Can someone explain to me this theory of "Letting the animal Decide" please. It's been mentioned a couple of times but I don't know anything about MS.

Also are we saying here that a buff is badly shot, to p1ss it off enough so that it comes and tries to turn you into shish kebab while the PH shoots it for you??? AND they pay 5 times the money for it???

There are some odd fellas out there....

FB

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

someone explain to me this theory of "Letting the animal Decide" please. It's been mentioned a couple of times but I don't know anything about MS.

Also are we saying here that a buff is badly shot, to p1ss it off enough so that it comes and tries to turn you into shish kebab while the PH shoots it for you??? AND they pay 5 times the money for it???

There are some odd fellas out there....

FB

Let the animal decide = shoot the animal, follow him up and then cautiously approach him (not taking advantages of opportunities to cleanly and responsibly finishing him off) and let him decide if it want's to lay there while you continue to approach him (without having shot it again) or if it wants to charge you.

More romantically described here by Mr. Sullivan himself "Rather than deciding the fate of a wounded Cape buffalo by simply blasting him into oblivion on the follow-up, I would confront the grand warrior with my double rifle, and beckon him to choose his own destiny."

paraphrased by Mr. Sullivan...

"Rather than shooting the great and noble warrior into oblivion from a safe distance, my clients and I choose instead to walk up and let the animal decide how he is going to die."

source http://www.nitroexpress.tv/

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
... while the PH shoots it for you???

Setting aside the rest of the controversy, I have never understood this part. Unless MS' typical client is inexperienced, and a poor marksman, so that he wounds an animal inadvertently and is then thankful to the PH for finishing it off for him.??

We, as hunters, have a MORAL obligation to end wounded animals suffering AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. No waiting to be charged, no "giving the animal a choice". If you shoot and wound an animal, kill it IMMEDIATELY! MY GOD, DOES ANYBODY HERE DISAGREE WITH THAT? People who do such things should be every moral hunter's #1 enemy. Not only are they sick pups, but they will get hunting banned! While I don't intend to speak for all the nationalities on this forum, public support for hunting in the U.S. hinges on how animals are treated during the hunt. If the PETA types publicize the kind of things M.S. does, public support WILL decline and hunting will get banned in the U.S. If you don't think it can happen, look at the U.K.![/QUOTE]

I DISAGREE hunters allow animals to die slowly allm the time. It's common Bow Hnting pratice to wait one or more hours before traking the game. Ive read accounts of african DG hunts that a animal was shot at last light and was not followed till the AM. I also have read that some PHs wait a while before they track their clients DG "Let the old boy stiffen up first".So next time you are faced with a situation like this why don't you walk on in like MS does take care of bussines. I get the impression that all this crying for the poor animal that could have been dispatched 30 seconds sooner is just covering up for someone who is not willing to face the charge.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr B:
I DISAGREE hunters allow animals to die slowly allm the time. It's common Bow Hnting pratice to wait one or more hours before traking the game. Ive read accounts of african DG hunts that a animal was shot at last light and was not followed till the AM.

Your logic is about as good as your spelling and grammar.

1. Not immediately tracking a arrow-shot animal is, in reality, REDUCING the time the animal spends while wounded. Bowhunters wait because they don't want to spook the animal and make it run further...thus increasing the time and/or distance for the hunter to reach the animal.

2. An animal shot at twilight is necessarily followed up in the morning because it would be unsafe or extremely difficult to do otherwise.

The major flaw in your argument is that you describe unintended consequences which most (if not all) hunters would wish to avoid. Any bowhunter would love for an animal to drop immediately after being shot. I'm sure any PH would love for every animal shot at dusk to be recovered immediately. The difference between Sullivan's hunting philosophy and the situations you mentioned are that he INTENDS the animal to become wounded and enraged so that small-dicks like you can get an ego boost out of having an animal charge you (or, so that he can capture the charge on film and make money selling the footage).

quote:

I also have read that some PHs wait a while before they track their clients DG "Let the old boy stiffen up first".

I agree that we let animals suffer far more than we think we do - this even extends to sport fishing, where very often the fish are gutted alive. Some may say: "But it's just a fish." My reply would be: "But its just a Cape Buffalo."

Animals are animals. We can't become suspect to N.A.S. (Noble Animal Syndrome), otherwise we are no better than the bunny huggers. A group of people who will throw a fit about dolphins being killed in tuna nets - and convieniently neglect the fact that a whole lot of tuna are in the same boat.

I also feel that few take into consideration that they are watching an edited video recording. What we see are the "entertaining" parts. We are not privy to, nor do we fully see, everything that goes down on the ground.

I would'nt hunt with MS because From what I've seen on his videos I would not like a PH shooting my trophy that much.
That being said, until someone comes forward with first hand knowledge of MS practices for good or ill, we can only armchair bwana and gossip.

Guys,

I've never hunted DG before. In fact I'm only going on my first PG hunt this year, but a couple of things are striking me.

Firstly, we all know hunting these animals is dangerous because if you don't put them down, there is a good chance they will want to try and even the score up a bit. Fair enough, and anyone who is "man enough" to stand down a charge from the pointy end of any DG probably has more guts than me. I don't know what I'd do but I might find out one day.

What I don't get is LOOKING for the charge...

Hats off to any man PH or otherwise who has the combination of shooting ability, balls and a small degree of insanity to get in the way of a charging buff and put it down with a single shot. the question I have is why if you can do that didn't they make the first shot count?

I'm only asking generic questions as I would like to hunt Buff in a couple of years and want to understand mmore about the way it all works.

Thanks

FB

There is a difference between waiting after a shot that was planned as a killing shot and deciding to shoot poorly prior to the shot.

If anyone is shooting poorly to "market" something or to raise the level of excitement they are an unethical hunter. I would have no trouble saying so to anyones face.

IMHO When you shoot you should be shooting to kill and if not you are unethical.

It is a free world and YMMV.

Good Hunting, John

I hunted with Mr. Sullivan in October 2004 in Tanzania. I was after buffalo. I found Mr. Sullivan courteous and professionally knowledgeable. He clearly has a wide range of hunting experience and great depth of experience in African hunting.

We did have a brief discussion about his approach to following up game. He noted that many people will allow game to 'stiffen up' for 30 minutes or so before following up. He questioned which approach is more humane, letting the animal suffer for half an hour, or driving on to finish the business as quickly as possible.

We took two buffalo. Mr. Sullivan asked me to dispatch the first animal as soon as we approached as the animal was down and dieing. No discussion about invoking a charge. The second animal, after receiving a frontal chest shot, stood to face us in tall grass. We moved to an ant hill that offered some small elevation about 20 steps from the buffalo. We both 'covered' the place where we could see 'a dark place' in the grass but Mr. Sullivan did not recommend trying to close given the close cover. In a couple of minutes we heard (and saw indistinctly) the buffalo fall. We walked up and I gave the animal a finishing shot. End.

I think my experience with Mr. Sullivan fit well within the norm of what most visiting hunters experience with PHs. I have friends (from Namibia) of great hunting experience in Africa who go out of their way to hunt with Mr. Sullivan. They hold him in high regard.

Alf...
Those bullets that are colored are ammunition made by the now, I believe,defunct Rigby ammunition company. A few years ago Rigby had a man in Garland, TX loading ammunition with their name on it. Tha ammo was loaded with Barnes bullets which had thier XLC coating on them, which was blue. I know as I went to the faculity to try some of the ammo in my .500 NE. So no color coding ammo here.

.

M Henselman, that is the sort of experience that I have from hunting with Mark Sullivan. To this date, Mark is the best PH I've hunted with in the field. He's happy, positive, works hard for you all the time, has good judgement, good instincts, the best equipment, and the entire hunt is conducted without compromise. And contrary to commonly accepted barstool wisdom which states that he shoots his client's game for them, all I can say is, he didn't shoot anything for me.

It would be easy to sit by the sidelines and chime in with all of the remote-control jockeys and armchair experts out there who think they have Sullivan all figured out, but the truth is, until you've hunted with him, you don't have anything about him 'figured'.......

AD

Henselman - Was a camera crew shadowing you during your hunt?

In regards to shooting a buff and then waiting 30 minutes for it to die is a load of bunk. I do not know one dangerous game PH who does this nor approves of this. Me thinks Mark is attempting to justify his actions.

For the record, no one stated that Mark is an insufferable SOB. The issue revolves around his idea of hunting ethics. Mark is either the most unlucky PH is the history of buff hunting or something else is going on...

I have no doubt that Mark is a good hunter and knowledgable in the profession of taking clients after African game.

It appears to me that he has 2 sides to him; the consumate professional on the one side and the "drama seeking" businessman on the other. when he is "making" a video, he will often succumb to all sorts of malpractices and unethical manners to achieve his goal which is to sell his videos. The method he has chosen to "stand out" from the tons of other hunting videos is rather cunning which exemplifies his abilities as a businessman. Using titles such as "Black death", "Death & double rifles" and showing footage of charge after charge is what "SELLS"! How he achieves this is what is arguably very unethical and what stains his reputation.

For those that have hunted with Mark as clients and were not exposed to these manners, Mark comes across as a different person. I do not know Mark but his "exploits" whilst doing his videos are pretty well documented by fellow professionals and known to the authorities here in Tz. As a result, the making of a hunting video for commercial purposes in Tanzania has been greatly controlled. Apart from a "filming fee" of $10K charged by the wildlife Dpt. a copy of the finished product must be surrendered to the Director of Wildlife for approval.

quote:

As a result, the making of a hunting video for commercial purposes in Tanzania has been greatly controlled. Apart from a "filming fee" of $10K charged by the wildlife Dpt. a copy of the finished product must be surrendered to the Director of Wildlife for approval.

So what happens if you make a private video and then maybe sell a few copies. What is the distinction between "commercial" and "private"? ie other than charging a few dollars for a copy? And how can it be controlled after the product is outside Tanz in any case?

Being Africa it can't be controlled! The GS is supposed to prevent you from filming unless you have a permit. Of course he would only ask if someone turns up with a huge video camera and not your average handy-cam. But then a few $$ would sort that out anyways. It boils down to the integrity of the client and the outfitter/ph whether you "bend" the rules or not.

Ultimately, the Wildlife dpt get's to know if someone has "illegally" produced a commercial video and may close down filming altogether so it's in outfitters' interest to be honest

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
As a result, the making of a hunting video for commercial purposes in Tanzania has been greatly controlled. Apart from a "filming fee" of $10K charged by the wildlife Dpt.

Mich,

I would think that bringing in $10.000 in cash is maybe the deciding factor, rather than it being important or not for them to maintain a positive image of hunting in Tanzania.

Maybe I'm too suspicious, but after all, which african govt. wouldn't want to squeeze out an extra $10.000 from the foreignors when possible with a "made up reason"? I think this might be mostly about the money. Although it would be nice if I were wrong!

Eric,
I can tell you that there are not many people who will readily pay $10K filming fee to make a video! So of course, most people take the short cut and give the GS a few bucks and everyone is happy.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
It boils down to the integrity of the client and the outfitter/ph whether you "bend" the rules or not.

What sort of services is the Tanz gov't providing for the $10G fee ? If we are talking about integrity.

Many clients have professional videographers along to make private records of their safaris. A lot of these private videos that I have seen exceed the commercial ones.

PS Most countries governments provide the $$$ incentives, not the other way round.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
It boils down to the integrity of the client and the outfitter/ph whether you "bend" the rules or not.

What sort of services is the Tanz gov't providing for the $10G fee ? If we are talking about integrity.

Nitrox, I don't subscribe to the $10K theory....but you will agree that most commercial hunting videos (certainly MS) make plenty more than that for the producers so why shouldn't the country that hosts this ask for "royalties"?

quote:

Many clients have professional videographers along to make private records of their safaris. A lot of these private videos that I have seen exceed the commercial ones.:

These guys SHOULDN'T get charged.

quote:

PS Most countries governments provide the $$$ incentives, not the other way round

This is Africa. Take it or leave it

Mich

Thanks for the info.

"Africa", Tanzania is NOT Africa only one country .

In any case my idea is not a commercial film but if some joker thought the tax should apply ! ......

quote:

Originally posted by notmenotnow:

Your logic is about as good as your spelling and grammar.

Good Tactic - attack the person, not the argument!

1. Not immediately tracking a arrow-shot animal is, in reality, REDUCING the time the animal spends while wounded. Bowhunters wait because they don't want to spook the animal and make it run further...thus increasing the time and/or distance for the hunter to reach the animal.

But, if you chase him doesn't it increase the stress and, consequently, the damage - loss of blood loss etc. thereby causing the animal to die quicker?

2. An animal shot at twilight is necessarily followed up in the morning because it would be unsafe or extremely difficult to do otherwise.

True.

The major flaw in your argument is that you describe unintended consequences which most (if not all) hunters would wish to avoid. Any bowhunter would love for an animal to drop immediately after being shot. I'm sure any PH would love for every animal shot at dusk to be recovered immediately. The difference between Sullivan's hunting philosophy and the situations you mentioned are that he INTENDS the animal to become wounded and enraged so that small-dicks like you can get an ego boost out of having an animal charge you (or, so that he can capture the charge on film and make money selling the footage).

You started out well on this point, but lost any and all validity to your argument by resorting to mind-reading ("he INTENDS the animal to become wounded") and, again,the personal attack.
Q: Why are you concerned with the size of Dr. B's penis?

Trying to belittle rather than educate someone will hardly convince them you have a valid argument.

quote:

Originally posted by notmenotnow:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr B:
I DISAGREE hunters allow animals to die slowly allm the time. It's common Bow Hnting pratice to wait one or more hours before traking the game. Ive read accounts of african DG hunts that a animal was shot at last light and was not followed till the AM.

Your logic is about as good as your spelling and grammar.

1. Not immediately tracking a arrow-shot animal is, in reality, REDUCING the time the animal spends while wounded. Bowhunters wait because they don't want to spook the animal and make it run further...thus increasing the time and/or distance for the hunter to reach the animal.

2. An animal shot at twilight is necessarily followed up in the morning because it would be unsafe or extremely difficult to do otherwise.

The major flaw in your argument is that you describe unintended consequences which most (if not all) hunters would wish to avoid. Any bowhunter would love for an animal to drop immediately after being shot. I'm sure any PH would love for every animal shot at dusk to be recovered immediately. The difference between Sullivan's hunting philosophy and the situations you mentioned are that he INTENDS the animal to become wounded and enraged so that small-dicks like you can get an ego boost out of having an animal charge you (or, so that he can capture the charge on film and make money selling the footage).

You might have a better argument if you didn't have to resort to personally attacking the writer (spelling and grammar? Oh, My!)and claiming to know the intentions of MS.
Q: Why are you concerned with Dr.B's penis size??
You might have better results making a valid point by trying to educate rather than trying to belittle someone.