Introduction.
First of all, please excuse the delay in my posting. I had the information in hand but my knee prevents me from sitting for any great length of time at a computer table. It needs to be elevated and iced and I don’t type well in a prone position.

Second, I would ask all involved here keep comments to the topic of this thread, to the facts (let’s stay away from “I heard...” or “somebody said...”) and all in a gentlemanly manner. I know we will disagree on many things but let’s be men of honor.

Third, is there is a lot of data to tabulate in my state of pain meds and throbbing knee. If I write Mark fired four times and you watch the video and see five shots, accept I made an error in viewing or recording the data, not lying to support Mark. I also ask forgiveness for any typos in advance.

Let me inject something here so you all will know where I stand. I’m not much of a hunter. Africa interests me with its hunting but I rarely hunted in my 30 years here in Alaska. My love is pre W.W.II English double rifles. I like larger calibers. I don’t read hunting or firearms magazines except the African Hunter, don’t watch or buy hunting videos, and don’t buy contemporary books on hunting experiences of others. Except for the charge in the first video I was not too impressed as they seemed like all others I have seen. And, if Mark did not change his style and methods I believe he would have blended in with the thousands of PHs that were plying their trade in Africa. One does not have to look far in the entertainment industry to see how folks develop a style for attention. As not everyone can sing like Frank Sinatra, write like Bob Dylan, or have the charisma of the (early) Beatles so they must do something to bring them to the spotlight. Mark has successfully done this. Some may not like it (that is obvious from the posts on AR when his name comes up) but his name brings out emotion like no other in the business. The reason I wrote of my interests is there is something that has drawn me to Mark’s films.

As to the videos. The first ten of Mark’s films I viewed. I did not watch the “best of” films as it would have been repetitious and I don’t have his last film (although it is on the way). The films are:

1. 1990 Africa’s Black Death
2. 1992 Simba
3. 1992 Mbogo
4. 1995 Sudden Death
5. 1996 Death on the Run
6. 1998 Shot to Death
7. 2000 Death at My Feet
8. 2004 In the Face of Death
9. 2005 Death by the Ton
10.2006 Death Rush

A very important note: the 2004 film, In the Face of Death, is a documentary and not a hunting film with clients, although clients are shown. This is Mark’s “This is what I do and why” film and is not included in the tabulations to follow. When I refer to films I will number them in order 1-10 and then the number of the hunt so you can reference it quickly if you wish. In other words 6-4 would mean film 6, 4th hunt. Remember there will be no reference to film 8.



AFRICA’S BLACK DEATH 1990
Seeing it many times but now with an analytical viewpoint here is my take on the hunt. A disabled hunter shoots his buff (11th and last hunt) several times with Mark encouraging the shots. After the buff falls Mark walks to the downed animal and the hunter is driven over. Mark approached from the back of the buff when the buff lifts his head turns to see Mark, gets up and begins a charge. It took two shots to kill the buffalo. My take is Mark was going to check to see if the animal was dead. If he was not and the distance was greater I believe Mark would have had the client shoot. I believe Mark was surprised and did not expect the events to unfold as they did. The first shot was low, between the eyes, and the second shot was higher and was the brain shot that was fatal. A couple of things happened here. First I (and most of you) have read the literature for over 100 years where the hunter states the brain shot was best performed by aiming at the nose or between the eyes. Mark proved them incorrect and showed that in film. I remember lots of banter over this and many current writers then stuck with the nose or between the eyes story. The second event was the turning point in Mark’s career.

I remember well a fellow teacher coming to me in the hall at school stating he saw the most unbelievable buffalo charge. The owner of a local gun shop was playing it all day on constant loop. Not the video, just the charge, and it was the talk of the hunters here in Anchorage. As any business man knows, one has to set himself (or his product) ahead of the competition for recognition. This charge got so much attention that I would bet this first video of Marks outsold his next two, Mbogo and Simba, by a large margin. He was on to something. 30 shots by clients, 7 shots by Mark.


SIMBA 1992
Four great lion hunts. No charges. Great big game footage. What has set this film apart is it (as all of Mark’s films, show no plains game. Just the bug stuff. 10 shots by clients, none by Mark.


MBOGO 1992
Eight buffalo hunts. One charge on hunt 5. Client wounds the buff and it runs off into grass that must be 8-10 feet high and very thick. The group enters the grass in a truck and the buff charges immediately. Mark and client shoot together with Mark’s first shot in the eye that stops the buff. 27 shots by clients, 10 shots by Mark.


Commentary of the first three films. These are definitely set apart from the films that follow and are more like the traditional African hunting videos we have all seen for years. First, is a professional narrator. Second is the footage is like most videos where the hunter shoots (and sometimes many times there after) and the PH rarely shoots his rifle. Setting things apart are that in Mark’s early years he shot very nice rifles!. As mentioned there is not much to set things apart from the standard of the day except for the buffalo charge in his first film and, of course, all dangerous game, no plains game. The next group of four film will show a development of Mark’s style has it has become known ot all.


SUDDEN DEATH 1995
Three years passed since the filming of the previous two videos. The changes here were very positive. First by using himself as the story teller it brings a much more personal way to show the hunting adventures. Now, too, is Mark asking the client, “Tell me about the shot...” and the client’s perspective is of added importance. The only part of any of Mark’s films I would take issue with is the walk up to a spined buff, hunt 6, (initial shot was off camera) and spending a minute or two talking about the number and size of buffalo running away. Now, since the buff were in the area I would guess the initial shot happened a very short time ago but I would have liked to have seen the buff dispatched sooner and the discussion come after. The end of the film, hunt 8, showed a charge which happened shortly after the first shots and mark, his son, Shawn, and two hunters all emptied their doubles into the buffalo. (As an interesting side note, Shawn was using a Lang .450 no2 which is nearly identical to my Lang, same caliber, and only 40 serial numbers apart). Shots by clients 16, shots by Mark 5, shots by others 6.


DEATH ON THE RUN 1996
This always has been my favorite even though many good films followed. Great animals and great rifles I guess is the reason. Two great charges and absolutely unprovoked. Yes, Mark shot but only after the client shot and failed to stop the animal. On the hippo charge, hunt 2, Mark and his client came to a hippo getting out of the water. The hippo went straight into the brush and Mark and the client turned to their right to go to the bush also. The hippo saw them and began an instant and unprovoked charge. The client’s first shot failed to put the animal down and Mark brained it with a calm and cool single shot. The hippo fell instantly and the client put in his second shot. For the buffalo charge, hunt 10, Mark and the client walked through some open land to some brush where a wounded buff was waiting. As they came around to the left the buff charged instantly and totally unprovoked. The client’s shot missed as dust can be seen at the left of the screen and the buff came on to Mark. With his .600 the first shot was low but stunned the buff and when he dropped his head Mark put a second shot down through the top of the boss. In these two charges it is important to note the charges were unprovoked, one wounded and one not, and in both instances the client had the opportunity to stop the animal. Only when they failed to do so, did Mark finish the job. Shots by clients 17, shots by Mark 3.


SHOT TO DEATH 1998
11 animals killed, no charges. This is film number 6 and it hit me what I think the majority of the reason for the statements the Mark shoots the client’s animals. While watching the 18 minute preview I noticed Mark shooting several buffalo. Lots of gun shots, lots of action, lots of animals, lots of rifles and Africa. However, many of the quick scenes of Mark shooting were not in the body of the film. For 10 animals shot by clients (remember Mark shot one buff on his own--hunt 11) Mark only shot his beautiful rifle twice. He shot many more times than that in the exciting preview but they were not hunts featured in the film. This may lead to the comments as stated. Especially so with the folks who state they watched a few minutes and turned off the film. Shots by clients 21, shots by Mark 2 (plus another 3 at his own buff).

DEATH AT MY FEET 2000
I can see why many viewing this film could jump to conclusions that are not 100% accurate. In the first hippo kill the client makes a great shot as it moves out of the water. It gets up and stands there, no charge, and Mark brains it with the .600. Why? I’d have to ask Mark and that is the proper way to go about things (and I will). Mark did not need to shoot and he and the client have a history of friendship and hunting. Just an agreement? Let’s ask first.
The next hunt was a buff and the client shot six times and Mark three when the bull was running away. I have seen videos where the PH will put in a shot or two when the critter is running just to put extra holes in the animal to slow it down. Next buff, the client shot six times, and it is easy to see a few misses. Upon followup the bull, which ran each prior followup now charges instantly; Mark shot twice and killed it in full charge. The client ran out of ammo. This was proper for any PH. Elephant next. The client shoots when the elephant turns away. It was an ass shot or a miss and some dust on a far grassy area pops up and there was no evidence the elephant being hit. As the bull turns to the left Mark kills it with one shot. Like the first hippo, I would be interested in asking “why” as there was not danger and the client could have kept on shooting. Next buff, client shot twice and the buff ran off and Mark took a shot. Buff found dead. Next buff dropped with one shot from the client. Hippo next and what I would call an unprovoked charge the hippo ran out of the water. Mark told the client to shoot and they both shot at the same time. Mark’s shot in the proper place, the client’s too high. While many feel this type of hunting is wrong, or state so to attack Mark’s actions, it is far more exciting than to kill it (assassinate it as Mark puts it) from the bank as the hippo peacefully rests in the water. If the client relied on just his own shot, he would have died. Two hunters shot a buff on a 2x1 and Mark did not shoot. Last was interesting buff charge. Client shoots 3 and Mark twice. Follow up and instant charge. both shoot together, client’s shot too high and grazes the boss, Mark with brain shot. Proper PH job and the client shot his last shot. (Why did the client only have four cartridges with him?) Shots by clients 25, shots by Mark 12.

So, Mark did a lot of shooting in this film. Two kills (hippo [hunt 1] and elephant [hunt 4]) did not seem to be needed but Mark needs to be asked the details before speculation. Charges were not staged and happened quickly and any PH would do what Mark did. One may state why get close enough for a charge to happen and I would say it is up to the PH and client at the moment of the confrontation: thick bush, poor shooting my client, excitement.

Mark also blows sunshine up some of the client’s backsides by complimenting on the quality of their shooting when the film show some poor shots and complete misses. I guess all PHs do that is it would not be good business practice to say, “Your shots really sucked on this critter, bub.”


IN THE FACE OF DEATH 2004
This film in not a hunting film. Rather it is 90 minutes of Mark explaining his style and philosophy as well as his opinion on the solids vs, softs debate and the double vs. bolt debate. As to the questions of charges Mark admits if a PH wants to avoid a charge he will never have a charge in 30 years. He would prefer not to do so. And, while Mark states he has always relished the joy and excitement of a close up hunt and/or charge, there is no doubt his filming charges have increased as have his years of experience. And, he mentions clients who ask to be part of a charge. The particular client mentioned in this film shot and missed the charge and if Mark had made any errors the result would have been fatal. This video also tells of the proper placement for a brain shot on both hippo and buffalo and the myths of such shots such as buffalo charge with their head up so a brain shot must be in the nose or that a hippo charges with its mouth open. He also mentions shooting animals at a distance is assassination and not true hunting. There is no doubt truth to this. When I see hunting on television and killing shots of several hundred yards it is great shooting but not real hunting. Also, in all his films Mark never waits at a water hole behind a hide for the clients to shoot. All of his hunting is fair chase, no fences, and on foot. With all the guaranteed hunts out there, shooting from vehicles and at night with spotlights, and shooting endless impala and other plains game it is a nice break to watch someone hunt the way most of us (at least the older generation) learned hunting to be.

In this film I saw confidence, not condescending attitude, facts not fiction, and the narration by a man who has climbed to the top of his profession by both hard work but also by charting a route to follow that had not been done prior. The increase of charges show me a PH who is looking at the best way to market hunts as well as DVDs--and the market wants it and is willing to buy it. If this was not true the law of the marketplace would work in the opposite direction and what Mark sells would not be bought. I do wish, however, that Mark’s detractors would watch this film to get an explanation of why Mark does what he does. I know that would not change the minds to those who just want to hate but I would bet if Mark said what he says on the film to a detractor in person in their living room the statements would take a different tone. It is easy to criticize when one is an armchair quarterback, a PH who wishes he had Mark’s following, clientele, rifles, and income, or from the anonymous status of the internet where one can spew what he wants without having to show his face or let his name be known. I doubt Mark would continue his success if he gave up what he does now and went to shooting plains game and an occasional buffalo. But that’s just my opinion.


DEATH BY THE TON 2005
It has been five years since Mark put out a hunting film and a lot has changed over the years. Mark continues to use fine rifles and is very positive with his clients--even when they screw up on camera (one gent keeps pulling the front trigger on his borrowed double [hunt 4] and a second makes the final walk up with an empty chamber [hunt 6]). Mark does more shooting here than in the past by far and there was only one charge, a hippo (hunt 8), that was properly brained by the client. Mark shot when the hippo hit the ground but it was not needed. What I noticed in the first 7 animals is Mark picks out the animal that is to be shot, encourages the client to shoot, and only shoots as the animal is running away. Unless clients surface and state they asked Mark not to shoot and he did there is probably an agreement between client and PH. I know on many of my hunts my PH asked me if he should shoot if the animal turns and runs. I would bet Mark offers the same courtesy to his clients. Shots by clients 19, shots by Mark 14.

Other changes I notice were an absence of leopard and lion hunts which were very common in Mark’s past films, although only one elephant so far and that the quality of the client’s rifles is improving. Some really nice doubles and bolt rifles here.

So, Mark is shooting more, always after the client shoots (not one exception) and the walk ups find the animal dead most of the time, and only one charge.


DEATH RUSH 2006
This is the last film I have of Marks except for the “Best of” DVDs. This continues to the same format as the previous film. Marks shoots a lot in this one, too. In all cases the client shoots first and Mark puts in shots as the buff is running away. In the hippo charges (hunts 1-4-9)he shoots with the client. Buff charge when wounded and hippo are never wounded when they charge. In the opening hippo scene a huge bull is looking at Mark and the client behind some brush. It will be a long wait so Mark kicks some dirt in the air to stimulate the hippo. When he moves it will be a charge or to run away. He charges and the kill is very exciting. But in all the hippo charges in Mark’s films this is the only time Mark took action to provoke the charge. And, he kicks a bit of dirt--he didn’t wound it! The two buffalo charges (hunts 6 and 8) the initial shot was not on camera (6) and the second the client shoots first and Mark second. Shots by clients 28, shots by Mark 19.


Personal observations:
I like what Mark does even more and now the air is cleared of emotion and only the facts are there. To put it in one word--this is Excitement and hunting at its best. Yes, other PHs produce hunt films. They have good dangerous game or big game footage. One difference lies is that the big stuff in spaced between countless impala and other plains game. I don’t mean to offend as we all have our likes and dislikes about hunting, but i get tired of seeing kudu shot at 250 yards with a synthetic scoped magnum with a fluted barrel and a muzzle brake or warthog killed at a water hole. That is part of this entire game, I know, but Mark’s videos are set apart in that he only hunts dangerous game. He does it where there are no fences, on foot, with open sighted vintage double rifles (that many would regulate to the gun safe to avoid them getting dirty) and does not shoot from vehicles or at a water hole blind. To me, those are really good attributes for any hunter--PH or client.

As to why the negative comments toward Mark? One will never know or tabulate as emotion runs high by anyone who is fanatical on an issue. There is now no doubt that Mark’s exploits have been blown way out of proportion. It is like the dirty politics in US elections from the local to state to national level. Actions or words are taken out of context and magnified to make a point. Such as the “stupid habit” of Mark’s kicking dirt in hippo’s faces to provoke a charge. Stupid is an opinion and while that can be disagreed with it can’t be argued. Habit is something that happens over time, often, and this only happened once in the 2006 video. The hippo could have been shot as it peeked out from behind some brush. Mark chose to make it charge and it was damn exciting. It was not unethical--the animal was not wounded nor hurt in any way. And, it was going to die--either in an exciting manner or a rather dull one.

Many of the negative comments come from arm chair hunters with a mentality of joining the antis to keep up with the Jones’. Much comes from fellow PHs and I would guess a good bit of it is jealousy. Look at the facts. Why would a PH state garbage as Mark asks clients to wound, or a .22 is used to shoot the buff in the balls, to invoke a charge? And, it is always, “I heard this was done”--never once, “I saw it done.” The facts are that Mark is perhaps the best known name in the hunting business, hunts with the finest rifles, makes a damn good income, hunts in the finest safari lands in Africa, and has an endless supply of clients. What PH would not want to be in the same boat? However, with all the hype, if another PH begins to do what Mark does he will be chastised publicly and humiliated for copying Mark. So, Mark stands alone much like the solitary bulls he so ethically hunts. He stated his case once on AR and never attacked his attackers. That showed the quality of character this man has.

After all the verbal diarrhea on AR I hope the facts are now clear. I don’t expect any of the attackers or haters to change their opinion but at least we can say now the total number of charges filmed in 16 years is only 14 the total times Mark killed the animal rather than the client is 2, and the number of unprovoked hippo charges was 5 of 6, and the number of buff charges is a total of 8.

In closing, I would like to say a “thank you” to all who read and comment and I hope all will remain the gentlemen we were raised to be. As I write this Mark’s last film came in the mail and I watched it with interest. Mark stated that while he looks for charges only 5% of his buffalo actually do charge when wounded. The other 95% run away. For the 16 years covered by the 9 films I watched that would explain why only 8 charges in 16 years. That is one charge every two years!

As to Mark shooting at his client’s animals--I just also watched Boddington on Buffalo. This was the first film I have seen of Craigs. At the end he states he would not have his ego get in the way and have the PH put in some shots to get the animal down more quickly. So, if Craig says this, why is Mark criticized for doing the same?

As for me, my knee is on the mend it was an interesting venture to do this. I think it would be fun to watch and compare Craig and Ivan’s films to see hiw they are alike and different. It would be fun to watch Saeed’s films to compare with Marks.

That’s all, gents. It’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Let the games begin................*

Very concise, Cal. Nice breakdown and to the point. There will still be the naysayers but very thorough.

Excellent review Cal.

No surprises in your report.

I like the person and I enjoy his videos.

Others don't and won't regardless of your findings and facts presented.
They are entitled to and secure in their opinions as are you and I but those who have not yet seen these videos for themselves will have the opportunity to do so (or not) based upon their own interpretation of your observations.

Stay well and thanks,

You missed 'Sick to Death'.

Cal,

Can you se the new Dead Buffalo rating system. As in "Death of my Toe Fungus" rates 3 Dead Buffalos....

Excellent, "just the facts as I see them" post and most important of all, the truth about Mark Sullivan, also validated by those individuals I know who've hunted with Mark. Thanks for his call and a big YES to the synthetic (puke) fluted barrel rifles! jorge

Well done Cal. I agree with your conclusions.

I hope the knee is better.

Cal,

Not sure if you have got our film.

If you haven't please PM me your mailing address and I will be happy to mail you one.

Ours is not a strictly "hunting film".

It is more of a complete safari, which includes hunting of course.

Saeed:
PM sent and my thanks.
Gents:
A friend just pasted my tally at the end of my original post. Please see the chart for your information. For both of the negative comments posted and the many that will follow the fact is Mark averages one buffalo charge every 2 years and one hippo charge every 2.6 years for the 16 years the films cover. The facts speak for themselves. If any of you are offended by my post, you have my apologies.
Cheers, all.
Cal

A well done and thought provoking analysis. Well done Cal

In all seriousness, I consider these films to be a resource. Where else is a travelling hunter going to get to see so many charges.

Jeff

Jeff:
When I asked folks in this business how many charges Mark has on his videos the least estimate is "dozens" and climb to "a hundred or more." I guess they do make an impact as the actual number is so much less.

When I was completing this post/thread I received Mark's latest film. Towards the end he explains that the vast majority of wounded buffalo do not charge--even when he walks up to the buff. His estimate is only 5% charge and 95% run away. That is a good explanation of the results I tabulated that show so few charges over a 16-year period. While I don't have the number of buffalo hunting clients Mark as had in 16 years I'm sure it is a sizable number and most clients in Tanzania are allowed to shoot 3 buff, I believe, on the longer license.

So, the facts are here. Thanks for your comments.
Cal

I recently ordered his newest video "Use Enough Death" and am excited to watch it, when it arrives.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
In all seriousness, I consider these films to be a resource. Where else is a travelling hunter going to get to see so many charges.

Jeff

In about 100 lifetimes

So we have 82 animals taken.

Clients fired 193 shot

Mark Sullivan fired an additional 73 shots.

I think I better keep quiet.

Cal, thank you for posting this for us.

Got your PM, your DVDs will be in the mail tomorrow, together with another dozen or so requests received today.

Cal,

My point being that it might provide those of us who do it occaisonally a split second of recognition that could help ward off disaster. Your intrepid PH may not be in the proper position when the doo doo hits the proverbial wind machine.

Jeff

I have actually thought about "Pulling a Sullivan"
"Pulling a Sullivan" being sell all my shit here in the US. Divorce the wife and move to Tanz, find someone stupid enough to hire me, get my PH card and following the Sullivan PH model.
What could be better?

Cal: If you were to proclaim here that Mark Sullivan walks on water, rest assured some would chime in with "yeah, that's because he can't swim"... j

Very good info Cal. I have about half of those videos. I concur 100% with your findings. There really aren't that many charges shown on the DVDs. And your points about shooting done in the opening segments are spot on. There is no doubt that some of what is shown on those opening segments are Mark's hunts, not clients. Several of his own hunts are shown, especially in this last DVD, Use Enough Death. In fact, on the RSA buffalo hunt show therein, which is Mark's buffalo as he is being guided, he tells the PH prior to the first shot, "We are doing this together remember so go ahead and shoot". I wonder how many of his clients gave him the same go ahead in the videos filmed for release.

From all the DVDs of Mark's, I agree with you in that there are 2 questionable instances of Mark killing the animal. The elephant that Mark Egglier obviously missed, and the hippo that the client stopped while coming out of the water with Mark killing it. I'd like to know his answers for those two, but those are the only two kills I would have an issue with were I his client. I'll continue to purchase his DVDs. I still think our personalities would clash on safari however but that has nothing to do with ethics, just the way he responds to people.

Take care of that knee and heal up. Great work.

PS. On this latest video, there is quite a bit of up close and personal hunts in the thick jesse which counters the "always out in the open" crowd. He also tempts fate with a lion that is mock charging repeatedly to counter the "never pulls that with a lion" crowd.

Cal a wonderful work on your part. Facts tell it all. You would enjoy reading Mark's book 'Fear No Death'

Here is a friend of mine who completed his first DG safari with Mark and his big lion and fine buf, one shot kills.
Mike

Todd,

"tempting fate with a lion" which has been bred on a farm in South Africa is not the same as doing the same thing with a wild lion.

We normally hear these sort of lion "hunts" called "canned"

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

"tempting fate with a lion" which has been bred on a farm in South Africa is not the same as doing the same thing with a wild lion.

We normally hear these sort of lion "hunts" called "canned"

So... what you are saying is that a RSA lion raised for a canned hunt cannot kill you if he gets to you? It isn't the same hunt, that's for sure. But a lion is a lion in terms of being able to do damage to a human. And the lion in this latest video shows absolutely NO fear of man.

By the way Saeed, care to respond to your repeated comments of Mark not pursuing buffalo into the thick stuff? That statement has been soundly put to rest! Hell, just take a look at the buffalo picture above that Mike (Retreever) posted. That buff is not exactly out in the open.

quote:

MBOGO 1992
Eight buffalo hunts. One charge on hunt 5. Client wounds the buff and it runs off into grass that must be 8-10 feet high and very thick. The group enters the grass in a truck and the buff charges immediately. Mark and client shoot together with Mark’s first shot in the eye that stops the buff. 27 shots by clients, 10 shots by Mark.

Thank you Cal.

Todd,

With all due respect, you are not going to change my opinion of Mark Sullivan's methods of hunting.

To me he is most definitely does NOT fit the meaning of a Professional Hunter.

He is a Hollywood style showman.

Cal was kind enough to compile the table above, which speaks volumes about what I mean.

I guarantee you that the PHs I have had the pleasure of hunting with, all combined, have NOT fired as many shots at clients animals in all their lives compared with what Mark has fired in the above videos.

Cal,

I didn't see where you tabulated how many times MS says "Now we'll let it decide how it wants to die".

It would be interesting to see how MS's ratio of "shots fired" to client's "shots fired", where he shoots roughly 40% as much as the clients, compares with the experience of other PHs.

My personal opinion that he's an insufferable asshole was not based on numbers, and wasn't changed by these.

Boredom and narcotics are not good together.....

Saeed,

No need to change your opinion. Everyone has one. But the facts don't support the vitriole. Pure and simple. You stated over and over that Mark Sullivan does not pursue buffalo into the thick bush. Yet, the video evidence shows that he has and does. Numerous times. I can't image why my personal opinion would make a bit of difference to you. But I will say that the opinions I value most are the ones that are based in fact; at least to as much of a reasonable point as is possible.

Your opinion, as stated, is that he doesn't go into the thick stuff. The fact is, he does. It's that simple.

Every post I've ever made concerning Mark Sullivan has simply been to request that remarks about the man and his "style" or lack thereof as some would say, be confined to accurate statements. Surely, if it's that important to discredit the man, doing so with accurate statements should be easy, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Saeed,

No need to change your opinion. Everyone has one. But the facts don't support the vitriole. Pure and simple. You stated over and over that Mark Sullivan does not pursue buffalo into the thick bush. Yet, the video evidence shows that he has and does. Numerous times. I can't image why my personal opinion would make a bit of difference to you. But I will say that the opinions I value most are the ones that are based in fact; at least to as much of a reasonable point as is possible.

Your opinion, as stated, is that he doesn't go into the thick stuff. The fact is, he does. It's that simple.

Every post I've ever made concerning Mark Sullivan has simply been to request that remarks about the man and his "style" or lack thereof as some would say, be confined to accurate statements. Surely, if it's that important to discredit the man, doing so with accurate statements should be easy, right?

Why did he go into the grass in the truck in the above mentioned example posted by Cal?

And I am not the one who is discrediting him of being a professional hunter.

It is his behavior that is doing it.

So many things he does in his films, goes completely against the grain of what I consider of being a professional hunter.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Cal, thank you for posting this for us.

Thanks Cal!

Thank you, Cal. I admire Mark, and his cool, calm, deadly hunting and shooting skills, even if I don't necessarily appreciate the talk for the camera. He isn't alone in hamming it up for the camera, as others do that as well (which is one of the reasons I like Boddington so much - he understates instead of overstates, to the point where he could be an honourary Aussie). And Mark isn't alone in firing questionable back-up shots. After watching lots of elephant hunts, I wonder if there is any PH out there who would trust me to boiler room shoot the ele cow twice on my own with my .500NE without joining-in? I will certainly be asking this when the time comes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saeed:

Why did he go into the grass in the truck in the above mentioned example posted by Cal?

QUOTE]

Saeed, Sir, he did indeed use the ute once or twice. Once the ute was there because the client was handicapped. The other time, I don't know. However, MOST of the time he goes into the bush on a follow-up without a ute. And MANY other PHs have been filmed doing follow-ups on wounded game with the ute.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Saeed,

No need to change your opinion. Everyone has one. But the facts don't support the vitriole. Pure and simple. You stated over and over that Mark Sullivan does not pursue buffalo into the thick bush. Yet, the video evidence shows that he has and does. Numerous times. I can't image why my personal opinion would make a bit of difference to you. But I will say that the opinions I value most are the ones that are based in fact; at least to as much of a reasonable point as is possible.

Your opinion, as stated, is that he doesn't go into the thick stuff. The fact is, he does. It's that simple.

Every post I've ever made concerning Mark Sullivan has simply been to request that remarks about the man and his "style" or lack thereof as some would say, be confined to accurate statements. Surely, if it's that important to discredit the man, doing so with accurate statements should be easy, right?

Why did he go into the grass in the truck in the above mentioned example posted by Cal?

And I am not the one who is discrediting him of being a professional hunter.

It is his behavior that is doing it.

So many things he does in his films, goes completely against the grain of what I consider of being a professional hunter.

Mike Fell and Jim Shockey go into the thick grass while riding in the back of a cruiser after a wounded buffalo in the opening of Jim's TV show. They both shoot at the same time and stop it's charge before it reaches the front bumper. They show that clip at the beginning of every episode of his "Jim Shockey's Hunting Adventures". Why no calling out of Mike Fell for doing the exact same thing?

In Beasts of Legend, Len Taylor rides on the front of the cruiser when they go in after Lionhunter's buddy's lion after shooting it approaching the bait. Why no calling out of Len Taylor for doing the exact same thing?

Ivan Carter advocates using the truck for going into high grass for wounded animals on Beasts of Legend. Why no calling out Ivan for making those statements?

Hmmm ... could it actually be that Mark is using the same technique as other "well respected" PHs when following up wounded DG in high grass? The smart thing I might add! I simply fail to understand why Mark gets called out when others don't. Well, actually I do know the reason. Mark's personality is abrasive and self promoting. But then, self promoting your business is still something I'm not sure why I'm supposed to hate the man for.

Saeed, I don't know that I can agree with you concerning his "behavior" unless you are speaking of his "personality", specifically in the way he speaks and relates to his clients. If that's your point, we are in agreement. Personally, I think he is abrasive and a bit condescending to the clients. That's why I've said repeatedly that I won't hunt with him because our personalities would clash. But he makes a hell of an exciting DG hunting video. Possibly even better with the "Mute" button engaged!!

I will assume these videos are a fair sampling of his hunts. If so, then MS shoots more client game than I have ever seen by a PH. Yet his video clients are happy and he sells quite a few of these things? He may not be a great white hunter, but he sure looks like a great white P.T. Barnum. Good for him. I am not opposed to shearing sheep.

Cal: I think you would really enjoy Mark Sullivan's book. The photography is really nice and there is an excellent chapter on his double rifles with excellent photos. Many of the scenes from his videos are discussed in length in the book. Keep flexing!!!!

I've enjoyed the films. He was very polite and pleasant on two phone
calls that I made to him. Once I called and left a message and he called
me back and chatted near 1/2 an hour "on his dime". I'd like to have
the money to hunt with him.

Saeed:
You are correct in quoting my observation of Mark's 1992 film and the follow up in the truck. However, it would only be fair to additionally point out this was the only instance filmed and it was 21 years ago. One act by anyone should not define the person.

Most of the posts here are done honorably, a few rude ones are expected as emotions run high on this subject, but let's look at the entire picture before any of us sits in judgement.

Jefffive:
No, I didn't tabulate his expressions, however his first comment you mentioned was in 1998 film, hunt 2. I didn't see a need to keep track of it further as it is acting, showmanship, etc., to sell the adventure. Personally I see nothing wrong or unethical about what he says but that is my opinion only. I would bet, however, it is far less than one would guess--kind of like the number of buff charges.

Speaking of buff charges, I friend stopped by today. We have been to Zim on a hunt, he has met and likes Mark, and asked me if I posted my findings yet. I asked him how many buff charges he has seen on Mark's films and he replied, "Oh, 50 or 60." When I told him only 8 he was quite surprised. I would guess lots of stuff about Mark, in addition to his charges, including but not limited to what he says, has been magnified in people's minds. Not just in a negative way, either, it must be the nature of the man or the subject.
Cheers gents,
Cal

Excellent review Cal.
THANK YOU CAL.
Well done.

Best wishes.

Bock, III

Cal,
Thanks for the review. I appreciate your efforts and observations.

Cal:

I think you are correct.

This entire episode make me think about a friend of mine who was on the first Survivor Africa. I saw a clip of him. I was stunned about what came out of his mouth. Not like him at all. I discussed with him. The clip was edited and did not give the entire discussion.

I wonder how much is left off of the video? It surely can't help sell DVD's to hear a client discussing with MS whether they want him to shoot or not. I will bet there is a lot. I can tell you one thing. I tell my PH on every single hunt that if he has any doubt whether the animal I shot is mortally wounded to fire away. There is not a single time that this has ever appeared in the DVD's that I have made. Not once.

People have opinions on MS, often strong opinions. It never ceases to amaze me how MS is condemned for certain actions that other highly respected PH's do routinely.

In my opinion, he is a hell of a good shot. He is a skilled hunter. He has balls the size of a 55 gallon drum. On the other hand, I tire quickly hearing his discussion with clients, "tell us how you feel bwana." I tire hearing his discussion of how the buff chooses how it wants to die.

I have a few comments about his DVD's:

1- Like it or not, that hippo hunting is a lot more sporting that shooting them in the water.

2- I think he was nervous as hell in Black Death. I can't say that I blame him.

3- There is one of the DVD's (can't remember which) where 2 massive old buff bulls are taken. I do think he shoots before the client in that situation. One of these days, I will find that and take a look.

Finally, I have heard a rumor or two about MS and some serious health issues. Does anyone know if that is true?

Thanks again Cal. This is the most objective post on MS that I have ever seen.

Cal, thanks for the objective perspective on Mark and his films. I wish you could have hunted with him a few times as that would have given you some info not in the films. That would be even better than the compilation of the films-which was very good by the way. If I get to Alaska again, I will hook up to talk about English double rifles.

Tom

Thanks for the hard work, Cal, under difficult circumstances. Hope you are doing well in your recovery.

Based on your data, Sullivan took 73 shots at 83 of his clients' animals in these films. That is an astonishing percentage. Sullivan's ammunition budget would bankrupt most African PHs. And it would appall any experienced and self-respecting African hunter if his PH was truly forced to shoot that often.

But it's not clear to me that Sullivan is actually forced to shoot that often. Sometimes, to be sure. But Sullivan's shooting, as described, seems to be the result of a combination of pitifully poor client shooting and what I would describe as an all too trigger happy PH.

Also based on your data, Sullivan was involved in 14 Cape buffalo and hippo charges in these films. Not a lot of information on these, especially as regards what I consider to be the sins of enticement and prolonging the animal's suffering. But they do seem to be largely the result of more pitifully poor client shooting and what I would describe as reckless PH hunting techniques, especially on follow ups.

That's a record that every PH I have ever known would consider a failure in critical respects.

Nothing to emulate, that's certain, and definitely not for me.

Todd:
I just got the answer to one of your two questions about two animals (hippo and elephant) Mark killed rather than the client (film 7, hunts 1 and 4). The elephant in hunt 4 was most likely missed by Mark E. (I think he misses a lot) and MS shot instantly. As Mark S. explained to a mutual friend, we as viewers have replay and slow motion. He does not and he fired after the client fired but it was not possible for him to see when and if (or if not) the client's bullet struck. I accept that and someday will ask about the first kill--the hippo that ran from the water.
Cheers, mate.
Cal
PS. As a difference between you and I, my friend, I don't have a problem with Mark's commentary or attitude. I really like what he does and now so, even more.