quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
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.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
It is difficult to converse on this or any other topic with those who misread one's posts. That's why I typically don't even try.

Thanks,Cal, for the additional information on the charges.

quote:

So we have 82 animals taken.

Clients fired 193 shot

Mark Sullivan fired an additional 73 shots.

quote:

Originally posted by Demonical:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
It is difficult to converse on this or any other topic with those who misread one's posts. That's why I typically don't even try.

Thanks,Cal, for the additional information on the charges.

Nothing was taken out of context, and I did not misquote you.I highlighted your exact statement.

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
Todd:

That buffalo was hardly shot in "thick stuff" - there's too much daylight showing in the photo and according to Retreever, a "one shot kill" so no charge involved.

In the picture Retreever posted, it's obvious that the surrounding area has been cleared for the trophy pictures. Anyone who claims none of Marks hunts were conducted in thick brush, obviously haven't watched all the DVDs. There are several in which the brush is so thick that you can't clearly see the animal they are shooting. The fact that there was no charge involved is supported by Cal's findings that Mark averaged less than 1 charge per season over 16 years. And averaged exactly 1 buffalo charge every 2 seasons. So yeah, it doesn't surprise me that Mike's friend didn't experience a charge while hunting with Mark Sullivan. I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make other than to agree that the number of charges related to M.S. video's have been grossly overstated!

Canned lion hunts in RSA? - in most cases selected cat in the brochure is too groggy from a cocktail of chemicals to know what's happening and it is almost always a "one shot deal" - I would suppose it might show some signs of life and aggression if wounded as the adrenaline surge might overcome the tranquilizer.

Obviously you haven't seen the latest DVD that just came out to which I made the comment. Mark and the PH pressed the cat numerous times on the first day and then walked away from it at the end of the day. Then came back as stated "late" on the second day to press it again. Yes, it's a canned lion hunt or shoot if you will. But it is still a lion capable of killing a man should he reach you and this particular cat had determined that he was tired of being screwed with by these guys. If you want to comment ACCURATELY, watch the video. That cat, especially on the second day was VERY alert and PISSED off, mock charging with "hate and fire" in it's eyes. Watch the video and you'll see what I'm talking about concerning the lion's aggressiveness and alertness. And furthermore, it was not wounded, showing signs of life and aggression from surging adrenaline as you state.

quote:

Originally posted by Demonical:
You cannot substantiate that MS hunting method prolongs the animals suffering. That's a subjective statement.

We routinely see hunting videos (especially bow hunting) in which animals are shot and the advice is to give it time to stiffen up, bleed out etc... By all accounts, MS method is to confront that animal as soon as he can close with it.

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunting the Box H:
Wouldn't all of this negativity towards other hunters be better directed towards the efforts of the anti hunters.

Here we are bickering amongst each other while they find ways to kill off the sport forever.

This is why hunters are loosing the fight. If you went after the Antis with the same venom you might just achieve something.

Stop shooting yourself in the foot over and over and go out and do something useful.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunting the Box H:
Saeed
There are many arguments that can be made. I do not wish to argue though.

As you have said many times over, the anti hunters do not care what part they stop, just that hunting is stopped. So when you help to knock a hunter you just speed up their progression to the next aspect they will stop.

The bottom line is that you or anyone else can spend the rest of your life stopping people from liking Mark Sullivan, but would you truly have helped to preserve hunting.

Can you say that each day that you spend on this would not have been better spent making a real contribution to stopping the anti hunters?

We all have our personal dislikes, but greater is the threat from the uninformed masses than any threat we create from within.

I personally would rather spend the hour wasted bashing Mark on a youngster who might one day be a hunter. On making sure that people understand the value of hunting.

If we as hunters were to sign up on conservation boards, anti hunting boards and any of the various social media outlets available to us and type 5 lines of pro hunting info rather than 5 lines of anti mark info , would we not then have made a difference.

Just think of all the pages dedicated to bashing mark that have been written here where no anti hunter will ever read them. Imagine if all 100+ pages had been promoting hunting rather than bashing a hunter.

The bottom line is that we can do far more good for hunting by being positive than we can by being negative.

Anyway, I only hope that one day as old men we will not sit there lamenting the fact that we wasted so much time on internal politics rather than ensuring that our sport was preserved.

I guess the big question we all have to ask ourselves each day is simple,

"What have you done to save hunting today"

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

We are actually basing our opinions on what Cal has posted.

A buffalo was wounded, it went into long grass, your hero chickened out and went in after it on the back of the truck.

Again, in what Cal has posted, 82 animals were killed, with the clients firing 193 shots, and Mark adding another 73.

So where have we mentioned anything that is not posted by Cal?

quote:

I notice that Todd, Cal and others have pointed out that MS's latest videos have proven that the garbage in the first few videos was not representative of the real Mark Sullivan.

You are probably correct, but how can you blame the "MS haters" for giving up on him after watching the garbage on early videos?

You have to admit that some of Mark's commentary in the early videos was completly unprofessional(and unbecoming).

Jason

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Todd,

We are actually basing our opinions on what Cal has posted.

A buffalo was wounded, it went into long grass, your hero chickened out and went in after it on the back of the truck.

Again, in what Cal has posted, 82 animals were killed, with the clients firing 193 shots, and Mark adding another 73.

So where have we mentioned anything that is not posted by Cal?

Saeed,

In many, many, MANY of your posts from prior to Cal's posting. Especially concerning the "not going into thick brush" on your part. Evidently, you make those comments so as to cast doubt on the man's nerve to go after wounded DG in restricted visibility environments. The only answer you've offered to my questions of how you square your past comments with the fact is to offer up Mark using a truck to go into the long grass. You offer that particular event as if it were a cowardly undertaking, thereby once again bashing the man, when just about every other DG video on the market shows the "respected" PH's either doing the very same thing or advocating for using the truck when approaching DG in tall grass. Again, you're bashing Mark and giving a pass on the "respected" PH's for the exact same thing. To me, that is not an accurate portrayal of the man's actions.

Fujo tried to make us believe that the buff in Retreever's picture was not shot in heavy brush simply because the picture was taken after clearing away the immediate brush around the animal for trophy pictures, in the exact same manner anyone who has hunted buff in the jesse has seen done. He also tried to tell us, without viewing the scene, that the canned lion Mark filmed in the latest video was only showing signs of aggressiveness because it was wounded and that is was probably still drugged. They walked away from it on day one so I'm sure the drug effects were gone by then. It certainly didn't appear to be "impaired" in that video clip. Yes, it was canned, which speaks to the hunt, not the ability of the cat to kill a man should it successfully press home a charge. And NO, the cat was not wounded at the time of it's mock charges. Claiming it was wounded is not factual!

So, specifically, you asked me to point out where you guys "mentioned anything that is not posted by Cal?". There are two of your answers. One other little tidbit that has been restated and overlooked again in your above statements is that several of the 73 shots fired by Mark were fired on HIS buffalo hunts where NO CLIENT was involved. To lump his shots on his personal hunts into the mix and use them as fodder to discredit the man for excessive shooting by a PH is disingenuous. To be accurate, yes, he does shoot a lot for a PH in his DVDs. But there are other PHs who appear repeatedly in some of the more popular DVDs that tend to just "wind one in his direction" for the hell of it more often than not. And that very well "respected" PH never gets called out for it. Want a hint? Watch Boddington on Buffalo 1, Boddington on Buffalo 2, and Boddington on Elephant. You'll figure it out!

About 20 years ago, maybe more now, there was a "news" show similar to "Dateline" or "60 Minutes". I forget the name now because it faded into obscurity after this event. The hosts were Stone Phillips and Jane Pauley. They did a show on how dangerous General Motors pick up trucks were when involved in a side impact accident. The point was that the fuel tank would rupture and catch on fire in EVERY case. When they tried to reproduce this event, the gasoline always failed to ignite. So, the show's producers strapped estes rocket motors onto the pick up truck's frame and when the impact occurred, they would light the rocket motors and the truck would burst into flames. The show was caught doing this redhanded. In the end, Stone Phillips and Jane Pauley had to start one of their shows by admitting they had lied to and purposefully mislead the public. From that moment on, anytime Stone Phillips or Jane Pauley appear on the TV set, I immediately turn the channel. Why, well, I can't accept anything they might say as being truthful. They have both gone on to bigger and better things with Phillips becoming a national news anchor at one point.

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

I notice that Todd, Cal and others have pointed out that MS's latest videos have proven that the garbage in the first few videos was not representative of the real Mark Sullivan.

You are probably correct, but how can you blame the "MS haters" for giving up on him after watching the garbage on early videos?

You have to admit that some of Mark's commentary in the early videos was completly unprofessional(and unbecoming).

Jason

Yes Jason, I would say that is accurate. The cursing and trash mouth commentary was not necessary and certainly unbecoming in those earlier videos.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Saeed, that comment still doesn't address the false statements previously posted! I never said the man is without faults. I said much of what has been said about him is inaccurate. I'll pose the question again: Does Mark Sullivan go into the thick bush in pursuit of buffalo or does he not? You have stated repeatedly that he refuses to do so. The video evidence proves otherwise.

But on the 3 shot average, I watched one of your buff hunts awhile back where you shot quite a few rounds. The buff hunt I posted from last October had 7 shots, one of which missed as he was running in thick cover. I've also killed buff with 1 shot. My first buff took 5 very well placed 416 Rigby rounds with TSX bullets, all fired at less than 30 yards. No long range sniping involved. Some buff go down with one shot, most don't. Personally, I've never had a PH fire a shot. Also personally, I would have zero problem with a PH taking a shot at one of my animals should I fail to keep it under control once the game is opened with the first pitch. I've got no ego about it. At all!!

But if we are going to bash Sullivan purely on the fact that more than 3 shots are taken at buffalo on average, why not bash Craig Boddington in Boddington on Buffalo 1 and 2. He empties his rifle on buff on more than one occasion. I've watched Andrew Dawson take quite a few shots at client's buff as well when the buff was simply standing there, not running away or attempting to escape, while the client is reloading after emptying his gun. Why are there no bashing of those videos, for either the client failing to secure the buff with a full magazine or of Dawson firing with the animal just standing there not fleeing?

Again, it's giving a pass to some and bashing Sullivan for the exact same thing. A big deal has been made of the kicking dirt at the hippo but nothing has been said about Ivan Carter and his client running up to a downed elephant, jumping on top of the ele's head, and attempting to fire the insurance straight down between the clients legs, only to have the client pull the front trigger again at least twice before nearly blowing his toes off. That client didn't seem to be very capable of handling a double either (or maybe he was just excited and forgot what he was doing; all the while wearing tin foil around the base of his cap ) but bashing Sullivan's clients for their lack of familiarity with doubles is the fall back when it's proven that Mark only fired to keep an already wounded animal under control, as would any PH worth his salt.

Why bash one man and give a pass to all the others for doing the same thing, except for the obnoxious commentary? Mark's commentary, while boorish, silly at times, and generally obnoxious, does not make his hunting methods "unethical". Deserving of the "Mute" button, yes! Unethical, no!

quote:

Again, in what Cal has posted, 82 animals were killed, with the clients firing 193 shots, and Mark adding another 73.

So where have we mentioned anything that is not posted by Cal?

quote:

Unethical behaviour such as Mark Sullivan keeps practicing just as damaging to our reputation as hunters.
SCI, I was told, banned him because they had repeatedly asked him to stop showing his videos, and he continued to ignore them.

quote:

Originally posted by bobrhess:
Cal, I want to commend you for the time and effort that you have put forth ( in your present condition - knee replacement and on your recovery) in AK for reviewing Mark Sullivan's
10 video's and telling it exactly as YOU SEE IT
about his video's and his style of hunting the big buff with his client's and backing them up with his double rifle! I also hope to see Craig,Ivan and Saeed's remarks about your honest
review of Mark's 10 hunting viedo's as well as the other AccurateReloading members! Now get well so you may go back to Africa and hunt again!