quote:

Originally posted by PhilR:
What's the big deal over Mark Sullivan! He has his own personal style and manner of hunting. His clients seem to enjoy the hunts, or they wouldn't pay the price and speak positively about him. He follows up wounded game quickly which makes it more likely that the animal is still alive when MS and hunter arrive to "let the animal choose"...as opposed to waiting to pursue so that the animal has a chance to die on it's own. Is one approach more humane than the other? I don't think so. His dvds are very entertaining...great animals, exciting, quality hunts. I wish I had the price of admission.

Phil,

We have never, ever waited to follow animals we have shot.

We always ran after them immediately as they took off and finished them off.

We have never, ever been charged either.

Saeed, You are far more skilled than the average hunter. However, the practice of giving a wounded animal that has to be tracked, some time to settle down and hopefully die from it's wound(s) is preferable to a long pursuit, or possibly the loss of the animal. I think the hunting fraternity in general does not consider this an inhumane practice.

PhilR - Lots of folks here are into chasing the animals right away. Makes for better video I guess? I have always waited at least a few minutes, unless the animal is still in sight and a shot presented, to follow up. If the animal is mortally wounded, usually right there after a short tracking job. If marginally hit, a short wait almost always results in the animal stopping, lying down, possibly expiring right there. If one goes madly chasing an animal, and the animal is aware of it, it will usually get an adrenaline rush and be off on a long chase.

My thought, chase'em if you want, but I'll wait it out a bit myself.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

Skill, that is an interesting notion. Would not be hard to make the case that it takes far more skill to get in close, keep your cool in the face of a charge and put the shot where it counts than whacking a buffalo or an elephant at 80 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle. Not sure what the hesitancy is to simply accept that while both involve skill and calm, the former probably demands more of both. I guess what I am saying is, give the devil his due, MS is very proficient at what he does compared to most dangerous game hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by PhilR:
Saeed, You are far more skilled than the average hunter. However, the practice of giving a wounded animal that has to be tracked, some time to settle down and hopefully die from it's wound(s) is preferable to a long pursuit, or possibly the loss of the animal. I think the hunting fraternity in general does not consider this an inhumane practice.

Theory does not apply to cats.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Skill, that is an interesting notion. Would not be hard to make the case that it takes far more skill to get in close, keep your cool in the face of a charge and put the shot where it counts than whacking a buffalo or an elephant at 80 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle. Not sure what the hesitancy is to simply accept that while both involve skill and calm, the former probably demands more of both. I guess what I am saying is, give the devil his due, MS is very proficient at what he does compared to most dangerous game hunters.

The only think MS is very profient at is shooting his clients animals

Proficiency is proficiency. Not sure the animals know who they belong to.

quote:

If one goes madly chasing an animal, and the animal is aware of it, it will usually get an adrenaline rush and be off on a long chase.

We can agree on this one

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Proficiency is proficiency. Not sure the animals know who they belong to.

So by his own admission - that his clients are terrible shots!

And he STILL fails to get them into position to kill their own animals

Yep, That is very professional in NOT doing the job you claim to have.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Proficiency is proficiency. Not sure the animals know who they belong to.

. . . clients are terrible shots!

I suspect most clients are far more comfortable sniping away from 75-100 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle, than shooting in a charge at 15 yards with an open sighted double rifle. In all seriousness, is it your view that whacking a buffalo from 75 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle is every bit as exciting and challenging as shooting the same buffalo at 30 yards with a double?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Proficiency is proficiency. Not sure the animals know who they belong to.

So by his own admission - that his clients are terrible shots!

And he STILL fails to get them into position to kill their own animals

Yep, That is very professional in NOT doing the job you claim to have.

Of course we know your comment is an over generalization Saeed about all of Mark’s clients and it is also inaccurate and false. Mark certainly is not the only PH who has made a comment about clients and their shooting on safari.

To suggest it represents all of his clients is about as accurate as your representation of walking up to hippos as being benign or harmless. I have personally been on hunts with Mark as well as with other clients that were hunting with Mark. Your generalization that Mark’s clients are only those who are terrible shots is not what occurred in my experiences.

The quoted excerpt that you elected to use is pulled from a response by Mark regarding an allegation of intentionally wounding buffalo. This is Mark’s actual response:

“The first is I intentionally wound buffalo so as to prompt them into charging. This is not true. I instruct my clients to always make the best possible shot. The indisputable fact is clients shoot poorly and nothing will ever change that reality. Coupled with the fact buffalo are notoriously difficult to kill, these two conditions make hunting them a challenge. I know many of you have killed buffalo with one shot. That is not the norm. Buffalo take a great deal of killing. I know. I have the experience to prove it.”

Now I know Saeed that you will suggest that because Mark stated “clients shoot poorly and nothing will ever change that reality” in your mind this translates to “All of my clients shoot poorly” or as you said “So by his own admission – that his clients are terrible shots.” Clearly your interpretation is intentionally exaggerated and overextended. I think most understand that you have a personal insecurity when it comes to the topic of hunting dangerous game up close and/or Mark Sullivan.

Interesting, Stewart Granger the actor and hunter had one charge from four cape buffalo kills he made with his WR .577 ...

Hi John,

Pat woke me up to see the Westley Richards & Company double and to post a quick hi for her. She wanted me to say hello and send you her best. We both greatly enjoyed your company. I hope we see you in Germany 2015 for the Heym 150th anniversary event!

Best always,
Shawn

From MS own letter "... I do not hunt for the camera or to show off. I do not brag or boast..."

You could have fooled me!

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:


Interesting, Stewart Granger the actor and hunter had one charge from four cape buffalo kills he made with his WR .577 ...

That's a lovely rifle.
Granger must have had good eyesite, the rear sights are mighty close to the breech!

Saeed, It is clearly upsetting to you that MS "shoots his clients animals". Who cares? If it's legal and his clients are agreeable so be it. In all of the lengthy Mark Sullivan threads that have appeared on AR, I have never heard anyone complain that MS shot their animals. On the contrary, those who have hunted with him say they had a wonderful hunt and that he's a great guy.

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
Hi John,

Pat woke me up to see the Westley Richards & Company double and to post a quick hi for her. She wanted me to say hello and send you her best. We both greatly enjoyed your company. I hope we see you in Germany 2015 for the Heym 150th anniversary event!

Best always,
Shawn

Shawn, good to hear from you and Pat. As for 2015, don't know, but one never knows ...

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
Hi John,

Pat woke me up to see the Westley Richards & Company double and to post a quick hi for her. She wanted me to say hello and send you her best. We both greatly enjoyed your company. I hope we see you in Germany 2015 for the Heym 150th anniversary event!

Best always,
Shawn

Shawn:
I have been invited to the 2015 event and will be pleased to see you and Mark there! However, in the time now, I have a question for you. I was going to ask Saeed but I doubt I'd get an answer I could use as he avoids answers to some direct questions or statements.

I am writing a long article on Mark and want to include some facts found within the posts and threads here on AR. I don't know how to search for them. I would like to get some of the quotes of those who wrote blatant lies and and unsubstantiated emotional statements. I also want to get an accurate count of the number of pages and posts threads on Mark generate as well as the number of posts Saeed himself has made.

My desire is to be factual in my writings. You recall much of the tirade quited down after I made my post almost a year ago when I tabulated each hunt on nine of Mark's films. The more facts that are out there the better for us all.

Anyway, can you tell me how to dig up the information, please? I will send Mark the article, and you, too if you wish, prior to publication. I am waiting for a few items from Mark to complete it as well as the info herein.

Cheers, best wishes, and it was good to talk to you the other day. The new film is fantastic.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:
Hi John,

Pat woke me up to see the Westley Richards & Company double and to post a quick hi for her. She wanted me to say hello and send you her best. We both greatly enjoyed your company. I hope we see you in Germany 2015 for the Heym 150th anniversary event!

Best always,
Shawn

Shawn:
I have been invited to the 2015 event and will be pleased to see you and Mark there! However, in the time now, I have a question for you. I was going to ask Saeed but I doubt I'd get an answer I could use as he avoids answers to some direct questions or statements.

I am writing a long article on Mark and want to include some facts found within the posts and threads here on AR. I don't know how to search for them. I would like to get some of the quotes of those who wrote blatant lies and and unsubstantiated emotional statements. I also want to get an accurate count of the number of pages and posts threads on Mark generate as well as the number of posts Saeed himself has made.

My desire is to be factual in my writings. You recall much of the tirade quited down after I made my post almost a year ago when I tabulated each hunt on nine of Mark's films. The more facts that are out there the better for us all.

Anyway, can you tell me how to dig up the information, please? I will send Mark the article, and you, too if you wish, prior to publication. I am waiting for a few items from Mark to complete it as well as the info herein.

Cheers, best wishes, and it was good to talk to you the other day. The new film is fantastic.
Cal

I would love to see the article Cal. Where will it be published?

This subject, like many in life, generates extreme opinions. Some hate MS no matter what he does. Other love him no matter what he does. The reality of what he does probably lies in the middle of those opinions.

I will not argue regarding MS firing shots at client animals. He clearly does. My question is whether the client approves of this?

I vividly remember last year in Zim. We were closing in on elephants. We were close. I stopped Buzz and told him that if I shot and in his judgment the shot would not be fatal, by all means shoot. Some may not agree with that. It is how I feel. I wonder how many of MS's clients feel the same way?

I agree about the new film Cal. The quality of the footage is excellent in Blue Ray. The leopard and lion footage is incredible.

Larry:
Always good to hear from you.
The article will be published in the African Hunter. I'm waiting on some info on Mark's early life and some pics--not just hunting but to cover his life.
I understand the emotions generated. If Mark discovered a cure for cancer many here would find fault.
In my writings I strive to be as factual as I can. I don't want the article to contain statements by me unless they can be quoted from an actual post--thread name, date, page number, name of poster, etc., That way, no one can find fault.

I hope to get a number of posts Saeed has made as well as quoting outright lies and fabrications. It will be interesting!

On shooting with the client I would put this guess out: I would bet if a client wants to shoot his hippo in the water at 75 yards Mark will agree as he is the PH with a paying client. However (I'm confident to say) clients want some excitement and agree to getting up close. I also will bet Mark will not agree to getting up close with only the client shooting. Look at the hippo at the end of the newest film. The client's shot hit will under the hippo's mouth and hit the front right shoulder. If Mark did not shoot, one or both would be dead. I believe in all cases, both Mark and the client have an understanding and agreement.
Anyway, stay in touch. My .500 Watson Bros is on the way back from Griffin and Howe. Your brass will be well used!
Cheers, mate.
Cal

I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Markschu:
I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

I can't speak for other hunters but I feel that if I am charged I have probably done something wrong. I really don't want to have to shoot an animal that I don't have on quota. Sometimes though, no matter how careful you are and if you spend enough time hunting DG, you can bet that you will be charged.

To intentionally initiate a charge seems like you are taking an unnecessary risk. Face enough charges and sooner or later one of those animals is going to get through to you or someone in your hunting party.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Markschu:
I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

I think in part you confuse hunting dangerous game up close versus inciting a charge. To me they are two different things. If the choice for me is between sniping a buffalo at 75 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle and hunting a buffalo up close and personal at 25-30 yards with a double rifle, I will take the latter every time. I find that latter experience more exciting, more challenging and more of a true hunting experience. The reality is that to hunt that way carries a greater risk of a charge, certainly versus the sniping approach. I would not wish for or desire to incite a charge but am prepared to accept a increased risk of a charge for the reasons already noted, e.g., getting in close is more challenging, exciting and akin to my definition of true hunting. If avoiding all risk of a charge means hunting at long distances off a stable rest with scoped rifle, why hunt dangerous game at all, go shoot an impala or a kudu.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Markschu:
I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

I think in part you confuse hunting dangerous game up close versus inciting a charge. To me they are two different things. If the choice for me is between sniping a buffalo at 75 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle and hunting a buffalo up close and personal at 25-30 yards with a double rifle, I will take the latter every time. I find that latter experience more exciting, more challenging and more of a true hunting experience. The reality is that to hunt that way carries a greater risk of a charge, certainly versus the sniping approach. I would not wish for or desire to incite a charge but am prepared to accept a increased risk of a charge for the reasons already noted, e.g., getting in close is more challenging, exciting and akin to my definition of true hunting. If avoiding all risk of a charge means hunting at long distances off a stable rest with scoped rifle, why hunt dangerous game at all, go shoot an impala or a kudu.

Thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Markschu:
I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

I think in part you confuse hunting dangerous game up close versus inciting a charge. To me they are two different things. If the choice for me is between sniping a buffalo at 75 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle and hunting a buffalo up close and personal at 25-30 yards with a double rifle, I will take the latter every time. I find that latter experience more exciting, more challenging and more of a true hunting experience. The reality is that to hunt that way carries a greater risk of a charge, certainly versus the sniping approach. I would not wish for or desire to incite a charge but am prepared to accept a increased risk of a charge for the reasons already noted, e.g., getting in close is more challenging, exciting and akin to my definition of true hunting. If avoiding all risk of a charge means hunting at long distances off a stable rest with scoped rifle, why hunt dangerous game at all, go shoot an impala or a kudu.

I completely agree. I have only taken a few buffalo but I view bear hunting the same way. Sniping a grizzly or brownie at a hundred or two hundred yards simply cannot be compared to the experience of hunting them by wading along salmon streams in the fall and getting your shot up close.

That is a quality DG experience.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Markschu:
I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

I think in part you confuse hunting dangerous game up close versus inciting a charge. To me they are two different things. If the choice for me is between sniping a buffalo at 75 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle and hunting a buffalo up close and personal at 25-30 yards with a double rifle, I will take the latter every time. I find that latter experience more exciting, more challenging and more of a true hunting experience. The reality is that to hunt that way carries a greater risk of a charge, certainly versus the sniping approach. I would not wish for or desire to incite a charge but am prepared to accept a increased risk of a charge for the reasons already noted, e.g., getting in close is more challenging, exciting and akin to my definition of true hunting. If avoiding all risk of a charge means hunting at long distances off a stable rest with scoped rifle, why hunt dangerous game at all, go shoot an impala or a kudu.

I also completely agree.

An elephant or buff at 75yds is about as dangerous as an impala or kudu.

Speaking of elephants, depending on where you hunt the risk of a charge may be quite high or quite low, even if you do not change your methods.

For example, if you hunt the low veld of Zimbabwe, especially the riverine bush in the Save Conservancy, you WILL be charged, it is just a matter of time. The elephants there are quite aggressive and always agitated. We have been tracked by an elephant heard there for more than a mile and chased many times. [It was where I learned that you actually can run from elephants if the bush is thick enough.] When we were tracked by the heard we ended in the center of a dry pan counting rounds of ammo and hoping we had enough. Thankfully, the heard stopped at the tree line, 60yds away or so.

On the other hand, in Chete the elephants were all peaceful.

But don't trust them!

I have shot to stop two charges where running wasn't feasible, one cow in the Save, and one bull that came up wind for us in Nyakasanga.

NitroX, that WR 577 is gorgeous!

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Markschu:
I have a question - from someone who has yet to hunt dangerous game but has read about it extensively, I was wondering...do experienced hunters who have been truly charged by a dangerous animal really want that to happen again on purpose? It seems to me that if I ever got charged by a wounded buff, elephant, or lion, and managed to live through it, I would never want it to happen again, especially on purpose. Yes I can see how killing a charging animal is exciting, but how many times do you really want to push your luck? I dunno, especially killing a charging hippo, seems like grandstanding to me. But to each their own.

I think in part you confuse hunting dangerous game up close versus inciting a charge. To me they are two different things. If the choice for me is between sniping a buffalo at 75 yards off of sticks with a scoped rifle and hunting a buffalo up close and personal at 25-30 yards with a double rifle, I will take the latter every time. I find that latter experience more exciting, more challenging and more of a true hunting experience. The reality is that to hunt that way carries a greater risk of a charge, certainly versus the sniping approach. I would not wish for or desire to incite a charge but am prepared to accept a increased risk of a charge for the reasons already noted, e.g., getting in close is more challenging, exciting and akin to my definition of true hunting. If avoiding all risk of a charge means hunting at long distances off a stable rest with scoped rifle, why hunt dangerous game at all, go shoot an impala or a kudu.

From a modern hunter point of view, yes many go for the up close and personal experience using their big double or bolt guns and I would include myself in here. Many others hunt to enjoy the stalk and kill with more precision shooting at longer ranges, many hunt to collect top trophies where-ever and at whatever range the animal presents itself for a shot. I don't think we can call any one type of hunting as 'a true hunting experience' or 'definition of true hunting' even in relation to Africa and its dangerous game.

Let’s face it those ‘real’ white hunters in Africa of old who put their lives on the line hunting for museum specimens, trophies, skins, horn, and tusks can hardly be regarded as not experiencing the definition of true hunting. They also took on culling duties and some of the later professionals last century got into the guiding business.
They generally took animals at ranges that suited the country they were in and the guns they were using. It didn’t bother any of them that they might take any of the dangerous game species at a reasonable range while it was sleeping or standing quietly in the shade under a tree. They hunted for a specific purpose and probably without exception none of them were interested in facing a charge or unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation that they and they alone would have to risk their lives getting out of. Bell wasn’t the only exponent of sniping elephant from a platform Pondoro Taylor also developed a similar method for racking up tons of tusks from elephant out in the tall grasslands. J A Hunter used dogs to bail and shoot lion and he culled hundreds and hundreds of rhino shooting at whatever range he found them to achieve the task.
So while today ‘getting up close and personal’ is fashionable to promote as the thing to do when hunting dangerous game, not everyone is interested in this concept. Each to his own and I would like to think we can all enjoy our hunting style without holding any one up as the only true hunting style for dangerous game. Historically there is nothing to suggest that UC&P is the definition of true hunting of dangerous game. That mocks the very white hunters that have inspired so many to make a safari to Africa.

Let me add to above I really enjoy watching video of Mike and Todd and others with their big doubles up close but get the same pleasure from watching Saeed's hunting videos.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Larry:
Always good to hear from you.
The article will be published in the African Hunter. I'm waiting on some info on Mark's early life and some pics--not just hunting but to cover his life.
I understand the emotions generated. If Mark discovered a cure for cancer many here would find fault.
In my writings I strive to be as factual as I can. I don't want the article to contain statements by me unless they can be quoted from an actual post--thread name, date, page number, name of poster, etc., That way, no one can find fault.

I hope to get a number of posts Saeed has made as well as quoting outright lies and fabrications. It will be interesting!

On shooting with the client I would put this guess out: I would bet if a client wants to shoot his hippo in the water at 75 yards Mark will agree as he is the PH with a paying client. However (I'm confident to say) clients want some excitement and agree to getting up close. I also will bet Mark will not agree to getting up close with only the client shooting. Look at the hippo at the end of the newest film. The client's shot hit will under the hippo's mouth and hit the front right shoulder. If Mark did not shoot, one or both would be dead. I believe in all cases, both Mark and the client have an understanding and agreement.
Anyway, stay in touch. My .500 Watson Bros is on the way back from Griffin and Howe. Your brass will be well used!
Cheers, mate.
Cal

Cal,

I have posted plenty in answering all the fawning of those who glorify MS in what he does.

And I will be happy to answer any questions you want from me to any actions he does in his safari videos.

AS I have absolutely, positively, no doubt that he is nothing but a showman.

As to his clients, one of his worshipper did mention something sexual in the past.

I will leave that to your own imagination, as who would pay someone else to participate in that activity in one's place

Come to think of it, that is a perfect analogy of what MS does, and his clients love it.

It beggars belief!

Hi Cal,

I just arrived home from a long and late day. I sent you a PM regarding your earlier post.

Cheers,
Shawn

eagle 27 -

quote:

So while today ‘getting up close and personal’ is fashionable to promote as the thing to do when hunting dangerous game, not everyone is interested in this concept. Each to his own and I would like to think we can all enjoy our hunting style without holding any one up as the only true hunting style for dangerous game.

Well said that man. I would add that many of us get very close to our prey however that old crusty bull is very rarely in the forefront and when the opportunity arises and he presents himself a shot should be taken whether at 10 or 100 yards.

After all you hunted him proper.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
eagle 27 -

quote:

So while today ‘getting up close and personal’ is fashionable to promote as the thing to do when hunting dangerous game, not everyone is interested in this concept. Each to his own and I would like to think we can all enjoy our hunting style without holding any one up as the only true hunting style for dangerous game.

Well said that man. I would add that many of us get very close to our prey however that old crusty bull is very rarely in the forefront and when the opportunity arises and he presents himself a shot should be taken whether at 10 or 100 yards.

After all you hunted him proper.

Andrew,

You are talking from considerable experience in the field.

But, we sadly have those who must prove to themselves and others how brave they are holding a rifle against an animal.

As we have talked with the PHs I hunt with.

We want as little drama in our hunts as we can arrange.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

... As to his clients, one of his worshipper did mention something sexual in the past.

I will leave that to your own imagination, as who would pay someone else to participate in that activity in one's place

Come to think of it, that is a perfect analogy of what MS does, and his clients love it.

It beggars belief!

MS goes to extremes to please his clients as well as himself?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
eagle 27 -

quote:

So while today ‘getting up close and personal’ is fashionable to promote as the thing to do when hunting dangerous game, not everyone is interested in this concept. Each to his own and I would like to think we can all enjoy our hunting style without holding any one up as the only true hunting style for dangerous game.

Well said that man. I would add that many of us get very close to our prey however that old crusty bull is very rarely in the forefront and when the opportunity arises and he presents himself a shot should be taken whether at 10 or 100 yards.

After all you hunted him proper.

Andrew,

You are talking from considerable experience in the field.

But, we sadly have those who must prove to themselves and others how brave they are holding a rifle against an animal.

As we have talked with the PHs I hunt with.

We want as little drama in our hunts as we can arrange.

As I have said before, those that prefer sniping should not be ashamed or embarrassed if that is what they prefer. There is no shame in sniping. Hunting up close is certainly not for everyone.

I also suspect that most PHs prefer the sniping style of hunting too, it is easier for them and leaves less to chance. The quicker the trophy is in the salt the quicker they can relax without worrying about busted stalks due to getting winded or seen moving in close, get the client to the next item on the menu and the next trophy fee line item on the final bill, etc.

We followed some buffalo all morning, and until they stopped for their siesta.

We decided to find some shade downwind of them, and had our lunch.

We went to find them after lunch, and started following them as they fed.

They went into a clearing, with us behind, trying to close the distance between us.

As we got to the edge of the forest we were in, they were at the other end of the clearing, about to get into another forest.

And as we usually do, the shooting sticks go up, and I got ready on them, looking at the herd.

"There is an old bull coming from the left, he is feeding with his head down"

"I can see him. Block your ears, if he gets clear I will shoot him"

He did get clear, and I fired a shot at him.

He ran off, and we ran after them.

We found him dead after running about 50 yards.

He was about 280 when I shot him.

Talking about that afterwards, both my PHs said the reason they do not allow their clients to shoot buffalo at distances was to avoid wounding them.

When they have a client their know well enough, he makes the call.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

He was about 280 when I shot him.

That must have been exciting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

He was about 280 when I shot him.

That must have been exciting.

Very exciting indeed.

We followed them all day, and ended our hunt successfully.

One of my last clients last season was dragged to the depths of the Kafue by a hippo. When I got him to the bank he was bleeding profusely from a head wound and a tusk has gone through the back of his pants.

Now that was close.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

He was about 280 when I shot him.

That must have been exciting.

Very exciting indeed.

We followed them all day, and ended our hunt successfully.

Wow. 280 yards at a buffalo. I think I'll book my next hunt right away. Sounds great.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
eagle 27 -

quote:

So while today ‘getting up close and personal’ is fashionable to promote as the thing to do when hunting dangerous game, not everyone is interested in this concept. Each to his own and I would like to think we can all enjoy our hunting style without holding any one up as the only true hunting style for dangerous game.

Well said that man. I would add that many of us get very close to our prey however that old crusty bull is very rarely in the forefront and when the opportunity arises and he presents himself a shot should be taken whether at 10 or 100 yards.

After all you hunted him proper.

Why is that Andrew? 100 yards on a buffalo when if I were your client, I'd have absolutely NO, read ZERO interest in doing so? If you have a client that is just into taking the first available shot with their "scoped 375" sure, but what if you have a client that prefers to get close with a big double, especially if that client is fine with going home empty handed if it can't be pulled off?

Saeed continues to make these schoolyard kid type of accusations about "needing to prove oneself" and "bravery" and the like. It's a red herring 100% and I'm really starting to think there is something deep seated in his psyche causing this as well as his hatred for Mark Sullivan. The fact remains that some of us have shot buff or elephant at range as well as up close, and going forward have no interest in shooting DG at long range ever again. Everyone should be allowed to do it the way they desire as long as they are paying the bill at the end of the safari. Surely Andrew, you're not stating that you'll pressure a hunter into hunting in a way he doesn't want just to collect the trophy fee (referring to the 100 yard shot that "should" be taken?

And all that talk about the great white hunters of lore? Bell, Southerland, Hunter, etc. Remember those guys were hunting ele for profit thereby maximizing the number of animals taken in the shortest amount of time with the least expenditure possible. They weren't taking to the field in the same way today's sport hunter does, spending a year or several's worth of savings to go out and have the most enjoyable possible retreat from the stresses and boredom of modern life through safari. Completely different motivations.

I enjoy all types of hunting immensely. That said, I get a significantly different thrill out of the pursuit and conclusion to the hunt when I'm after elk than say, squirrels on the back 40. They are both great fun, but there is more to the elk hunt. Why is that? Probably has to do with the majesty of the animal itself, the environment one finds them in, the necessary effort expended in the quest, and so on. I get a great deal of enjoyment out of plains game hunting, even on the RSA ranches. I do! It's a hell of a lot of fun. However, I find absolutely NO step up in enjoyment and adventure when shooting a buffalo at 100 yards than I do shooting an impala or zebra at the same range. Considering the price difference, I want to experience the pursuit to the absolute limit of what is being offered. And what is offered is the opportunity to press into close quarters with dangerous game animals. There IS a step up in that experience and that is what I seek with my money when on a DG safari.

To a large extent, one can say the same about hunting buffalo in herds vs dugga boys! If you have the DVD, Boddington on Buffalo 2, listen to the PHs comments at the beginning of the show. They all talk about the challenge of going into the thick stuff after the lone or doubled up dugga boy and matching wits against him on his turf when he is 100% switched on to any danger that may approach. He is a different animal than the bull slumbering along within a herd. They don't talk about additional danger. They talk about additional skill, tactics, and the challenge required to be successful. For me, it's the same thing. I simply don't find any challenge in the chance driving upon a buff herd and just jumping out to clobber one at 100 yards or more. None! I'd much rather just watch them, taking note of a good place to start tracking from later in the day.

To some extent, I don't find as much challenge in hunting buff herds where typically you just need to get out in front of them and let them saunter by, staying out of sight and hoping the wind holds. But putting the sneaky sneak on that old dugga boy, getting in close enough to shoot with a big bore double rifle, and place the shot correctly ... well that gets my heart a pumping and I feel like I've spent my money well at the end of the day. And I'm perfectly happy to go home empty handed in the event we can't close the deal. Time spent on the trail in pursuit of DG is what I actually go for in the first place. And yes, I've gone home empty handed a couple of times because we couldn't get a shot with the double. Still had one hell of a great time giving it a go! Trust me, and this is for you Saeed, it's got NOTHING to do with trying to "prove bravery". Not that "proving bravery" had anything to do with it either but for sure, I got that macho shit out of my system years ago flying fighters off of aircraft carriers. Hunting to "prove bravery"? Bull Shit! Hunting is for enjoyment - pure and simple. Today, I just like to have the most fun I can while hunting DG. And for me, that means getting close with a big double and unless we need to shoot some bait for a cat hunt, I've got no desire to swap out for a "scoped 375" and cheat myself out of the experience. Obviously some see it differently and that's fine. Just not my thing.