Quote:

---

Yes, it is now more than ever my contention that it is more dangerous to hunt the wild bovines of North and Central America than the Cape buffalo. Why more dangerous? Because they are bigger and MORE AGGRESSIVE.

---

Quote:

---

The reason that you shoot cape buffalo when they are "completely unawares" is because there is a very good chance they will do their best to kill you if they know you are around!

---

Quote:

---

Sharpshooter, if you ever get the chance to hunt them, shoot them once for me, too. Make mine a head shot - you guys know how much I like head shots.



Bobcat and FOsteology, I share your concern about this thread getting ugly, but I hope you don't lock it. I can assure you that you will not see anything out of line from me. I have seen other threads where people call each other names, use profanity, and all that stuff, but I do not debate topics in this way. As compared to other bovines around the world, I did call the Cape buffalo a sissy, but I do not make personal attacks on people. I simply point out facts and reveal the documentation.



Now then, that said, I would like to call out a statement that has been bothering me, but as of yet I have not had time to address it. It is this:

quote:

---

The reason that you shoot cape buffalo when they are "completely unawares" is because there is a very good chance they will do their best to kill you if they know you are around!

---

I knew that this was not true, and that the real reason was so that you could get a shot before they spooked and ran. I also knew that I could shatter this myth. I also knew that if I did not shatter this myth, it would stand, and my conscience simply would not permit me to allow this myth to continue living. In order to document this, I needed a random pool of cases of Cape buffalo/hunter encounters in which the buffalo becomes aware of the hunter's presence before he is shot unawares. I could not simply find an assortment of cases, because then one could say, rightfully, that these were just arbitrary cases that I had picked out to support my contention. It had to be a source of a random batch of cases in which I had no control over the content of any of the cases. The way I achieved this was to use every single applicable encounter from a book called "Where Lions Roam," by Major Craig Boddington, both those which supported my contention as well as those that did not support my contention. By using all of the cases in the book, I cannot be accused of being selective or biased in my documentation. Another thing which makes this book a fair source, is that it includes cases from all over Africa, rather than just one location. The important thing to pay attention to is exactly what the buffalo did immediately upon discovering the presence of the hunters.





Let us go to the first case on page 18. This is in the Okavango Delta:

quote:

---

..But they had stood in thick cover, and when we approached we heard only cracking branches and hoofbeats.



Ronnie ran, and I ran with him - not away, but toward the sound. Spooked buffalo will often run just a short distance, then stop to mill and see what disturbed them; charging the herd is often a good way to get a shot. Not this time. Past the thick cover was open woodland, the grass freshly burned, and at the edge of our vision we could see a few black forms trotting away. We ran some more but the buffalo never stopped. When we ran out of breath we slowed down, checked the tracks to ensure a bull was in the group, and settled in for a long morning afoot.



The bushmen took the tracks, fresh and clear - gray ash in the burned, black grass. They led straight from one patch of brush to another, trotting for a mile, then walking, and then starting to meander. Then they started to circle. Started only, for just a quarter circle off the spoor was enough for them to catch the fickle quartering breeze.



The bush to our left erupted into hooves and cracking branches-they were moving away in flight, not fight. We ran to the sound, clearing the bush just in time to see, once again, broad black backsides and long black tails vanishing into a pall of dust.



Another mile and the tracks showed the buffalo were walking again... then another eruption in thick thorn, followed by more tracking.

---

Let's now go to the next hunt, on p.25, also in Okavango.

quote:

---

On the last day we found fresh tracks on the edge of the swamps and followed them from island to island, wading chest deep in the cold water. We caught them on a large island, but as we closed in they caught a whiff of scent. Uncertain where it came from, they came toward us in a rush of pounding hooves and pillaring dust, not charging at all but just blindly stampeding.

---

Next case on p. 78, in the Selous Reserve:

quote:

---

One morning we tracked a big herd for a couple of miles, catching up with it as the buffalo fed through an open glade. I was carrying my double .470, but with so many eyes and in such open country there was no way to get close enough for a sure shot

---

Note that Maj Boddington is not remotely worried about being attacked upon being seen, but instead acknowledging the near impossibility of getting a shot if spotted. This alone documents my contention, but we shall proceed. Next case, p. 138, in the Zambezi Valley:

quote:

---

We crept a bit closer... untill a swirl of breeze spooked unseen buffalo on the far right of the herd. They all started to run, but of course only a few knew why they were running. I knew what was next, so when Russ stood up to run I was ready. We ran, not away from the herd, but toward them. (Maj Boddington's italics) Under such circumstances you can charge a buffalo herd in relative safety; sometimes they'll circle and sometimes they'll stop, but you can almost always see buffalo you haven't seen before. This time we ran with them for a half-mile or so, stopping when they stopped and choking on their dust as we ran in their wake.

---

Again, what is of note here, is not just the fact that the buffalo once again failed to attack upon detecting the hunters, but Maj Boddington's virtual certainty that in fact, there would be no such attack. But let us go on.. Next encounter, p. 184, in the Great Rift Valley:

quote:

---

...this morning we saw no bulls that were even marginal. Somehow, we were missing them, so we stuck with it.



Eventually we'd exhausted ourselves as well as all options for crawling in close without spooking them. So we backed off, lay down in the shade, and waited. Sooner or later they'd move, and then we'd have them.

---

Again, look at Maj Boddington's words. He is concerned that moving in close will spook them, not at all that he might be attacked. We go forward. Next encounter, p. 246, again in the Selous:

quote:

---

The nearest cow was just a few yards away, with several others also close by. The rest of the herd was hidden. Then a puff of swirling breeze spooked an unseen buffalo somewhere in the herd. They all stampeded in a cloud of dust-but, as sometimes happens when they can't tell the origin of a threat, in a few seconds they all came trooping back.

---

Next case, p. 248, still in the Selous:

quote:

---

We had tracked three bulls into a very thick piece of cover, and came upon them face-to face. I took a step toward Luke to get clear, found the shoulder of a big bull, and started the squeeze. Then things went bad. The bull started to run off-fast-but somehow I couldn't stop the trigger squeeze. I got the barrel moving, but it was too late. I knew exactly where the bullet had hit, and I told Luke, "At the diaphragm, angling forward. Probably got one lung." .. One lung is never enough, and I knew it.

---

Note that there was no attack, even when face to face. Next case, p. 256, at Bangweulu:





[/QUOTE]The bull's body was hidden and we could see just one horn. We waited, binoculars glued, and finally it tilted its head enough to show us the other horn tip. I nodded and got ready.



Russ clapped his hands. I had expected the bull to stand, but perhaps it had played this game before. It stood, all right, but it came to its feet in one fluid motion and kept moving, exactly as it had been lying, which meant quartering strongly away from me.

quote:

---

I doubt clapping one's hands in a situation like that would be recommended if there was even a remote chance that it would precipitate a charge. But, we move on. Next case, p. 269, at the SAVE Conservancy:

quote:

---

...We worked them for a long time and from several angles, closing within 30 yards of the nearest animal several times. We found a couple of bulls, but nothing fully mature. However, the thorn was very thick and the buffalo were blanketed in black shadow. We were still pretty sure we handn't seen them all.



Cuan led us a bit farther to the right to give them our wind. That did it; the dark glade erupted with moving buffalo-more than we thought. They stampeded out of the cover and we ran with them, cutting back to the left to remove our scent. The herd stopped after a short run and milled in a grassy clearing, confused..

---

Again, note that they intentionally gave away their position, quite certain that that would make the buffalo run away from their cover, not attack. Next case-this is the next day on the same herd, p. 270:

quote:

---

We followed, and in just an hour or so we found the herd bedded in thick mopane. We couldn't see the bulls. In fact, it was so thick we could only see a couple of animals. We started crawling in, but something gave us away and the herd thundered off, smashing branches and leaving a plume of red dust.

---

Next case, p. 301, back at Bangweulu:

quote:

---

..We could see bits and pieces of various buffalo feeding in a grassy swale behind the antheap. They seemed to be feeding away, so all we needed to do was wait a few minutes, then slip out to the side and close in. Then something happened, probably a stray eddy of our scent. All the buffalo spooked and dashed away out of sight.

---

That is all of the cases in the book where the buffalo became aware of the hunters before being shot. When I began this research, I figured that probably 95 percent of the cases in the book would support my position, but actually I was wrong. As you can see, 100 percent of the cases support my position that the true reason for shooting buffalo unawares is so that they don't spook and run away, thereby denying you a shot. It is also not just the fact that not a single buffalo attacked upon becoming aware of the hunters, but also the words of Maj Boddington himself. He comes right out and says repeatedly that you must slip up on them unawares or they will spook.





There were many other buffalo/hunter encounters in the book, but I was unable to use them for the purposes of this research, because they were all shot unawares. However, they do still provide some useful insight nonetheless. Of all the buffalo mentioned in the above cases which were eventually shot, PLUS all the buffalo in the book which were shot unawares, not a single buffalo charged even as a result of being shot. Every single buffalo in the book ran away upon being shot or shot at. I have not been able to document a single case of a buffalo attacking immediately upon becoming aware of a person.





Let us examine the three charges that have taken place recently and have the buffalo worshippers' hearts all atwitter right now. In the case of Bob Fontana, that buffalo did not charge "upon becoming aware of Mr. Fontana." That buffalo most certainly knew of the presence of the hunters for some time before he actually charged. He most certainly heard the hunters coming well before they reached him, and he also probably saw them for a little while before charging, and possibly smelled them as well. What did he do when he first learned of their presence? He froze in his hiding place, most likely hoping that they would go in a different direction and not see him. He was most likely afraid of them. To him, it looked like HE was the one being stalked. He had no way of knowing they were after kudu. And quite possibly, he may have been right, for even though they were looking for kudu, if they also had buffalo on the agenda for their safari, then they quite possibly may have shot that buffalo if they had seen him before the buffalo saw them. At any rate, if they would have veered off in a different direction away from the buffalo at any time after the buffalo heard them and before the actual charge occurred, then it is a virtual certainty that the charge would never have happened. Unfortunately for them, they did not veer, and so when they got right on top of the buffalo, it looked to the buffalo that he had been spotted and busted and was about to be shot. He had every reason in the world to believe that he was busted and cornered. Only then did he charge. So, to say that he charged because he was alerted to their presence, would be totally false.





In the case of Nikki Atcheson, did he charge when he became alerted to the presence of the hunters? No. Did he even charge upon being shot? (I think gutshot, but I am not certain about that) No, he ran away. He did not charge until he had been BOTH shot AND cornered.





In the case which my distinguished colleague posted earlier in this thread, the buffalo was shot unawares so we do not know what his reaction would have been if he would have known the hunters were there before he was shot, although it is a virtual lock that he would have ran away. So did he charge upon being shot-twice? (Again, I think gutshot both times, but I am not certain) No, he ran away. He, too, did not charge until he had been BOTH shot AND cornered in his cover.





So, really, it would appear that for all intents and purposes, in order to get a charge out of a buffalo, you either have to make him believe that he has been busted and cornered, or you have to actually shoot him and then corner him in his cover. I am very sorry to report to the Cape buffalo worshippers, but the myths surrounding their sacred cow are simply not standing up to factual research and the light of day.

---

The reason that you shoot cape buffalo when they are "completely unawares" is because there is a very good chance they will do their best to kill you if they know you are around![QUOTE]





What a bunch of sensationalism. A very good chance. Yeah, right. A more likely chance from the Easter Bunny. Yes, it is now more than ever my contention that it is more dangerous to hunt the wild bovines of North and Central America than the Cape buffalo. Why more dangerous? Because they are bigger and MORE AGGRESSIVE. Probably South America, too, but my research has not taken me that far yet.

---

Quote:

---

...- he REALLY downplays the dangers of buffalo hunting, except when the rare wounded buff launches an "attack...

---

Quote:

---

I am very sorry to report to the Cape buffalo worshippers, but the myths surrounding their sacred cow are simply not standing up to factual research and the light of day.

Yes, it is now more than ever my contention that it is more dangerous to hunt the wild bovines of North and Central America than the Cape buffalo. Why more dangerous? Because they are bigger and MORE AGGRESSIVE. Probably South America, too, but my research has not taken me that far yet.

---

What are you actually trying to say?
You spent an awful lot of time researching documentation to prove how "tame" cape buffalo are and the best reason for supporting your theory that wild bovines are, in fact, more dangerous is summarised in 2 words; "bigger" and "more aggressive"? Where is all your supporting documentation for this????

How many people get killed by wild bovine? Damn, i can't believe I let myself into this discussion.....

Safe hunting!

Quote:

---

Hi GonHuntin,

I apologize for offending you, but I never in any way shape or form even implied that that particular longhorn on that particular ranch was similar to cape buffalo. If anybody took anything I said to mean that, then I will happily try to rephrase it and clarify it.


I also never in any way shape or form meant to imply that any domesticated bovine was similar to cape buffalo. I said that wild cattle were more dangerous to hunt than cape buffalo, and I still absolutely stand by this statement. Wild cattle are just that, wild, as in, not domesticated. They are two completely different things. In fact, they are, in a word, opposites. If a thing is wild, that means by definition it is not domesticated, and if a thing is domesticated, that means by definition it cannot be wild. The cattle of Central America which are not domesticated are wild bovines, as are cape buffalo. Logic would dictate, that, a wild bovine should be similar to, a wild bovine. Finn Aagard was the first person I ever heard say that these wild cattle of Central America and southern Texas were even more dangerous to hunt than cape buffalo beacause they are more aggressive, much bigger, and are generally hunted in areas of much denser vegetation than cape buffalo. He speculated as to why they may be more aggressive, but he said that whatever the reason, they are, in fact, more aggressive. I, personally, have no reason to disbelieve him. I am truly sorry if this offends anybody, but yes, I would tend to believe the man.


I have also seen numerous reports of the wild bovines of Asia, as also being more dangerous to hunt than cape buffalo, because they too, are more aggressive, much bigger, and are generally hunted in denser vegetation than cape buffalo. I also heard Maj. Craig Boddington say at the Houston Safari Club not long ago that the reddish Western African buffalo, as found in places like Burkina Faso, are also more dangerous to hunt because they are also more aggressive than the cape buffalo species as found in southern and eastern Africa. He said that they are somewhat smaller, but that they are still more dangerous to hunt nonetheless because of their extra aggression. I have also seen documentation of the greater agression, as well as agility, of the Western African buffalo, in comparison to the Cape buffalo, in an article written by Ivan de Klasz and Erick Teicher. Here is a portion of that article:


"...Buffalo trophies can also be quite impressive. The subspecies to be hunted here is listed by the Rowland Ward record book as the North Western Buffalo. Since 2000 S.C.I. classifies them as the West African Savannah Buffalo (Syncerus caffer platycerus). While the trophies are not comparable in size to those of the Southern (Cape) Buffalo, and their body weight is some third less than their southern African cousins, this impressive animal makes up the difference in aggression and agility. This buffalo presents two types of horns: one resembling � though smaller � the horns of the central African Savannah Buffalo, the other � larger � corresponding to the Dwarf Forest (Nanus) buffalo. Body colour can vary from black to reddish brown, often even in the same herd..."



So, given all these documented cases of wild bovines in other parts of the world being more dangerous to hunt than cape buffalo because they are much bigger and/or more aggressive and/or are generally hunted in areas of denser vegetation, I don't find it all that difficult to believe that some other species of wild bovine may in fact also be much bigger, more aggressive, and more dangerous to hunt. I do not understand how it is that there could be so many reports of the Asian wild bovines being more dangerous to hunt than the cape buffalo, and this not hurting anybody's feelings, and then Finn Aagard saying the same thing about another species of wild bovine, and that hurts someone's feelings. I am truly sorry that there are so many credible documents reporting that the cape buffalo is not the most dangerous wild bovine in the world to hunt, but the fact is that these documents do exist, and I did not write them. I am only reporting to this board what I found in these documents. If your feelings are so hurt that the cape buffalo is simply not the most dangerous wild bovine to hunt in the world, then I would ask you to please not shoot the messenger. I have no quarrel with either side.


I suppose that I should also mention here that I have also found documents suggesting that the much disrespected American Bison is also more dangerous to hunt, IF HUNTED BY FAIR CHASE METHODS. We all know that the bison was nearly extirpated, but they were just shot from long ranges, they were never followed up on when wounded, and large numbers of them were simply exterminated from railroad cars. But if a hunter hunts them close and personal by the same methods in which cape buffalo are traditionally hunted, they are more dangerous. It is true, as is stated in the article below, that the bison does not have the malevolent reputation of the cape buffalo, but that is not because it is any less dangerous, it is because it has so rarely been hunted by true fair chase methods. The cape buffalo would have the same reputation as the bison if it were simply executed in the way bison have traditionally been. Here is a portion of an article written by Chuck Hawks:


"...Plenty of killing power was needed, for the American bison is the world's largest bovine, considerably larger than the average African Cape buffalo. While they can indeed be dangerous to humans, the bison does not have the malevolent reputation of his distant African cousin.


It is easy (but very dangerous) to underestimate the North American bison, as they frequently appear docile and often are. And everyone knows that they were hunted to near extinction in the late 19th Century. However, what is less well known is that in Yellowstone National Park, the place where human visitors and free roaming dangerous game like grizzly bears and buffalo most frequently meet, bison injure and kill more people than any other animal--including bears.


Make no mistake: hunting the American bison can be hazardous to your health. To quote Glen Derra, manager of the Bar-Y Ranch in Chiliquin, Oregon where free roaming buffalo are hunted using only fair chase methods, "The cows are most likely to charge because of the calves, and will make a pass at you. Whether they hook you or miss, they'll most often keep on going. But buffalo bulls stay after you until everything is torn to bits and nothing is left; they just don't quit."


Experienced hunters divide buffalo attacks into three categories, behaviors that are apparently common to all of the wild bovine species. If a buffalo is injured or feels threatened it may simply run down the perceived threat and keep going. This is the least serious type of encounter. Sometimes being trampled is fatal, usually it is damaging, but sometimes the victim escapes without serious injury; and occasionally the animal simply misses. The second level of encounter is being hooked and tossed, after which the animal departs. This usually involves serious injury and hospitalization, but the victims often survive if they receive proper treatment. The most serious attack is a pounding, described in the paragraph above. That is where the animal repeatedly gores and tramples the victim, grinding them into the ground. A pounding is invariably fatal.


Estimates are that there are now around 500,000 bison in North America. According to the published research of Edward A. Matunas, an average size female bison weighs around 930 pounds, and an average full-grown male around 1600 pounds. Very large male bison can weigh 2000 pounds, and extreme monsters weighting 3000 pounds have been recorded. Anyone hunting game that averages ten times his own weight and solves problems by running over them had better carry a powerful rifle!


Bison are formidable creatures. They can achieve speeds of up to 30 miles an hour and out accelerate a performance car, so a human being cannot outrun a charging bison. Their large front quarters allow them to "slam on the brakes" and stop on the proverbial dime, and their smaller rear quarters allow them to nearly turn in place, so a human cannot dodge them if they are committed to his demise. Once engaged, the hunter has no option but to stand and finish the job.


The buffalo runners on the frontier did their work at ranges safely removed from the great beasts. This is still a wise policy today. A good rule of thumb is to intentionally engage dangerous game no closer than 50 yards and no farther away than 150 yards. The idea is to be close enough to assure a solid hit, and far enough away to allow time for a follow-up shot if faced with a charge..."



In conclusion, I truly mean no disrespect, but after having seen the documentation which I have seen, my assessment would have to be, I am very sorry to say, that the cape buffalo is simply not, "King Bovine." It would appear that in fact, as far as the wild bovines of the world go, the cape buffalo, is actually, "Basement Bovine."

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, you're certainly right about the Mini (14). For this I will bring my 45-70 and the Buffalo Bore ammo.

---

Quote:

---

When her time has come, I would definitely make a hunt out of that! There is an awful lot of African game taken under conditions that are nowhere near as fair chase as that. Heck, game from all over the world, for that matter. That my friend, is a wild bull.

---

Quote:

---

Heck, there are a whole lot of cape buffalo that are just kind of stumbled across and shot completely unawares, in other words, not exactly like they were carefully tracked and stalked.

---

Quote:

---

Feral cattle are a completely different thing from domesticated cattle. They are mean and alert and a worthy game animal. Also, like cape buffalo, the cows will charge you often more readily than the bulls. Really, that's all a cape buffalo is - a wild bovine.

---

Quote:

---

FOsteology, I am not so sure that I would call it "not sporting." I mean, you know, all things are relative. If you were to compare that bison hunt to say, a kudu hunt, in which you have cut the spoor of a kudu, and you are trying to track him and stalk into position, using the wind to your advantage, and you find yourself within range and you take him, then no, it is not very sporting. However, let's say you are walking back to the truck after an unsuccessful stalk on a kudu, and by chance you happen upon a lion, and so you take him. OK, if a person says that that buffalo should not be shot because it wasn't fair chase, it wasn't sporting, blah blah blah, then that same person should not be allowed to take that lion. I mean, you were not even hunting lion, you didn't even know there was one within a mile of you, you certainly were not tracking or stalking or trying to outsmart him. You were not even trying to keep upwind of him. You just accidentally stumbled onto him. You didn't even know he was there. He didn't even know you were there. It's just, "hey look, there's a lion! Bam!"



Now personally, I do not adhere to the school of thought which says that's not sporting, and if it were me, I would take the lion in a heartbeat. Hey, I found him, he was unawares, he should have been more alert. That's his bad luck. Same with the bison. I would take him in a minute, too. I figure if most hunters would take that lion, (including me) then I should be able to take that bison, meat hunt or not. I am sure that to other people there is a big difference, and they are certainly entitled to their opinions, but to me, honestly there is no significant difference. I say that if it is sporting to take that lion, and to me it is, then it is also sporting to take that bison. Even on a piece of land as small as 400 acres, if an animal is wary enough, you won't have an easy shot. Like I said, he should have been more wary, same as the lion. That's his bad luck. Kind of like in that Clint Eastwood movie (the name escapes me, I think it may have been The Unforgiven),



"You shot an unarmed man!" And Clint says casually, "He should have armed himself."

---

Quote:

---

No disrespect intended, but, have you ever been to Africa? Have you ever seen a cape buffalo? Do you really know anything about how african game is hunted?



If you really believe that *any* domesticated bovine is even remotely in the same league as a cape buffalo.......well, you are sadly mistaken! I'm not saying a cow can't be dangerous, but, if you think that hunting cape buffalo is anything like shooting a longhorn on some ranch......you are fooling yourself!



The reason that you shoot cape buffalo when they are "completely unawares" is because there is a very good chance they will do their best to kill you if they know you are around!

---

The last sentence in the quote is really bugging him.......he has researched all kinds of magazines and books to prove me wrong.......like I said in the other thread......he is an armchair hunter!



Hey Ingwe



I'll ask this again since you dodged it in the other thread.......



.... have you ever been to Africa? Have you ever seen a cape buffalo? Do you really know anything about how african game is hunted?





and one more:



........in the last 30 days, there have

been at least 3 instances where hunters &/or PHs were

severely injured or killed by cape buffalo.......how many

people have you read about that were severely injured or

killed while hunting bison, water buffalo or wild cattle in

the last 30 days.....the last year???



I got a kick out of reading the thread on the other board where he psyches himself up about hunting a cow! This guy cracks me up!

Quote:

---

Mickey

Speaking of "petty squabbling"......should I do a quick search and see if you have been involved in any of the "45-70 for dangerous game" or "push feed vs. CRF" petty squabbling? I'm sure most of us are guilty of participating in some "petty squabbling" on occasion!

...if you haven't done so, you might want to read the other thread......it is comical!

---

GonHuntin

I don't think you will find me on those threads. Somethings are not worth beating your head against a wall over and over to explain.

I will add this though. In the mid-eighties I went down to a ranch North of Monterey Mexico with 4 other guys to hunt Wild Bulls. These were Fighting Bulls that had escaped from the ranch and others like it in the area. This had been going on for 150 years or so and these animals were living in some mountains nearby. The local villagers used to cross these mountains on foot, with horses and burros as a shortcut to the local town.

We were told that around a dozen people had been killed by these 'cows' in the last 5 years and many, many more injured. Since no one in the government really cared much nothing was done.

We hunted hard for 5 days, on foot mostly and shot 25 or so. It was extremely difficult and challenging because of the thick bush. Everyone of us faced some sort of a charge and myself and one other guy were charged by unwounded or un pressured animals. In my case, I walked around the corner of a wagon road and saw a Bull standing broadside in the road about 50 yards away. He turned his head and looked at me for just a second and then came full tilt. I was not threatening or pushing him. I shot him once at about 40 yards through the lower chest as I would a Buffalo and then again at about 10 yards between the eyes when he lowered his head. He piled up about 5 yards away. The first shot was aimed and the second was probably just a coincedence.

The first shot went right through the middle of his Heart, totally destroying it and the second took off the brain stem. This was with my .404 and 400 grain RWS TUGS. I shot 6 and this was the only charge although a couple waited in the thorns for me but died before I gave them a chance.

I have read the other thread that you posted the link to and, frankly, don't see where anybody is out of line. Just differances of opinion. It everybody always agreed why would you need a forum?

Quote:

---

I think the only difference is that I am making a distinction between domestic range cattle and wild feral cattle, otherwise known as Easter Bunnies. Everyone that I have heard from who has had actual personal experience with the wild feral cattle have been exactly in line with my research on this topic. I have located a wild herd near Monterrey, Mexico,

---

Ingwe, I fully understand the difference between feral cattle, and wild domestic cattle. I hunted the wild Spanish cattle along the Rio Grande river near Langtry, Tx a few years ago. These cattle had always been wild, decendants of escaped cattle brought along by the Sapnish conqistadore explorers. If you have ever been in that canyon country, you will know they are filled with American Bamboo, thickets, with only norrow trails through them. Not a nice place to hunt anything that is prone to shiskabob you. With that said, after some very close encounters with them, I still consider the Cape Buffalo to be more dangerous. As Micky says, this is simply a difference in perception, and unless one has hunted both under similar conditions, IMO, it is hard to have a real true picture.

Documintation, is not always what it seems to be. Because a man writes in a magazine, doesn't make everything he writes true, or that he knows of which he writes! I'll give you a recent example of this! In the new NRA news stand magazine, SHOOTING Ilustrated, on page 40, there is a cover story about double rifle that are affordable. These are the Pedersoli Kodiak MK IV, the Biakal MP221, and a new Italian make S.I.A.C.E. The largest chambering for any of them is 45-70, yet he says if he ever gets to Africa his rifle will be one of these, so he can stare death in the face with confidence! I say this guy is in for some supprises, and he is talking out his butt, about something he has no knowledge of, and is simply looking at the hole in the muzzles of that double to confirm it's effectness, on an animal he has no experience with! However, he is a magazine writer, so many will take what he says as factual. Anyone who considers going up against a Cape Buffalo with a $650, double rifle chambered for 45-70 is in a word "CRAZY"! He may get by with it, but if he does, someone else will be hurt, following his lead, IMO!

I am not takeing sides in this out of any loyalty to anyone, but expressing my opinion only! That opinion is worth what you consider it to be worth, no more! My advice to anyone who is in this discussion is, do what you think prudant, but be willing to live by that desision, and not shift the balme for it's outcome to anyone else!

Quote:

---

Yaks



"Another [curiosity] is the wild kutas [yak]. This is a very wild and ferocious beast. In whatever manner it attacks one it proves fatal: whether it strike with its horns, or kick, or overthrow its victim. If it has no opportunity of doing any of these things, it tosses its enemy with its tongue, twenty gaz into the air, and he is dead before reaching the ground. One male kutas is a load for twelve horses. One man cannot possibly raise a shoulder of the animal. In the days of my forays I killed a kutas, and divided it among seventy persons, when each had sufficient flesh for four days. This animal is not to be met with outside the country of Tibet."

From the Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar (16th c. AD)

---

There we have it! Definite PROOF that YAKS seem as dangerous if not more so than CAPE BUFFALO !!

Quote:

---

CanadianLefty



I guess they had Outdoor Writers back then also.

---

My thoughts, exactly!!!!!!



BYE, folks, got other things to do!