From his book: AFRICA'S MOST DANGEROUS; THE SOUTHERN BUFFALO.

"Any fool can induce a buffalo charge. To do so, wound it and then delibrately walk into the animal's line of sight. Unfortunately, in recen years this "phenomenon" has been perfected for the small screen. While such a scene may seem impressive and immensely mach to the uneducated, these incidents absolutely reek of unprofessionalism, because they break every rule in the PH's book.

All PHs worth their salt will have been taught to always, absolutely always, approach a downed buffalo from behind. If teh head is still up and off the ground, the golden rule is to shoot it again, through the spine, to keep it down. Also mandatory is taking a any shot at a wounded buffalo that presents itself no, no matter from what angle. Every PH should also know that deliberately walking into a wounded buffalo's line fo sight will induce a charge.

On the TV screen I have watched buffalo charge episodes ad nauseam. They are all orchestrated. In fact, they are wonderful for training purposes - on just how not to do it! The only people I admire in the numerous sordid affairs are the cameramen. Their cojones, I am convinced, are bigger than the PH's brain!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The only people I admire in the numerous sordid affairs are the cameramen. Their cojones, I am convinced, are bigger than the PH's brain!

That is a brilliant line!

Robertson's book on hunting cape buffalo is very good. He tells it like it is. It was great to see and talk to him at the SCI convention, along with Lou Hallamore and Richard Harland.

Saeed, well said...right to the point...

Mike

See: Robertson, "Africa's Most Dangerous" pps. 215-216 for the quote that Saeed has put in the post, including the reference to cojones.

Yes, yes he did hit the nail on the head. Too bad some of the other writers available to us missed the nail completely.

First, when dealing with the actual art of hunting the buffalo this is quite rightly spot on. However for those who are pursuing the almighty dollar (small screen - big ego types) the object was never to do it right. From the first style we reap pleasure and accomplishment. From the second we and our sport are diminished.

PS: Without a doubt the cameramen are solid fellows.

Controversial comments on touchy topics also help sell books.

quote:

numerous sordid affairs

That is the perfect adjective.

Kevin nailed it all right.

But the proper way is not dramatic enough for people expecting "Rambo in Africa". Now add some hollywood and that sells DVD's.

If someone wants to play "Matador", do it right. Loose the heavy nitro double rifle and pick up a sword. Evening out the odds with el toro would be some real drama!

I bought the book and had it autographed at SCI. I read it on the plane ride home from Reno. I could not stop reading...it really is a great resource. I wish I had read it prior to my Buff hunt in Zim in 2005. It certianly confirms my feelings that the Southern or Cape Buffalo is a serious customer and demands respect. I called it right using my Blaser 416. One shot broadside at 20 yards with a 400 grain Swift A-frame did the job. Before I walked up to him I did put a few solids in him to be sure he was done. It was an awesome experience. Now he hangs in my living room reminding me of that incredible moment.

So many hunting videos today are make believe. It's TV folks. My PH was watching a video with me a month ago and saw a buffalo charge stopped with a double and recognized the bull as one he had hand fed, it was tame. It was shot inside a 10 acre pen and he told me it was coming over to the people for a sugar cube and they hit him with 500 grains of lead. Poor Hannibal! It made me sick. I'm not against hunting inside a fence, although I think 10 acres is rediculous, but to shoot that animal and film as a dangerous charge is completely vulgar. Just my opinion.

TJB

NitroX,

"Controversial comment"...I don't think so...What is controversial about stating:

1. Approaching a wounded dangerous animal from behind is the right way

2. That if a buff is down but alive to shoot again

What is touchy about saying anybody who doesn't do that is pretty dumb.

Could you please go line x line throught the quote and tell me what is controversial or touchy.

Everyone misses the point, "You let the animal decide how he's going to die".

Dak

But... Doesn't the animal get to choose how he's going to die? I thought that was the proper way of doing things. Shoot em in the guts and then let them “choose“.

Or at least I have been referred to in less than "happy" terms when I've negatively commented on that little special procedure here on AR.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Edwards:
NitroX,

"Controversial comment"...I don't think so...What is controversial about stating:

1. Approaching a wounded dangerous animal from behind is the right way

2. That if a buff is down but alive to shoot again

What is touchy about saying anybody who doesn't do that is pretty dumb.

Could you please go line x line throught the quote and tell me what is controversial or touchy.

As a member whom joined three days ago and has three posts, I suggest you do a search with the words "Mark Sullivan". Enough there for you to read without me adding any more.

Dick Ed,

As for me going through the quotation line by line for you, where can I send the invoice to you for my time?

The marketing of the "charge" videos in Reno was blantant and In Your Face. I have no use for it.

Hunting Prey species is just being a predator.... If the hunt goes on for a long time with them getting wind of the hunter.. They have a good idea one or some of them are doomed to die .....Ya , I think it somewhat immoral to wound an animal just to get a rush out of a charge..... But I also think it immoral to use a too small caliber which can lead to the same result from a different angle..But this nail banging can lead to gentle man,s club pinky finger snobbery also.....For quite some time P.H.C. was the berateing target ... Now it seems M.S. is ...Perhaps they deserve it ....But I,m much more interested in Africa because of both their work....Even if I wouldn,t do things their way..I may use the tools they did ...Which is what I,m interested in ....

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Edwards:
NitroX,

"Controversial comment"...I don't think so...What is controversial about stating:

1. Approaching a wounded dangerous animal from behind is the right way

2. That if a buff is down but alive to shoot again

What is touchy about saying anybody who doesn't do that is pretty dumb.

Could you please go line x line throught the quote and tell me what is controversial or touchy.


As a member whom joined three days ago and has three posts, I suggest you do a search with the words "Mark Sullivan". Enough there for you to read without me adding any more.

Dick Ed,

As for me going through the quotation line by line for you, where can I send the invoice to you for my time?

NitroX,

I am quite familar with Mark Sullivan and post on this board. As I normally just surf here.

As far as paying for your time. You have got to be kidding. Why would I pay for a person's time when that person has difficult reading and comprehending the English language.

I asked you a simple question to identify what is contoversial about Mr. Robertson's comment and you are unable to do so.

So either you don't understand the word "controversial" or you don't understand the word "comment" or perhaps you don't understand the phrase "Could you please go line x line throught the quote"

If you can identify which part of my question to you was unclear perhaps I can help.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking about Mr. Robertson's statement not Mark Sullivan's practice.

I am a prety generous person and will not charge you for the reading comprehension lesson.

There is nothing the least bit controversial about stating that Mark Sullivan's cameraman's testicles are bigger than Mark Sullivan's brain.

For the avoidance of doubt, there is nothing controversial about that at all.

And I, too, am very generous, and will not charge you (any more than you have already paid) for this lesson in the proper use of sarcasm.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Edwards:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Edwards:
NitroX,

"Controversial comment"...I don't think so...What is controversial about stating:

1. Approaching a wounded dangerous animal from behind is the right way

2. That if a buff is down but alive to shoot again

What is touchy about saying anybody who doesn't do that is pretty dumb.

Could you please go line x line throught the quote and tell me what is controversial or touchy.


As a member whom joined three days ago and has three posts, I suggest you do a search with the words "Mark Sullivan". Enough there for you to read without me adding any more.

Dick Ed,

As for me going through the quotation line by line for you, where can I send the invoice to you for my time?

NitroX,

I am quite familar with Mark Sullivan and post on this board. As I normally just surf here.

As far as paying for your time. You have got to be kidding. Why would I pay for a person's time when that person has difficult reading and comprehending the English language.

I asked you a simple question to identify what is contoversial about Mr. Robertson's comment and you are unable to do so.

So either you don't understand the word "controversial" or you don't understand the word "comment" or perhaps you don't understand the phrase "Could you please go line x line throught the quote"

If you can identify which part of my question to you was unclear perhaps I can help.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking about Mr. Robertson's statement not Mark Sullivan's practice.

I am a prety generous person and will not charge you for the reading comprehension lesson.

Congratulations! It only took 4 posts for you to get on my IGNORE list.

500 grains,

Clearly you are a better man than I. Cause it only took you one reply to get on my ignore list.

Gee, does Everybody here know Everything about Everything??

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Edwards:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Edwards:
Could you please go line x line throught the quote and tell me what is controversial or touchy.

As far as paying for your time. You have got to be kidding. Why would I pay for a person's time when that person has difficult reading and comprehending the English language.

I asked you a simple question to identify what is contoversial about Mr. Robertson's comment and you are unable to do so.

So either you don't understand the word "controversial" or you don't understand the word "comment" or perhaps you don't understand the phrase "Could you please go line x line throught the quote"

If you can identify which part of my question to you was unclear perhaps I can help.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking about Mr. Robertson's statement not Mark Sullivan's practice.

I am a prety generous person and will not charge you for the reading comprehension lesson.

Dick Ed-wards,

Perhaps when you demand I go through a post line by line to explain something to you.

What do I care what you think? Why should I waste my time explaining anything to you? Was my post directed to you personally?

quote:

I am quite familar with Mark Sullivan and post on this board. As I normally just surf here.

I am sure you are very familiar. "Surfing" or "trolling"?

I suspect you are a troll. Trolls often start up very aggressive and with personal attacks in their first posts, because they have previous history here. It is so very obvious.

Or maybe you are connected with the book, a publisher or something? If so, you do yourself a big dis-service by going over the top, on such a bland comment.

As for the connection between Robinson's comments and "Mark Sullivan", not many members here would not make the immediate association. So why can't you?

NitroX,

Looks to me like you care a lot about what anybody thinks.

Whatever? Who cares?

Six posts and the last three were an argument.

Try to find something constructive to talk about. Everyone's got opinions and they don't have to agree with you.

***

But back to my original comments:

Controversary sells books.

Mr. Edwards, YOU are out of line!

I join 500grains in electronically IGNORING/BLOCKING YOU!

You are the FIRST PERSON I've done this to!

Be proud.

Big Five Jack,

You might want to read the posts carefully. An activity which seems to have eluded both 500 grains and NitroX.

My original comment to Nitro X:

NitroX,

"Controversial comment"...I don't think so...What is controversial about stating:

1. Approaching a wounded dangerous animal from behind is the right way

2. That if a buff is down but alive to shoot again

What is touchy about saying anybody who doesn't do that is pretty dumb.

Could you please go line x line throught the quote and tell me what is controversial or touchy."

Please describe what is so offensive or rude in my comment above as opposed to Nitro X's reply below.


"As a member whom joined three days ago and has three posts, I suggest you do a search with the words "Mark Sullivan". Enough there for you to read without me adding any more.

Dick Ed,

As for me going through the quotation line by line for you, where can I send the invoice to you for my time?"


My question to Nitro was quite simple..."What is controversial about what Mr. Roberston stated?"

Nitro has still failed to answer that question. Instead his comments imply that I am ignornant of Mark Sullivan and that my inquiry regarding his statement is beneath his consideration. Additonally he abbreviates my given and surname into an obvious shortened version of the phrase "Dick Head".

All of this because I asked him to explain his comment about Mr. Robertson.

I'll be curious as to your next post...I expect your next post or Nitro's next post will still fail to answer the simple question I asked Nitro.

I'll repeat it again.

What is controversial about what Mr. Robertson stated in his book regarding the proper approach to a downed buffalo?


I suspect that you or Nitro will not answer what is controversial about Mr. Robertson's post because "there is nothing controversial about Mr. Robertson's writings."

The real issue here is that many people can't stand to have their comments questioned in the slightest manner.

I will answer this troll just this one time.

The reason the comments can be viewed as controversial, is the comments were made to sell the books. Are they controversial? If not, why did Saeed choose to pick just those paragraphs to post out of the whole book? Proof of the reaction.

I don't want to criticise Robertson at all as it is easy to be an armchair critic. For the sake of his discussion I will make some comments on this concept of "controversary".

Movies have been made in Africa for most of the last hundred years. It was a common practice for early movie makers to arrange stunt charges, eg by elephants. The White Hunter would often drop the charging bull in front of the camera. Somtimes this was even done for home movies. So it has been going on, even before the author was born and often by some of the most famous and respected white hunters of the time.

As for the current "crop" of charge videos. How can Robertson say they are all "staged"? ie "any fool can induce a buffalo charge". How can he claim they were all the result of "unprofessionalism" and "break every rule in the PH's book"? Was he personally there for all of the films, and saw the progress of events?

There are more video makers than just Mark Sullivan. For example there is an African website with charge videos on their site.

All of this bullshit has been gone over again but any fool (but not seemingly, the purposefully ignorant "Dick Ed") can see Robertson is referring to Mark Sullivan.

People keep talking about MS "gut shooting" buffalo. Now why would anyone have to gut shoot or purposefully wound a buffalo in that way, when if a client lung shoots a buffalo it will still have oodles of fight left in it if approached.

If a client has paid for a buffalo charge, why is it unprofessional to approach a buffalo head on, rather than from behind. Unsafe yes though it may be. But dangerous game hunting is inherently unsafe.

"Also mandatory is taking a any shot at a wounded buffalo that presents itself no, no matter from what angle."

I know of several very experienced PHs who have said "don't fill a buffalo up with lead, it just increases their adrenalin flow."

Yet here Robertson seems to be recommending shooting a buffalo just about anywhere if it is wounded, and perhaps lying down. I KNOW I would rather move into a position for a GOOD KILLING SHOT.

If a buffalo is shot reasonably well, say both lungs, why is it unprofessional to follow it up closely immediately, even if from the front, and probably upwind, when many PHs will suggest giving the buffalo a few minutes to stiffen up and perhaps die? It still takes about the same amount of time to die by either method, indeed the first might be quicker.

As I informed you "Dick", all this is recorded on these forums already, but your ego required it to be written especially for you. Anyway I have had enough. If you have any more demands or questions take them elsewhere as you are of no interest to me.

HOWEVER

Either post some of your African hunting photos or you are a troll in my eyes and many others here as well. Earn some credibility. Please tell us something about yourself or are you just another troublemaker?

I told my wife I wanted to hunt buffalo. Since she is from China, she imagined these placid animals they put children on. She could not understand why I would want to travel so far and spend so much to shoot such a placid animal. Then there was a TV show where a big black animal was doing terrible things to some lions...

"What is that animal doing to that lion?"

"That animal is trying to kill that lion."

"What is that black animal?"

(pause)

"That animal is a <cough>alo."

"What?"

"That animal is a <cough-cough>."

"Huh? What is that animal?"

"That animal is a buffalo."

"You want to hunt one of those things? Are you crazy?!?!?"

Dan

Controversial: Any statement that foments discourse or disagreement. While most of us here tend to side with the good Doktari's point of view, the fact he publicly rebuked the Mark Sullivan approach to hunting can (an obviously has here) sparked controversy, hence, NitroX's accurate statement. It's so easy to understand, even a caveman can grasp it. jorge