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!

Cal's honesty is not in question here.

He has done a great job of proving what we have been saying all along.

That Mark Sullivan should be a star in Hollywood, but he has no business conducting hunts in Africa.

He must be having the same feelings, as from Cal's comments, he has reduced some of his melo drama in his lates films.

Of course, shooting a drugged lion is South Africa tends to put a damper on this idea.

Gents:
To the comments on the drugged lion in SA:
are all lions drugged?
if not, what percentage?
if you know Mark's lion was indeed drugged please state how you know.
if not, let's stick with the facts, please.

To comment Mark shot a drugged lion is in the same league with the comments he shoots buff in the balls to induce a charge. Please, be factual, or, if is your opinion, please say so. Speculation on either side of this debate is way off base--as is only stating part of the fact and not the entire story.

Damn, I think I should go into social work!!
Cheers gents and have a good evening.
Cal

It is one thing to shoot a cape buff from a distance, say 70 yards or farther, with a scoped gun off of sticks.

Many times, at that distance only one shot can be taken, at least that is what I have seen on many films, from that distance, as if the buff moves after the shot, the hunter cannot get back on target in time to get a second, much less additional shots off.

I have never shot a cape buff over 50 yards, I have shot them as close as 12 yards, so many times I was able to shoot more than once, even if it might not have been necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
To the comments on the drugged lion in SA:
are all lions drugged?
if not, what percentage?
if you know Mark's lion was indeed drugged please state how you know.
if not, let's stick with the facts, please.

To comment Mark shot a drugged lion is in the same league with the comments he shoots buff in the balls to induce a charge. Please, be factual, or, if is your opinion, please say so. Speculation on either side of this debate is way off base--as is only stating part of the fact and not the entire story.

Damn, I think I should go into social work!!
Cheers gents and have a good evening.
Cal

Cal,

I am expressing MY opinion, as everyone else is doing here.

And as far as I am concerned, shooting a lion on a farm in South Africa IS CANNED lion hunting.

Again, it is MY opinion, and if anyone does not agree with it, that is their choice.

Aren't we all stating OPINIONS here?

Results of one of those "Drugged" and canned lions that are just not dangerous because 1) they were raised in a pen, 2) they are being hunted on a fenced ranch, and 3) they are drugged. They can't possibly be dangerous because they aren't "wild" lions. Only "wild" lions pose a real danger to the hunter.

Click on this link for the real story:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...661078081#1661078081

Dambit, there's those pesky little things called facts getting in the way of a good bashing again!

Saeed:
No problems on the SA lions being canned. That is an opinion we are all entitled to. But injecting lions with drugs is a different matter. That is not an opinion--either they were injected or they were not. If they were, it should be factually stated with, "I saw" or "I know." Please remember one of my gripes with the MS bashers is always, "I heard...." Never, "I saw..." When I hear solid evidence my opinion on any matter can move.
Cheers,
Cal
PS. Saeed, how many hours difference is it between AK an where you live?

As Bwanamich aptly stated in that canned lion thread, the trick is to not get in the cage with them.

Zoo lions will also kill the occasional idiot, you know.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Saeed:
No problems on the SA lions being canned. That is an opinion we are all entitled to. But injecting lions with drugs is a different matter. That is not an opinion--either they were injected or they were not. If they were, it should be factually stated with, "I saw" or "I know." Please remember one of my gripes with the MS bashers is always, "I heard...." Never, "I saw..." When I hear solid evidence my opinion on any matter can move.
Cheers,
Cal
PS. Saeed, how many hours difference is it between AK an where you live?

Cal,

I think we are 11 hours ahead of you.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Results of one of those "Drugged" and canned lions that are just not dangerous because 1) they were raised in a pen, 2) they are being hunted on a fenced ranch, and 3) they are drugged. They can't possibly be dangerous because they aren't "wild" lions. Only "wild" lions pose a read danger to the hunter.

Click on this link for the real story:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...661078081#1661078081

Dambit, there's those pesky little things called facts getting in the way of a good bashing again!

A pet lion is just as likely to kill you as as a wild one.

Fact is, if one has a rifle in his hands, he has to do something very stupid or be very unlucky to get hurt.

And those who keep telling us they get up close to dangerous game to prove their manhood is a load of what our British friend would call "a load of coddswallop!"

You want to prove how brave you are?

Face a lion barehand.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Results of one of those "Drugged" and canned lions that are just not dangerous because 1) they were raised in a pen, 2) they are being hunted on a fenced ranch, and 3) they are drugged. They can't possibly be dangerous because they aren't "wild" lions. Only "wild" lions pose a read danger to the hunter.

Click on this link for the real story:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...661078081#1661078081

Dambit, there's those pesky little things called facts getting in the way of a good bashing again!

A pet lion is just as likely to kill you as as a wild one.

Fact is, if one has a rifle in his hands, he has to do something very stupid or be very unlucky to get hurt.

And those who keep telling us they get up close to dangerous game to prove their manhood is a load of what our British friend would call "a load of coddswallop!"

You want to prove how brave you are?

Face a lion barehand.

Getting up close in the thick stuff has nothing to do with proving manhood. At least for me, hunting has nothing to do with bravery. But hunting up close in the thick jesse, with an open sighted big bore and sniping buffalo from 100 yards away are NOT the same hunt. I've shot 2 buffalo with a scoped .375 from 100 yards or more. Both times I felt that I cheated myself out of what the hunt was really about because it was about exciting as shooting a whitetail at 100 yards with a .243. What's the point. Whitetail hunting is cheaper and closer to home if that's the point!

How many people here on AR have commented that they have hunted buffalo once or twice and found it to be boring and about like shooting a cow in a farmers pasture? Several of them surface every time buffalo hunting is questioned. I'll bet 100 to 1 every one of those were conducted under the 100 yard sniping scenario. Really, under those conditions, what IS the difference between shooting a buffalo and shooting a deer other than about $15,000!!

But then now I confused Saeed, because it was you that has been raising the question of bravery concerning Sullivan and his not going into the thick bush. You've seemed to insinuate that he is somehow less of a man or whatever your point was about not going into the thick stuff, and now you don't approve of going into the thick stuff after buffalo because it's nothing more than bravado? Which is it? One or the other please! Canned and drugged lions are somehow less dangerous because they are, well ... drugged and in a pen, but now they are just as dangerous, but only after I posted that reference to the RSA lion hunt that went south for the AR member? Man, these contradictions are getting hard to keep straight.

You want to hunt dangerous game by sniping buffalo with a scoped rifle from 100yards away? Why not just shoot whitetail deer. Under those conditions, they are just about equal in terms of dangerous game hunting. What's the point in hunting dangerous game if you don't hunt them at dangerous game distances?

Again, all this questioning a man's bravery or if in fact he is even trying to prove bravery and so on is just another distraction from the subject at hand which is once again, that the vast majority of the negative comments concerning Mark Sullivan's hunts are based on misrepresentations and outright false statements inorder to discredit the man for doing exactly the same thing many of the other PH's with DVDs on the market have done while giving those "respected" PH's a pass.

3 shot average on buffalo is ridiculous? Hell, I'd say that's one of the reasons we love to hunt them instead of deer. They turn into battle tanks that are impervious to bullet shock once the adrenaline gets going. 3+ shots being the norm is one of the reasons I like to hunt them. My limited buffalo hunting to date totals 6 buffalo. 23 shots total with 2 being misses, and 1 being a scoped rifle stand off one shot kill as described above and another being a scoped rifle stand off one shot kill with a follow up insurance shot. So my 3.83 shot average must mean I'm a crappy hunter and a poor shot. If that's your opinion, so be it but I don't hunt to impress anyone. I hunt to have fun and for my own selfish enjoyment. And I've had a hell of a great time hunting those buffalo! Well, except for those two long distance affairs!

BTW, on the PH shooting and excessive shots, I'm currently watching Boddington on Buffalo right now as I type this. I've gotten through the first 2 hunts so far. It's early in the DVD but so far, the first hunt, the client shot 3 times and Andrew Dawson shot twice with his first shot being about a nano second behind the client's first shot. Then Andrew shot again while the client reloads his rifle with the buffalo in plain view of the camera and not attempting to flee. Hmmm.. Dawson must also kill his client's animals for them and be trigger happy. The second hunt is Boddington himself. He fires 4 shots. So at this point, we have two buff down, with 9 shots, 2 fired by the PH. 4.5 shot average so far. I wonder what the final tally will be at the end of the video.

Dangerous game hunting as a way to prove manliness and bravery? No! At least not for me. Hell, I got all that macho shit out of my system flying F/A-18's off aircraft carriers in combat about 22 years ago back when I was 10 feet tall and bullet proof. I've been over that crap for a long time! I hunt dangerous game when I can scrape together the funds to do so because it's fun and more exciting than sniping whitetails. Or sniping buffalo for that matter. Again, all that doesn't change the fact that Sullivan's actions have been, and continue to be misrepresented.

Cheers.

Cal can hardly be forgiven his intrusion of reason, objectivity, facts, and genial discourse into a discussion of Mark Sullivan. But damn it's amusing to witness the knee-jerk apoplectic rage from Sullivan detractors' when confronted with something other than "a friend who knows a client who spoke to a PH said that Sullivan ..."

Does Sullivan fire a quick backup with some of his clients? Yes, and too often I think, but having watched dozens of the most popular African hunting videos, I would wager that PHs like Andrew Dawson (Chifuti Safaris) and Ivan Carter - both respected Professional Hunters on AR - fire quick backup shots with their clients at least as often as Sullivan. Where's the outrage with these fellows?

As for the 'hundreds of buffalo charges' attributed to Sullivan over the years, I think Cal has put that canard to rest. Eight charges over more than a decade of leading clients on safari. Okay, next?

Deliberately wounding buffalo? Nonsense. Many of his clients - as demonstrated by Cal's research - kill their buffalo cleanly and quickly. Do some of his clients wound game? Sure, much like other PH's clients. With many of Sullivan's clients shooting big bore doubles without the usual benefit of shooting sticks, its no wonder some buffalo are wounded.

I could go on (and have in the past) but having thought it over, I think it really boils down to this: Many don't like Sullivan because on camera he comes off as brash, arrogant, frequently condescending, and not a little bit 'Hollywood'. Playing to the camera rarely works, and it usually doesn't for Sullivan. Audiences really don't like that.

But let's be honest – another issue for many is that he hunts in a conspicuously dangerous style that few have the courage to emulate. Coupled with undeniable shooting prowess in extremis with large, expensive, and lust-worthy double rifles, no wonder some people hate him for the contrast he creates with themselves. If we can denigrate the man and his methods, we can more easily ignore any incipient doubts about our own comparative bravery hunting dangerous game under conditions that are, in fact, dangerous.

Package in-your-face fearlessness, enviable marksmanship under pressure, with over-the-top braggadocio and arrogance to match and you get Mark Sullivan. I suspect that if someone with Craig Boddington's understated charisma hunted in the fashion of Mark Sullivan, he would be the undisputed champion of African hunters and a hero to the masses.

OK, a quick update. I just finished watching Boddington on Buffalo again.

There are a total of 8 hunts. 7 conducted by Andrew Dawson and 1 conducted by Paul Smith as the PHs.

1) Client shoots 3 times, Dawson shoots 2 times (1 immediately after client's 1st shot)
2) Client (Boddington) shoots 4 times, Dawson zero
3) Client (Butch Blanton, a personal friend of mine) shoots 1 time, Dawson zero
4) Client shoots 1 time, Dawson shoots 1 time (immediately after the client)
5) Client shoots 3 times, Dawson shoots 2 times (again immediately after the client)
6) Client shoots 1 time, Dawson shoots 2 times (again immediately after the client)
7) Client shoots 3 times, Smith shoots 1 time.
8) Client (Boddington) shoots 3 times, Dawson zero

So a total of 27 shots for 8 animals. 3.375 average shots per buffalo. My average as stated earlier is 3.83. Pretty close.
Dawson conducted 7 of the hunts and shot on 4 of those hunts. Dawson fired shots at the client's animal 57% of the time.
Smith conducted 1 of the hunts and shot on that hunt. Smith fired shots at the client's animal 100% of the time.

In addition, there were 3 snippets where the entire hunt was not shown but in each of those 3 snippets, Dawson also fired at the client's buffalo.
There was also a discussion by Ian Gibson whereby he recounts a buffalo that charged him and between he and the client, they shot it 21 times. That blows the 3 shot average out the window!!

So, looking over this particular data, just where again is Mark Sullivan shooting at a disproportionate percentage of his clients animals as compared to Andrew Dawson and Paul Smith?
Looking over this particular data, just where again is Sullivan and his clients shooting a disproportionate number of excess shots at buffalo on average?
Looking over this particular data, when Dawson conducted the hunts, there were a total of 23 shots taken with him firing 7 of those shots. Andrew Dawson fired exactly 30% of the total shots taken at the buffalo he guided on this DVD. Just where again is Mark Sullivan shooting an excessive percentage of the shot taken at his clients buffalo?
Looking over this particular data, when Smith conducted the hunt, there were a total of 4 shots fired with him firing 1 of those shots. Paul Smith fired 25% of the shots taken at his client's buffalo. So just where again ... oh hell you get it by now don't you?

Goldarnit! Those little things called FACTS just keep getting in the way of a good bashing. Hate it when that happens.

Anyone want to take on Boddington on Buffalo 2? How about Boddington on Elephant?

Cal, what a great idea you had to put fact to the issue!

Kim, spot on sir!!

Todd,

Thank you for posting this.

With all due respect to both Ivan and Andrew, if the above is their modus operandi, they won't see me hunting with either of them.

If the clients involved have specifically asked them to shoot their animals for them, that is a different matter.

I have absolutely nothing against a PH firing when it is necessary, but shooting like you mention above is totally unnecessary.

I had an email which suggested all these excessive shots being fired by PH on film is due to them being asked to shoot?

I have no idea if this is true.

But, I have heard a few complaints about PHs pushing the envelope for the TV audience.

In all my hunts, with several PHs, we go through several safaris without my PH firing a single shot.

Saeed,

Thank you for that reply. All along I've tried to walk a fine line of not sounding like a Sullivan supporter per se. I really don't have anything against the man other than I don't care for his onscreen persona as Kim described.

All I've tried to do throughout the discussion, is to point out that all the things that Sullivan continually gets called out for are exactly the same things the other "respected" PHs are doing on the DVDs. From that standpoint, I just wanted the comments to be kept fair and accurate. Really nothing more or less.

It really is an eye opener when looking at the actual facts. Because Sullivan is so full of bravado and arrogance, his activities have been exaggerated to the negative. Because Dawson and Smith are such nice fellows, their very same activities, with respect to how often they shoot and how many shots are fired in total, are being suppressed to the positive.

Accuracy of statement! That's important to me; and not just where it concerns Mark Sullivan.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

You want to hunt dangerous game by sniping buffalo with a scoped rifle from 100yards away? Why not just shoot whitetail deer. Under those conditions, they are just about equal in terms of dangerous game hunting. What's the point in hunting dangerous game if you don't hunt them at dangerous game distances?

Todd with all respect I can see where you are coming from here but in reality we can't always control how our 'hunting' of any game is going to turn out. I have hunted and shot big red stags and other of our African PG equivalents from hundreds of meters to only a few meters in thick bush where you can hardly move and where a red stag in the roar (rut) at only a couple of yards away could well be considered dangerous. Then again you may call up and shoot a roaring red stag in the bush 50m or more away so any danger, if there was any at all, is gone.

Likewise I have hunted and shot the Aussie buffalo at 50 or so meters away just standing looking at me to some who were charging in my direction only a few yards away, whether they were deliberately after me or just confused with the shooting of others of their little herd I don't know. Obviously I did not plan this outcome, it just transpired that way as my mate and I got into the bush after them.

I know some question Saeed's style of generally shooting buffalo from a distance with his accurate and ranging 375/404 as being safe and not really dangerous game hunting but there must be hundreds of buffalo taken every year in Africa or Australia at all ranges where they are just standing minding their own business and get dropped without fuss, or get hit and take off away from the hunter.

If we define dangerous game hunting as getting up close and facing a charge, well then many, many hunters are going to be disappointed because it just won't happen. Sure with my open sighted 404, and older age eyesight, or even with the little 2x Leupold, I will need to get closer but nobody is going to guarantee that buffalo or any other 'dangerous' game are going to make it exciting or dangerous by laying on a charge. Most often than not they will either stand and be easily shot or take off in the opposite direction before I get a shot in.

In summary, most of use will just take the shot as it presents itself. If it is the trophy we want or just a good representative animal after a good stalk, we will just shoot it. I wanted it any other way then I will have to go with MS Mark may well be a very accomplished PH and a good guy to be in the company of, but I really don't think I have the stomach for being asked 'how was the shot for me'. If I f..kup a shot lets be honest and say what f...kup and I'll take a good ribbing about it, that's what being a man is about, if I make a good shot, just lets get on and get the head off, the meat out, and move on to the next hunt, praise is low on my priority.

I have been accused of shooting buffalo from a distance.

I love hunting buffalo more than any other animal, and I have shot them from a few yards to over 300 yards.

I like to get as close as I can, because, frankly I do not like long shots at animals - don't fall off your chairs laughing, but this is the truth.

But, I know my rifle well enough to know that I can actually kill them at that distance.

I have turned down animals much closer, because of the circumstances we were in I wasn't sure of making a killing hit.

And I have never had to have my PH back me up on these shots, as we normally find the buffalo stone dead when we get to it.

Kim:
Thanks for another excellent and logical post.
Todd: Thanks for your review of the Boddington film.
Saeed:
Your last two posts were excellent and unemotional, and based on facts.
Gents:
While we are on the topic I would ask if anyone has any of the Boddington films and also those of Ivan or Buzz or anyone else, If they would run a tabulation of client and PH shots. We are on to two things here: looking at the entire scope of DG hunting as it exists on film and to clear the air of the myths and lies about Mark. We are well on the way to the second. We can't argue about opinions but we can set the facts straight--if a lion was drugged or not, the number of shots per client and per PH, the number of charges. As long as our opinions are based on fact we are on the same page. Again I refer to Mac's comment of "stupid habit." I can't argue with "stupid" but the use of the word "habit" for one instance in 16 years is a spot on example of distorting facts to prove one's point. I've mentioned this several times and Mac has not replied to my question nor has he posted here. I think that speaks for itself. "Just the fact's, ma'am" and we will all be better for it
Cheers all. It's been a pleasure reading and posting this most interesting topic.
Cal

Todd's insistance on applying fact-based analysis when judging Sullivan is admirable but ultimately quixotic if his intention is to change the opinions of those rabidly hostile towards the man.

We live in a world that is ever more hostile to the men who are the outliers in society. Those who take an original path, who are not held to convention, and especially those who demonstrate heroic behavior. Take a look around us: On the one hand, we crave 'heroes' yet when they arrive, we can't wait for them to betray a human weakness so we can pounce and vilify them. (And here I'm talking about a 'hero' in the classical sense: a man endowed with great courage and strength, and who is celebrated for his bold exploits.)

The Germans call it 'schadenfreude' when we secretly derive pleasure from the misfortune of others - most especially those we know or admire. Heroes especially. For example, men like Gen. David Petraeus, whose commitment to public service and a stellar military career was capped by his becoming Director of CIA. A hero. And upon discovery that he had engaged in the all too human mistake of having an affair, was banished from public amid calls for a criminal investigation and the revocation of his pension. And there are others, people who by way of daring and industry make a dent in their universe, and as a result fall in the sights of those who despise them precisely because of their accomplishment. No one is safe because all of us are human.

Now, I'm not arguing that Sullivan is a hero in the contemporary sense, or in the same league as a man like Petraeus, but the point I'm making is this: When we see someone accomplish something we could never do ourselves - in business or on the battlefield or even on safari - at first we admire them. We elevate them to a place of honor and distinction. But it doesn't take long before a smoldering resentment percolates to the surface, a recognition that this person diminishes our own self-worth by comparison. They can do what we can't. And the unconscious search begins to find whatever chink in their armor will allow the tables to turn and allow adulation to morph into seething disparagement.

It's called dangerous game hunting for a reason, or at least it used to be. There was a time when hunting a Cape buffalo was a genuinely dangerous enterprise - tracking on foot, armed with a double rifle and iron sights, moving dangerously close to ensure a fast and clean kill. Danger was both intrinsic and essential to the hunt; indeed, danger was definitional to the enterprise. No more. With ever-more sophisticated scopes and long-distance rifles, and with an omnipresent PH serving as insurance, over time most Cape buffalo hunting has become no more dangerous than hunting whitetail deer.

Then along comes Mark Sullivan. An iconoclast. A man intent on redefining dangerous game hunting so that it becomes, once again, dangerous. His videos outsell every competitor. His reputation and fame is singular in the industry, known by both hunters and non-hunters alike. His approach is undeniably spellbinding: He incites the buffalo to charge within feet before shooting, putting his own life in eminent peril - and all on film for the world to witness. It's as courageous as it is brash and outlandish. And most importantly in the context of this debate, it violates all the accepted rules the safari industry has adopted as dogma. An iconoclast. A man to be admired for his bravura ... and despised for doing what we would never dare.

I don't believe allegations of deliberate wounding of game or shooting client's animals or appearing obnoxious on film are what really bothers his detractors most; rather, I think it's Sullivan's unapologetic willingness to place his life at risk and say 'to hell with the convention the rest of you follow' that inspires the real hatred found on these posts.

The world may love iconoclasts, but in the end we rarely like them.

Kim:
You know your subject and can articulate it better (by far) than any of us here.
I tip my hat to you, sir.
Cal

I recently watched the latest MS video. I have to agree with some others here who thought there was some very poor shooting on the part of some clients. Not sure why the chapter was included where a buffalo was gut shot from very short range.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
Todd's insistance on applying fact-based analysis when judging Sullivan is admirable but ultimately quixotic if his intention is to change the opinions of those rabidly hostile towards the man .

No, changing the opinions of the haters' was not my intention. I'm really not a Sullivan supporter per se. I don't have a problem with his hunting methods but I don't like the condescending interactions with his clients. I like to watch his videos, but quickly tire of the commentary, except that I often find humor in his trumped up drama!

No, my intention was to point out the distortions made against the Sullivan videos and reduce the conversation to facts as they compare to the other more "respected" PH's videos and question why one man gets a pass and the other is vilified. But I have no "quixotic" illusions regarding even this simple concept!

Kim, the remainder of your post is very well stated and insightful. Of course, I predict that within the next few responses, someone will take the word "hero" and comparisons to the General out of context and attempt to discredit your post. It's entirely predictable. Anyone want to take bets on how many responses it takes to counter these "comparisons". I say it will happen within 4 responses. I predict it!

I quite fully agree with Kim, Cal, and Todd. If you don't like the man's persona fine, but don't confuse that with him doing something uniquely egregious. As we've seen quite a few PHs aren't afraid to shoot and shoot often. As for his confrontational nature there's nothing unique if you watch Ivan or Buzz. It is what it is.

Brett

I must ask why did he got banned from DSC and SCI ? Not sarcastic I just dont know, do anyone know the reason ?

I might have a little inside on this topic as I have filmed extensively with Sullivan, Dawson, Boddington, Carter,Smith, Gibson and so on. I think the PH to Client shot ratio varies very little across the board. We lost a hell of a experienced PH last year who probably should have shot even as his client was coming out of recoil.I tend to excuse quick back-up shots in heavy cover far more than the animal standing at a safe distance in the open though. If the client can do it 100%-Perfect, if the results are not clear of the accuracy of the initial shot, my personal feeling is Bang away Mr.Ph. I have damn near been killed by buff that could have been killed or slowed down by a PH back-up shot that, for whatever reason, was not delivered. The results are hellish follow-ups that can have lethal results. Your ego is not worth my life. A point I am getting really good at expressing in my old age.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
Todd's insistance on applying fact-based analysis when judging Sullivan is admirable but ultimately quixotic if his intention is to change the opinions of those rabidly hostile towards the man.

We live in a world that is ever more hostile to the men who are the outliers in society. Those who take an original path, who are not held to convention, and especially those who demonstrate heroic behavior. Take a look around us: On the one hand, we crave 'heroes' yet when they arrive, we can't wait for them to betray a human weakness so we can pounce and vilify them. (And here I'm talking about a 'hero' in the classical sense: a man endowed with great courage and strength, and who is celebrated for his bold exploits.)

The Germans call it 'schadenfreude' when we secretly derive pleasure from the misfortune of others - most especially those we know or admire. Heroes especially. For example, men like Gen. David Petraeus, whose commitment to public service and a stellar military career was capped by his becoming Director of CIA. A hero. And upon discovery that he had engaged in the all too human mistake of having an affair, was banished from public amid calls for a criminal investigation and the revocation of his pension. And there are others, people who by way of daring and industry make a dent in their universe, and as a result fall in the sights of those who despise them precisely because of their accomplishment. No one is safe because all of us are human.

Now, I'm not arguing that Sullivan is a hero in the contemporary sense, or in the same league as a man like Petraeus, but the point I'm making is this: When we see someone accomplish something we could never do ourselves - in business or on the battlefield or even on safari - at first we admire them. We elevate them to a place of honor and distinction. But it doesn't take long before a smoldering resentment percolates to the surface, a recognition that this person diminishes our own self-worth by comparison. They can do what we can't. And the unconscious search begins to find whatever chink in their armor will allow the tables to turn and allow adulation to morph into seething disparagement.

It's called dangerous game hunting for a reason, or at least it used to be. There was a time when hunting a Cape buffalo was a genuinely dangerous enterprise - tracking on foot, armed with a double rifle and iron sights, moving dangerously close to ensure a fast and clean kill. Danger was both intrinsic and essential to the hunt; indeed, danger was definitional to the enterprise. No more. With ever-more sophisticated scopes and long-distance rifles, and with an omnipresent PH serving as insurance, over time most Cape buffalo hunting has become no more dangerous than hunting whitetail deer.

Then along comes Mark Sullivan. An iconoclast. A man intent on redefining dangerous game hunting so that it becomes, once again, dangerous. His videos outsell every competitor. His reputation and fame is singular in the industry, known by both hunters and non-hunters alike. His approach is undeniably spellbinding: He incites the buffalo to charge within feet before shooting, putting his own life in eminent peril - and all on film for the world to witness. It's as courageous as it is brash and outlandish. And most importantly in the context of this debate, it violates all the accepted rules the safari industry has adopted as dogma. An iconoclast. A man to be admired for his bravura ... and despised for doing what we would never dare.

I don't believe allegations of deliberate wounding of game or shooting client's animals or appearing obnoxious on film are what really bothers his detractors most; rather, I think it's Sullivan's unapologetic willingness to place his life at risk and say 'to hell with the convention the rest of you follow' that inspires the real hatred found on these posts.

The world may love iconoclasts, but in the end we rarely like them.

+1...very nicely said.

Shawn

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
I might have a little inside on this topic as I have filmed extensively with Sullivan, Dawson, Boddington, Carter,Smith, Gibson and so on. I think the PH to Client shot ratio varies very little across the board. We lost a hell of a experienced PH last year who probably should have shot even as his client was coming out of recoil.I tend to excuse quick back-up shots in heavy cover far more than the animal standing at a safe distance in the open though. If the client can do it 100%-Perfect, if the results are not clear of the accuracy of the initial shot, my personal feeling is Bang away Mr.Ph. I have damn near been killed by buff that could have been killed or slowed down by a PH back-up shot that, for whatever reason, was not delivered. The results are hellish follow-ups that can have lethal results. Your ego is not worth my life. A point I am getting really good at expressing in my old age.

I agree with you 100% Dave. I've not had a PH fire a shot yet, but it wouldn't bother me if they did. I have never, and will never, instruct a PH to shoot or not to shoot. I don't even bring it up. That's his decision as a professional and I'll be fine with whatever he decides.

Sound thinking amigo!

Gents:
Has anyone noticed a different tone of this thread than the one prior where EY began a simple thread he had a pair of DVDs for sale? I have, or is it just me? If you have, what has happened?
Cheers and good evening.
Cal

I've noticed a difference Cal. This little video clip seems to sum it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA

Cal,

From KPete:

"But damn it's amusing to witness the knee-jerk apoplectic rage from Sullivan detractors'"

"Todd's insistance on applying fact-based analysis when judging Sullivan is admirable but ultimately quixotic if his intention is to change the opinions of those rabidly hostile towards the man."

"I think it's Sullivan's unapologetic willingness to place his life at risk and say 'to hell with the convention the rest of you follow' that inspires the real hatred found on these posts."

From Todd Williams:

"No, changing the opinions of the haters' was not my intention."

Apart from wondering what some folks might be reading - obviously not this thread - I think I do see a change in tone.

Hate? One cannot hate what one does not respect.

Despise, maybe.

But even that is a stretch.

Mostly it's just a kind of ethically based repugnance, IMHO.

But unlike some, I am loathe to make sweeping statements about "we" and "us" and am content to speak only for myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
I might have a little inside on this topic as I have filmed extensively with Sullivan, Dawson, Boddington, Carter,Smith, Gibson and so on. I think the PH to Client shot ratio varies very little across the board. We lost a hell of a experienced PH last year who probably should have shot even as his client was coming out of recoil.I tend to excuse quick back-up shots in heavy cover far more than the animal standing at a safe distance in the open though. If the client can do it 100%-Perfect, if the results are not clear of the accuracy of the initial shot, my personal feeling is Bang away Mr.Ph. I have damn near been killed by buff that could have been killed or slowed down by a PH back-up shot that, for whatever reason, was not delivered. The results are hellish follow-ups that can have lethal results. Your ego is not worth my life. A point I am getting really good at expressing in my old age.

Thank you David.

It is always good to have a common denominator, and somehow I think you might have proven something.

Were all these gentlemen being filmed hunting for TV shows?

I have had some members of our hunting parties sometime suggest we do "a Mark Sullivan" as we approach a shot buffalo.

My answer has always been they are free to do whatever they wish when they are hunting. But not on my hunt.

I make sure I put a bullet into that buffalo to end the matter as quickly as possible.

I have been on quite a number of elephant hunts. And the PHs I have hunted with have always been extremely careful to avoid getting charged.

We have been so close to some elephants that we could have touched them with the end of the barrel.

We have been charged on numerous occassions by cows.

We got chased by a tuskless cow in very thick bush once when we were on our way to a leopard blind. I had a 7mm rifle, and the truck was several hundred yards away.

We decided to shoot that cow, so Alan ran off to get my 375/404.

We waited for him, and I asked Roy how are we going to find that cow amonst the herd in this thick bush, and it was very late in the afternoon.

His answer was "Don't worry, she will find us"

Alan came back, and we went looking for her. Sure enough, we could see her raising her trunk high up to sniff for us. We got closer, and as her head became clear, I dropped her.

And from the few hunting films I have seen, I could not help feeling that the behaviour of some of the PHs involved was looking for a charge to happen.

By this I mean the way they approach the elephants almost guarantees a reaction from them.

We get the Outdoor Chanel here, and on the few occassions that I have watched it - admittedly none of any African dangerous game hunts.

But, again, I could not help feeling that a lot of the really silly behaviour on there is made especially for TV consumption.

And it sure turns me off those shows.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Cal,

From KPete:

"But damn it's amusing to witness the knee-jerk apoplectic rage from Sullivan detractors'"

"Todd's insistance on applying fact-based analysis when judging Sullivan is admirable but ultimately quixotic if his intention is to change the opinions of those rabidly hostile towards the man."

"I think it's Sullivan's unapologetic willingness to place his life at risk and say 'to hell with the convention the rest of you follow' that inspires the real hatred found on these posts."

From Todd Williams:

"No, changing the opinions of the haters' was not my intention."

Apart from wondering what some folks might be reading - obviously not this thread - I think I do see a change in tone.

Hate? One cannot hate what one does not respect.

Despise, maybe.

But even that is a stretch.

Mostly it's just a kind of ethically based repugnance, IMHO.

But unlike some, I am loathe to make sweeping statements about "we" and "us" and am content to speak only for myself.

Mike,

Sadly we have two lots of people on opposite side of the fence, and our minds have been made up..
At least we know precisely where we stand on this.

I love the part about Sullivan placing his life at risk

Todd,

I have thoroughly found your posts bringing people back to the facts very refreshing. I too believe as you that if there is something to discuss or debate then why not keep the components of the debate factual. It is easy for some to get away with the generic swipes/name calling and that has occurred on this topic for too long in my opinion. There is always plenty of room to like or dislike sticking with the true aspects of a topic as opposed to the manufactured ones.

Best always,
Shawn

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
Has anyone noticed a different tone of this thread than the one prior where EY began a simple thread he had a pair of DVDs for sale? I have, or is it just me? If you have, what has happened?
Cheers and good evening.
Cal

Funny Cal…I had a similar impression as well.

Best always,
Shawn

Saeed
Indeed my filming has always been with the goals of producing TV or DVD's. There is ZERO DOUBT Mark courts danger and relishes in the charges he gets on film. Obviously to anyone who watches his stuff, and to me when I filmed Death On The Run, he is not interested in finishing off DG at a distance if a confrontation is possible. No news there. None of the other PH's discussed have ever done this in my presence during filming or on my own hunts. Dawson and Smith INSIST that finishing shots are fired the SECOND the client has the chance to do so. Both have experienced full blown charges, and both hope the last one was actually the LAST ONE!
Ivan has gone into detailed explainations on his hunting style concerning elephants, cows in particular,so I will not repeat.I can't believe you watch TRACKS and have not seen a DG hunt? 98% of all out episodes are DG hunts! Keep tuning in though, I think you will enjoy the content. Yes, some producers want the DANGER FACTOR dripping from every sentence, and I too find it nonsense. You will not find that on our stuff. Do we discuss it? YOU BET, because it exists, but we do not do stupid stunts to invite disaster. It comes often enough without encouraging it as last year proved.
Good post though!

quote:

must ask why did he got banned from DSC and SCI ? Not sarcastic I just dont know, do anyone know the reason ?

There are no fair reasons (I think the of. statemant was: His videos are too brutal", but then they have to bann dozend of other PHs and outfitters too...)
I think they got some preasure from other PHs and outfitters, because Mark was to sucsessfull in this shows...
For one example: He sells on one day more of his DVDs as all the other PHs on all days togehter...

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Your ego is not worth my life.

Or the lives of the trackers, game scout, or PH. Kind of selfish to needlessly risk other people's lives more than is necessary for your sport.

Brett

quote:

because Mark was to sucsessfull in this shows...

...."Shows".....as in Soap Operas and MS being the "Showman" taking advantage of the naive masses.

But I take my hat off to him for having discovered a Golden Goose in his DVDs.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. FM:
For one example: He sells on one day more of his DVDs as all the other PHs on all days togehter...

And it has been said that it is the Sullivan bashers who are guilty of hyperbole.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
There is ZERO DOUBT Mark courts danger and relishes in the charges he gets on film. Obviously to anyone who watches his stuff, and to me when I filmed Death On The Run, he is not interested in finishing off DG at a distance if a confrontation is possible. No news there. None of the other PH's discussed have ever done this in my presence during filming or on my own hunts. Dawson and Smith INSIST that finishing shots are fired the SECOND the client has the chance to do so.!

This has always been my problem with the way MS conducts his hunts(he does not finish the animal ASAP, instead he lets it suffer hoping to incite a charge). In my book, if a wounded animal is in the open it should be put down immediately. To do any less is just plain wrong.

Many of you MS supporters have claimed that MS is not trying to get a charge, but any of us can see that that is exactly what he is doing.

The fact that MS has chosen to portray himself as a condescending, loud-mouthed braggart(keep in mind that HE chooses how he is portrayed in his books and films) makes it very easy to dislike him.