. Who they would guide in order to make a living from the "profession" is unknown, other than in the days of old where ivory poaching generated income for guys like Bell.

If you go back and read his "cut and paste" masterpieces, he has never engaged a member here in a true discussion of ideas, but rather seeks to bait and instigate, twisting each comment to create conflict. Attempts to degrade and belittle is his M.O. Every once in a while, someone new actually engages him a bit and without fail, quickly learns that whatever position one takes, Trax takes the opposite, simply to argue and instigate.

The funny thing is that Trax will often go off on a tangent with multiple "cut and paste" rants, spooling himself into a fury, not realizing that each subsequent post is more irrelevant than the previous, and securing his position on the forum as being the only guy around that actually challenges Shootaway in terms of ridiculousness!

So yeah, Max, this troll is a waste of time!

Todd,

You are correct. The combination of Twinkies and living in mom's basement has obviously taken a heavy toll.

Jeff

j$$$ - I don't/won't speak for Matt, but here is my view once and for all/

I don't care how much money SCI makes!
I don't care how they spend THEIR money!
I don't care how much they spend in Africa!
I don't care how MS and SCI address their differences?
I don't care how MS choose to run HIS business!
I don't care how SCI and DSC elects their officers!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines WHO they let attend their shows!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines their booth cost to exhibitors!
I don't care how SCI works their hunt donations!
I don't care what CB's personal financial position is!
I don't care how/where CB's wife or any other wives hunt!
I don't care what any ones personal finances are!
I don't care how Tracks Across Africa runs their shows!
I don't care what individual outfitters do or how they conduct their business!
I don't care how DSC chooses to run their Convention!
I don't care what "others" do or don't do, it simply is none of MY business.

I am not a "busy body" who has to know everything about everybody like some here. These are things I have no say in or control of, so really don't care/worry about them. If you like prying into every ones business and private lives, go for it. Just isn't my interest.

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
It seems awfully odd to me. Barring a member from attending the annual convention is extremely odd.

When one looks at the criminals who have been allowed to attend and exhibit for years (OOA for example), one has to wonder.

SCI moves in mysterious ways.

you mean like the former President who( along with another prominent member) admitted to shooting moose in Russia from a helicopter? or perhaps the former President who was OOA's attorney/protector for years? if a person is a paid up member, i am mystified how you can bar him from attending as a walk-in. maybe Larry( Sellers) or Matt can explain it to us simpletons. they make you join the club to attend- then won't let you attend? very strange.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
j$$$ - I don't/won't speak for Matt, but here is my view once and for all/

I don't care how much money SCI makes!
I don't care how they spend THEIR money!
I don't care how much they spend in Africa!
I don't care how MS and SCI address their differences?
I don't care how MS choose to run HIS business!
I don't care how SCI and DSC elects their officers!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines WHO they let attend their shows!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines their booth cost to exhibitors!
I don't care how SCI works their hunt donations!
I don't care what CB's personal financial position is!
I don't care how/where CB's wife or any other wives hunt!
I don't care what any ones personal finances are!
I don't care how Tracks Across Africa runs their shows!
I don't care what individual outfitters do or how they conduct their business!
I don't care how DSC chooses to run their Convention!
I don't care what "others" do or don't do, it simply is none of MY business.

I am not a "busy body" who has to know everything about everybody like some here. These are things I have no say in or control of, so really don't care/worry about them. If you like prying into every ones business and private lives, go for it. Just isn't my interest.

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
It seems awfully odd to me. Barring a member from attending the annual convention is extremely odd.

When one looks at the criminals who have been allowed to attend and exhibit for years (OOA for example), one has to wonder.

SCI moves in mysterious ways.

you mean like the former President who( along with another prominent member) admitted to shooting moose in Russia from a helicopter? or perhaps the former President who was OOA's attorney/protector for years? if a person is a paid up member, i am mystified how you can bar him from attending as a walk-in. maybe Larry( Sellers) or Matt can explain it to us simpletons. they make you join the club to attend- then won't let you attend? very strange.

Larry,

For someone who lists so many I DON'T CARE....., you sure are busy defending SCI shinanigans

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
j$$$ - I don't/won't speak for Matt, but here is my view once and for all/

I don't care how much money SCI makes!
I don't care how they spend THEIR money!
I don't care how much they spend in Africa!
I don't care how MS and SCI address their differences?
I don't care how MS choose to run HIS business!
I don't care how SCI and DSC elects their officers!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines WHO they let attend their shows!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines their booth cost to exhibitors!
I don't care how SCI works their hunt donations!
I don't care what CB's personal financial position is!
I don't care how/where CB's wife or any other wives hunt!
I don't care what any ones personal finances are!
I don't care how Tracks Across Africa runs their shows!
I don't care what individual outfitters do or how they conduct their business!
I don't care how DSC chooses to run their Convention!
I don't care what "others" do or don't do, it simply is none of MY business.

I am not a "busy body" who has to know everything about everybody like some here. These are things I have no say in or control of, so really don't care/worry about them. If you like prying into every ones business and private lives, go for it. Just isn't my interest.

Larry Sellers

Prime example of SHEEPLE mentality.

Another definition

And another



If you give money to SCI (or any other organsation for that matter) and/or are a member you SHOULD care what they do with it!

As for the Sullivan/SCI issue, if you don't care, it's not compulsory for you to comment. All you have to do to avoid being drawn into the debate is not comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

I think Shawn takes the prize for arguing.

In plain English, Sullivan himself states that they have asked him to stop showing his videos, numerous times.

But according to Shawn he hasn't!!

Talk about being blinded by hero worship!

Saeed,

I have made it a point not to make things personal or infantile while discussing this topic with you in an attempt to help clarify what is plainly written. I thought you were truly having difficulty understanding. The name calling and assigning of labels is really not productive or necessary.

You are taking selective excerpts from paragraphs and disregarding the supporting narrative describing the outcome of what actually occurred. You are then attempting to capture the essence of that activity by only referencing the excerpted content. This methodology makes your conclusion unbalanced and inaccurate.

I am happy to let others decide by reading what Mark wrote. Your conclusion is inaccurate and can be plainly seen as such.

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

I think Shawn takes the prize for arguing.

In plain English, Sullivan himself states that they have asked him to stop showing his videos, numerous times.

But according to Shawn he hasn't!!

Talk about being blinded by hero worship!

Saeed,

I have made it a point not to make things personal or infantile while discussing this topic with you in an attempt to help clarify what is plainly written. I thought you were truly having difficulty understanding. The name calling and assigning of labels is really not productive or necessary.

You are taking selective excerpts from paragraphs and disregarding the supporting narrative describing the outcome of what actually occurred. You are then attempting to capture the essence of that activity by only referencing the excerpted content. This methodology makes your conclusion unbalanced and inaccurate.

I am happy to let others decide by reading what Mark wrote. Your conclusion is inaccurate and can be plainly seen as such.

Whatever you like to believe.

End result is he did not listen, and got what he deserved.

Saeed - Please make reference to the "last time" I was BUSY defending SCI shinanigans as you call it.

I find it amusing that there are those here who seem to have to stick THEIR noses into OTHERS business on such a regular basis. All the things I mentioned, ME, YOU or none of the other posters really have any way to change a damm thing when it comes down to it? So my questions is why does everyone continue to babble on about it?

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
j$$$ - I don't/won't speak for Matt, but here is my view once and for all/

I don't care how much money SCI makes!
I don't care how they spend THEIR money!
I don't care how much they spend in Africa!
I don't care how MS and SCI address their differences?
I don't care how MS choose to run HIS business!
I don't care how SCI and DSC elects their officers!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines WHO they let attend their shows!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines their booth cost to exhibitors!
I don't care how SCI works their hunt donations!
I don't care what CB's personal financial position is!
I don't care how/where CB's wife or any other wives hunt!
I don't care what any ones personal finances are!
I don't care how Tracks Across Africa runs their shows!
I don't care what individual outfitters do or how they conduct their business!
I don't care how DSC chooses to run their Convention!
I don't care what "others" do or don't do, it simply is none of MY business.

I am not a "busy body" who has to know everything about everybody like some here. These are things I have no say in or control of, so really don't care/worry about them. If you like prying into every ones business and private lives, go for it. Just isn't my interest.

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
It seems awfully odd to me. Barring a member from attending the annual convention is extremely odd.

When one looks at the criminals who have been allowed to attend and exhibit for years (OOA for example), one has to wonder.

SCI moves in mysterious ways.

you mean like the former President who( along with another prominent member) admitted to shooting moose in Russia from a helicopter? or perhaps the former President who was OOA's attorney/protector for years? if a person is a paid up member, i am mystified how you can bar him from attending as a walk-in. maybe Larry( Sellers) or Matt can explain it to us simpletons. they make you join the club to attend- then won't let you attend? very strange.

Larry,

For someone who lists so many I DON'T CARE....., you sure are busy defending SCI shinanigans

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

i think shawn said it best that you simply like to argue

I think Shawn takes the prize for arguing.

In plain English, Sullivan himself states that they have asked him to stop showing his videos, numerous times.

But according to Shawn he hasn't!!

Talk about being blinded by hero worship!

Saeed,

I have made it a point not to make things personal or infantile while discussing this topic with you in an attempt to help clarify what is plainly written. I thought you were truly having difficulty understanding. The name calling and assigning of labels is really not productive or necessary.

You are taking selective excerpts from paragraphs and disregarding the supporting narrative describing the outcome of what actually occurred. You are then attempting to capture the essence of that activity by only referencing the excerpted content. This methodology makes your conclusion unbalanced and inaccurate.

I am happy to let others decide by reading what Mark wrote. Your conclusion is inaccurate and can be plainly seen as such.

Whatever you like to believe.

End result is he did not listen, and got what he deserved.

I review information that is presented and considering it in entirety then form a belief, as opposed to pulling a line here or there from information out of context to support my belief. In other words, I prefer not to voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion or excerpt without critical analysis of the entire content.

The end result from the presented information is that Mark listened, communicated to, and complied with all SCI requests as he clearly explained in his narrative. This is the narrative from which you pulled select excerpts to support your incorrect assumption and hypothesis.

Mark conducted business within the specifically defined parameters of each show as was determined by SCI at those shows. Mark was later banned without cause (not being officially advised of the reason) or being allowed due process to address any allegation(s) for such SCI action.

Those are the facts as we know them. You will, I am certain, continue to spin them until they become unfounded and incorrect AR factoids regarding Mark. I suspect you will then dispense them regularly to those that are drawn to your creative material with no substantiated basis.

Steve - If I gave a couple of million dollars to SCI, or anyone else for that matter, I might just require that some form of accounting be made available. Since I don't contribute nearly that much , really don't need a certified public account report to let me know exactly where EVERY penny I gave was spent. And please don't tell me I "should care", after all it is MY money.

Since it seems you must have contributed a large sum to SCI in 2013, thus wanting to know how every penny of your money was spent is understandable.

Steve, just how much was that 2013 donation you gave to SCI???? I am sure lots of folks here would be interested in knowing. So please let us all know. Thanks.

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
j$$$ - I don't/won't speak for Matt, but here is my view once and for all/

I don't care how much money SCI makes!
I don't care how they spend THEIR money!
I don't care how much they spend in Africa!
I don't care how MS and SCI address their differences?
I don't care how MS choose to run HIS business!
I don't care how SCI and DSC elects their officers!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines WHO they let attend their shows!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines their booth cost to exhibitors!
I don't care how SCI works their hunt donations!
I don't care what CB's personal financial position is!
I don't care how/where CB's wife or any other wives hunt!
I don't care what any ones personal finances are!
I don't care how Tracks Across Africa runs their shows!
I don't care what individual outfitters do or how they conduct their business!
I don't care how DSC chooses to run their Convention!
I don't care what "others" do or don't do, it simply is none of MY business.

I am not a "busy body" who has to know everything about everybody like some here. These are things I have no say in or control of, so really don't care/worry about them. If you like prying into every ones business and private lives, go for it. Just isn't my interest.

Larry Sellers

Prime example of SHEEPLE mentality.

Another definition

And another



If you give money to SCI (or any other organsation for that matter) and/or are a member you SHOULD care what they do with it!

As for the Sullivan/SCI issue, if you don't care, it's not compulsory for you to comment. All you have to do to avoid being drawn into the debate is not comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
MS knowingly takes on hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering . But you are OK with that.

In the context of most threads revolving around Mark Sullivan, this kind of comment isn't unusual; but this one is illustrative of the often self-evident stupidity that purports to be serious commentary on the subject. Ah, but there's more ...

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Funny that the US presidents SS, go to concerted effort to avoid-prevent or reduce risk and danger, while MS goes to concerted efforts to pursue and increase it.

My guess is that they haven't covered the fallacy of the undistributed middle in your high school math class yet. When the subject of non sequiturs arises, by all means offer this quote of yours as a first-rate exemplar.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
MS knowingly takes on hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering . But you are OK with that.

In the context of every threads revolving around Mark Sullivan, this comment isn't unusual; but it is perhaps illustrative of the often self-evident stupidity that purports to be serious commentary on the subject.

It's unbelievable to me. The "Anti" argument has been lost, long ago. When you've lost the argument, resort to name calling, innuendo and of course arbitrary baseless attacks.

No credibility…nothing.

I would highly doubt Saeed or Trax have ever seen Mark Sullivan in person or even been on the show floor at SCI. Those that know Mark, generally, respect him and enjoy their time, brief or otherwise.

Steve

+1

if more people would mind their own business the world would be a lot better place.

shane

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Steve - If I gave a couple of million dollars to SCI, or anyone else for that matter, I might just require that some form of accounting be made available. Since I don't contribute nearly that much , really don't need a certified public account report to let me know exactly where EVERY penny I gave was spent. And please don't tell me I "should care", after all it is MY money.

Since it seems you must have contributed a large sum to SCI in 2013, thus wanting to know how every penny of your money was spent is understandable.

Steve, just how much was that 2013 donation you gave to SCI???? I am sure lots of folks here would be interested in knowing. So please let us all know. Thanks.

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
j$$$ - I don't/won't speak for Matt, but here is my view once and for all/

I don't care how much money SCI makes!
I don't care how they spend THEIR money!
I don't care how much they spend in Africa!
I don't care how MS and SCI address their differences?
I don't care how MS choose to run HIS business!
I don't care how SCI and DSC elects their officers!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines WHO they let attend their shows!
I don't care how SCI and DSC determines their booth cost to exhibitors!
I don't care how SCI works their hunt donations!
I don't care what CB's personal financial position is!
I don't care how/where CB's wife or any other wives hunt!
I don't care what any ones personal finances are!
I don't care how Tracks Across Africa runs their shows!
I don't care what individual outfitters do or how they conduct their business!
I don't care how DSC chooses to run their Convention!
I don't care what "others" do or don't do, it simply is none of MY business.

I am not a "busy body" who has to know everything about everybody like some here. These are things I have no say in or control of, so really don't care/worry about them. If you like prying into every ones business and private lives, go for it. Just isn't my interest.

Larry Sellers

Prime example of SHEEPLE mentality.

Another definition

And another



If you give money to SCI (or any other organsation for that matter) and/or are a member you SHOULD care what they do with it!

As for the Sullivan/SCI issue, if you don't care, it's not compulsory for you to comment. All you have to do to avoid being drawn into the debate is not comment.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
MS knowingly takes on hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering . But you are OK with that.

In the context of most threads revolving around Mark Sullivan, this kind of comment isn't unusual; but this one is illustrative of the often self-evident stupidity that purports to be serious commentary on the subject. Ah, but there's more ...

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Funny that the US presidents SS, go to concerted effort to avoid-prevent or reduce risk and danger, while MS goes to concerted efforts to pursue and increase it.

My guess is that they haven't covered the fallacy of the undistributed middle in your high school math class yet. When the subject of non sequiturs arises, by all means offer this quote of yours as a first-rate exemplar.

Kim,

Don't blame Trax for believing that.

Please read Mark Sullivan's own letter, where he states what a bunch of bad shot his clients are.


Here it is for enjoyment



==============


To members of AR, friends, and clients:

It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to write you. To the surprise of many, I have not purposely avoided this day. I am not as well versed in the computer arena as many of you, nor do I wish to be. I live a simple life. I have never tried or wanted to be a disruptive influence. I go about my business one day at a time. I infringe upon no one. I expect the same from others. I suppose this is why I am misunderstood. People believe I am aloof; and perhaps even arrogant. I am none of the above. My intentions are honorable, I assure you. For my critics on this forum I now answer your allegations against me.

I began my professional hunting career in Tanzania in 1990 at the age of 40. Then as now; I go about my business one day at a time. I offend no one. I am professional to everyone. I have no ax to grind and; no dog in the fight. As I did 20 years ago, I still, in my view, hunt for all of the right reasons and none of the bad as I have so often been accused. I do not hunt for the camera or to show off. I do not brag or boast. I instruct. I answer questions. I also write books. I make documentary hunting films that are responsible for thousands of hunters going on safari each year.

My movies evoke great emotion. Either you like them or you do not. Regardless of your emotions so invoked, they are true. The charges are real. If you watch them with an unbiased eye, you will notice no edits ever occur moments before or during a charge. In all cases, my clients shoot first. My shot always follows theirs. The footage is unaltered. It is authentic as it happens footage. Whether you like what you see or not is a different matter. The life and death events depicted on the screen cannot be denied. In the wild, everyday is kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. My films simply show this raw side of nature.

I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust.

For example, a client shoots and wounds a buffalo. Then the buffalo is allowed to run. The client and professional hunter sit down for 30 to 45 minutes to let the buffalo “stiffen.” Is the buffalo not suffering during this time? The buffalo is allowed to “stiffen” which is code word to die. Is that “dangerous game” hunting to you? I pursue my buffalo immediately, every time. I do not want to find him dead. I want him alive. I want him to charge to his death or mine should I fail to stop him. Killing is boring. Great hunting never is. This is who I am. While I am on this point of clients wounding dangerous game and how quickly I go after it, let me address the often-mentioned criticism that I not only risk my own life, but that of my client. Over the past 20 years I have been a professional hunter I have never had a client (or tracker) harmed by an animal being hunted. In every instance, I first obtain express permission from the client. More often than not, a client chooses me to hunt with because of the unique hunting experience I offer. A client knows I have the proven experience to close with dangerous game and correctly books his safari. If the truth be known, I make a pretty good insurance policy.

Mr. Kim Petersen posted a letter addressed to me. I wish to answer his allegations.

The first is I intentionally wound buffalo so as to prompt them into charging. This is not true. I instruct my clients to always make the best possible shot. The indisputable fact is clients shoot poorly and nothing will ever change that reality. Coupled with the fact buffalo are notoriously difficult to kill, these two conditions make hunting them a challenge. I know many of you have killed buffalo with one shot. That is not the norm. Buffalo take a great deal of killing. I know. I have the experience to prove it. The notion that I use a .22 to shoot buffalo in the balls is not worth the effort I am about to make to dispute it, but here it goes anyway. I do not know where you hunt your buffalo. Where I hunt my buffalo the grass, bush, trees, and every other obstacle God created obscures most parts of a buffalo anyhow. In 20 years I do not recall ever seeing the testicles of a buffalo before he was shot nor have I ever had any inclination to try and shoot them. What is the point? For those who have no penchant for ever doing what I do, I can only imagine their minds race wild with things that don’t matter. If you want a buffalo to charge, put yourself in front of him, let him see you, then walk directly at him. The notion that I would waste my time using a .22 should embarrass those spreading the rumor.

The second question is more of a statement than a question. After a client takes his shot on dangerous game, I determine whether or not a backup shot is necessary or even possible. The last thing I want is for a wounded animal to get away. Contrary to what I have been accused of, I do fire backup shots quickly. More often than not, I have been blamed for firing too quickly, too often. I shoot as a backup for a number of reasons. Clients demand that I do. I determine they need help by observing their skills or lack thereof. If I am filming I believe more gun shots are better than fewer gun shots. I remember purchasing a hunting movie where I waited 45 minutes to hear the first gun shot. That may be the kind of movie you like to watch, but not me.

The second part of this is I “taunt my prey…for the purpose of filming a charge.” While this statement seems logical to the inexperienced, it is precisely for that reason why it is not true. Let me explain. An inexperienced client, or equally inexperienced professional hunter, wrongly believes that in order to get a wounded buffalo to charge, you must first “taunt” him. The very fact that someone says this tells me he has limited dangerous game experience and does not know what he says. His knowledge of wounded buffalo behavior is incomplete or simply nonexistent. Let me set the record straight. There are two kinds of buffalo; those that run and those that charge. Ninety-five percent of all wounded buffalo fall into the first category. Those that run will never charge. They are cowards and no amount of campfire story telling will change that fact. The five percent that charge do not have to be taunted at all. The moment it sees you they charge. The idea that it must be taunted into charging is simply untrue. The mere fact that you have violated their personal space by being there is enough to set them off. What is not known beforehand is which kind of buffalo you are confronting. I have never had a buffalo that first runs away, later turn and charge. In my new book “Fear No Death” I go into great detail about this and much more. Anyone interested in knowing what I know should obtain a copy.

The third item, “my clients must sign a non-disclosure agreement” is a new one. I marvel at the creativity of the Mark Sullivan haters of the world. It reminds me when people say my cajones are the size of grapefruit. While I am sure they are trying to flatter me, I later set the record straight and confessed they are the size of watermelons. Directing a client not to talk about his safari with Mark Sullivan would be like trying to tell your wife she can’t go shopping. My clients are highly educated professional people and would never sign such a document. I could no more tell them what to do than they could tell me.

The fourth question conflicts with question #2. On the one hand I am accused of not “firing backup shots to kill a buffalo” at the first opportunity and now I am accused of firing shots “on top of my clients.” Let me tell you this story. In 1997 I did not have a cameraman. Sensitive to the criticism that I shoot clients game “on their dime” I decided to experiment. I would not help a single client shoot his buffalo, except if one charged, and none did. The next three clients wounded five buffalo and all were lost. Each bull had an outside horn measurement greater than 40 inches with one I was sure would exceed 45 inches. All shots were standing broadside shots under 100 yards. The animals seemingly there for the taking and yet they were lost to die a horrible death in the bush. I ask you, “Is that what you want?” Do you wish me not to shoot so the animal runs off never to be found? I cannot believe any hunter wants that. I certainly do not. I believe we have an obligation to kill the animal as quickly and as humanely as possible.

In my movie Death by the TON, the young man’s statement deserves an explanation. I was perturbed you may say, but not for the reasons you state. This is where the way I hunt differs from how you hunt. The reason why I was disappointed is because the charging hippo was too far away to be shot. He was 21 feet away. In my opinion that is too far for a certain killing shot. My instructions to my client (before we entered the arena) were to wait until the hippo breaks the 10 foot barrier before shooting. He did not do that. I do not believe in shooting early. Twenty one feet is much too far. Why is it too far? It goes to the core of how I hunt dangerous game. I believe 10 feet is the correct distance to begin shooting; not 21 feet. It is all about the hunt, not the kill. At 10 feet it is hunting. At 21 feet it is killing. This is how I hunt. By the way, for those of you who have never stood just ten feet in front of a charging animal, there is not a lot of time to shoot. This is why it appears I am shooting “on top of my client” to the inexperienced. If you disagree that is fine. However, your disagreeing with me does not make you right. Conversely, these are solely my views. They do not make me correct either. I prefer to let my clients determine if my hunting method is right for them.

Tomorrow, Saturday, I leave for Tanzania to begin my 21st season. I will not be present to respond to your comments. If I have insulted any of you, please accept my full and complete apology. My intention is not to irritate. My writing manner is direct much like my manner and method of hunting. This is how I am made. It is what makes me—me. I have no trouble with those who disagree. But until you hunt with me you will never know me. I have more clients this year than I have ever had. I do not hold a gun to their heads to get them to sign up. They come to me willingly and leave as life-long friends. I welcome each and everyone one of you to do the same. Remember, shoot straight and let them come close!

In closing, I wish to personally thank those in support of my SCI situation. I know many of you have written SCI on my behalf. I cannot begin to thank you enough. I am humbled by your generosity. I am honored with your friendship. Recently I renewed my membership for an additional three years. Regardless of their treatment of me, I will continue to support SCI at every opportunity.

Great Hunting and Best Wishes,

Mark Sullivan
Professional Hunter

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Don't blame Trax for believing that.

Please read Mark Sullivan's own letter, where he states what a bunch of bad shot his clients are.

==============

[QUOT]

"The indisputable fact is clients shoot poorly and nothing will ever change that reality."

Mark Sullivan
Professional Hunter

[endQUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

When you've lost the argument, resort to name calling, innuendo and of course arbitrary baseless attacks.

No credibility…nothing.

Mr. Ahrenberg, seems you spoke too soon without knowing the facts.

95% of wounded buffalo are cowards - they run away!!! What a joke...

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

MS knowingly takes on hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering . But you are OK with that.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Don't blame Trax for believing that.

Please read Mark Sullivan's own letter, where he states what a bunch of bad shot his clients are.

"The indisputable fact is clients shoot poorly and nothing will ever change that reality."

Mark Sullivan
Professional Hunter

Saeed:

There are more than a few PHs who have commented on the poor shooting skills exhibited by many of their clients. Sullivan is no different. But for Trax to imply that Sullivan somehow selects "hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering" at the exclusion of more competent shooters is a deliberate distortion of Sullivan's own words. Of course, Trax's intent (and yours) is to further the specious argument that Sullivan deliberately wounds his game for purposes of provoking a charge - something that is demonstrably false and belied by his books and videos.

In fact, Sullivan's quote simply shows his disdain for all clients' shooting skills, and is instead evidence of his need to belittle not only his critics but his own friends and clients as well. I like his style of hunting, and I would love to share a fire with him, but with these comments he often comes off as a jerk. That said, being a jerk on occasion is a far cry from intentionally wounding animals - whether by his clients or himself.

Look, if you want to criticize Sullivan for his sometimes boorish behavior, bombastic statements, and now clichéd over-the-top video persona, have at it. And I suspect you won't have much in the way of argument from most of us. But it is unseemly to fabricate offenses simply because you don't like the man's perfectly legal method of dangerous game hunting.

As a wise man once wrote,

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Who makes the decision of whether any sort of hunting either ethical or moral? A lot of people believe that using rifles with scopes is unethical. Others think bow hunters are being unethical by building hides next to water holes. I think we should leave this question to the individual concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
95% of wounded buffalo are cowards - they run away!!! What a joke...

There are two kinds of buffalo; those that run and those that charge. Ninety-five percent of all wounded buffalo fall into the first category. Those that run will never charge. They are cowards and no amount of campfire story telling will change that fact. The five percent that charge do not have to be taunted at all.

Matt…has your experience and your statistics gathered concerning Cape buffalo differ from this?

Shawn

Very interesting letter from Mr. Sullivan. He knows his market and how to sell it. There is nothing wrong in my mind with his selling the appearance of danger, or the appearance of imminent death. It doesn't matter that it is only an appearance. Apparently some hunters enjoy it. It's just not real danger compared to any number of mundane activities we partake in every day. But it feels different to the client.

He takes pride in hunting game in a dangerous fashion and points out the idiocy of making hunting dangerous game into its least dangerous form.

Then he takes pride in 20 years of ZERO injuries to clients or staff from said dangerously hunted game.

I imagine he isn't the only PH with a zero body count, so somebody please explain how the hunting style he employs could possibly be considered dangerous, firstly. Secondly what is it dangerous compared too? It certainly ain't dangerous compared to showering in your own home. How can you be a dangerous game hunter, doing it in the most dangerous fashion, for 20 years and have zero injuries to anyone from said alleged dangerous game?
...
I think Mr. Sullivan markets an experience that appeals to those with the desire for a rush caused by apparent danger only. For example, step in front of an approaching speeding car then step out of the way when the car is 200 yards away. Not really exciting for most. Then step back into traffic and step clear when the car is 25 yards yards away. It feels more dangerous. That's what you buy from mr. Sullivan. The appearance.

Very interesting how marketing works. I don't think selling the appearance is anything new. I think the old Tanganyika Professional Hunter Jacky Hamman said it best, that no animal was any match for an armed man. Mr. Hamman may well have understood that he was selling the rush, and "appearance" of imminent death. See "White Hunters", by Brian Herne, page 213. Hamman understood like Mr. Sullivan, that he was selling the appearance of danger, not actual danger.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

MS knowingly takes on hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering . But you are OK with that.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Don't blame Trax for believing that.

Please read Mark Sullivan's own letter, where he states what a bunch of bad shot his clients are.

"The indisputable fact is clients shoot poorly and nothing will ever change that reality."

Mark Sullivan
Professional Hunter

Saeed:

There are more than a few PHs who have commented on the poor shooting skills exhibited by many of their clients. Sullivan is no different. But for Trax to imply that Sullivan somehow selects "hopeless lousy shot clients, who have propensity to wound game and cause extended suffering" at the exclusion of more competent shooters is a deliberate distortion of Sullivan's own words. Of course, Trax's intent (and yours) is to further the specious argument that Sullivan deliberately wounds his game for purposes of provoking a charge - something that is demonstrably false and belied by his books and videos.

In fact, Sullivan's quote simply shows his disdain for all clients' shooting skills, and is instead evidence of his need to belittle not only his critics but his own friends and clients as well. I like his style of hunting, and I would love to share a fire with him, but with these comments he often comes off as a jerk. That said, being a jerk on occasion is a far cry from intentionally wounding animals - whether by his clients or himself.

Look, if you want to criticize Sullivan for his sometimes boorish behavior, bombastic statements, and now clichéd over-the-top video persona, have at it. And I suspect you won't have much in the way of argument from most of us. But it is unseemly to fabricate offenses simply because you don't like the man's perfectly legal method of dangerous game hunting.

As a wise man once wrote,

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Who makes the decision of whether any sort of hunting either ethical or moral? A lot of people believe that using rifles with scopes is unethical. Others think bow hunters are being unethical by building hides next to water holes. I think we should leave this question to the individual concerned.

Kim,

We all have our bad days while hunting.

And you are right, in that many hunters do not shoot as well under hunting conditions as they should.

I have seen that many times.

That is not the point here.

Mark Sullivan seems to have an extraordinary number of bad hunters, as he claims, and he has to shoot their animals for them.

I know many professional hunters who go several season without having to fire a single shot at the clients animals.

I would go as far as saying that 100% of buffalo that I have seen shot and wounded run away.

We run after them immediately, and shoot them on sight.

There is absolutely no need to set up the cameras to glorify one's self against an animal.

Only idiots do that!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I know many professional hunters who go several season without having to fire a single shot at the clients animals.

Saeed:

I will grant you that there is abundant evidence that Mark Sullivan is fast on the trigger. That's not to say that Sullivan does that with every animal or with every client. However, his videos demonstrate that he shoots a lot of his client's trophies.

Of course, maybe his clients don't mind, or more likely, only those hunts where the client has asked him to back them up are selected for inclusion on his DVDs. Whatever it might be, I've yet to hear any of his clients complain. That's more than can be said for a number of PHs out there.

All that said, you've got to admit, Saeed, for those of us who are 'financially challenged' Sullivan has an enviable business model: Become a professional hunter; get other people to pay you to go on safari; and, then shoot your clients' expensive trophies. Wow! That should be a case study at Harvard Business School.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Steve, just how much was that 2013 donation you gave to SCI???? I am sure lots of folks here would be interested in knowing. So please let us all know. Thanks.

Larry Sellers

Just 2 cents Larry……………over and over and over and over with nauseating regularity…………………

Brett

All that said, you've got to admit, Saeed, for those of us who are 'financially challenged' Sullivan has an enviable business model: Become a professional hunter; get other people to pay you to go on safari; and, then shoot your clients' expensive trophies. Wow! That should be a case study at Harvard Business School.

That says a lot about the clients who choose to hunt with him!!

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
95% of wounded buffalo are cowards - they run away!!! What a joke...

There are two kinds of buffalo; those that run and those that charge. Ninety-five percent of all wounded buffalo fall into the first category. Those that run will never charge. They are cowards and no amount of campfire story telling will change that fact. The five percent that charge do not have to be taunted at all.

Matt…has your experience and your statistics gathered concerning Cape buffalo differ from this?

Shawn

Awwww .... c'mon Shawn.... Can't you see the irony in him calling these dangerous animals 'cowards'?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
95% of wounded buffalo are cowards - they run away!!! What a joke...

There are two kinds of buffalo; those that run and those that charge. Ninety-five percent of all wounded buffalo fall into the first category. Those that run will never charge. They are cowards and no amount of campfire story telling will change that fact. The five percent that charge do not have to be taunted at all.

Matt…has your experience and your statistics gathered concerning Cape buffalo differ from this?

Shawn

Awwww .... c'mon Shawn.... Can't you see the irony in him calling these dangerous animals 'cowards'?

Sorry Matt I thought you were going a different direction with that topic.