quote:

Originally posted by Woodmnctry:
""I do not believe that unwounded buffalo are particularly dangerous.""


Well--------------

The day that I arrived in Chirisa (May 11th) one of the game scouts on poacher patrol was attacked and killed by a Cape Buffalo. Apparently the attack was w/o any provocation. The details are a bit sketchy as the partner of the individual that wound up getting the horn - as so to speak - apparently totally freaked and ran. His story several days later seemed to change as to what actually happened. As near as could be determined the two were returning from poacher patrol when the Buff for no apparent reason charged and gored the individual in the groin. Unfortunately for him - he was wearing the radio clipped to his pants and the Buff departed with his pants and the radio --- both of which were found about a mile away couple days later. The other scout had to run the remaining distance to park headquarters and radio for help and a truck to extricate the wounded man. Unfortunately by the time they got a truck to him, and were in the process of taking him to medical help, he expired. An attempt was made to trak down the culprit but w/o any success so it was never really determined if the Buff was injured or just haveing a bad day. Life is tough over there!

I realize that it (an "unprovoked" charge) happens occassionally (there are always exceptions), but I still believe it to be a small fraction of a percent of all human/buffalo encounters.

I know of instances where unwounded bison also charged humans with malicious intent. Animals are unpredictable...especially wild ones, and I will concede cape buffalo may be moreso than average given their temperament, constant exposure to lion attacks, etc, etc...but I doubt the actual rate of unprovoked attacks is significant in absolute terms (those that happen to form that statistic will probably want to differ with my use of the word significant though! ). I would bet dollars to donuts that the rate of "unprovoked" charges by both black and grizzly bears is many times greater than cape buffalo (do not mistake this as a claim that bear hunting is more dangerous than cape buff hunting)

We (well, at least me anyway) are also talking about hunters stalking into shooting range of cape buffalo...not chance encounters with previously wounded or agitated animals. I am just saying that sneaking to within a short distance of buffalo and shooting it, is no more - and possibly less - dangerous than shooting them from longer distances. This is premised on the assumption that the VAST majority of charges occur after the shot has been made and the PH and client are following up the blood trail of a wounded animal.

Again, jmho on a discussion topic that I find interesting...not trying to be argumentative or offend anyone...

Cheers,
Canuck

Canuckster, that came out pretty well. You should've been a politician.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
This is the record stated by so many prolific DG hunters, both PHs, and clients, that makes most who know the score,to be sceptics where a PH who gets 30 or 40 charges a season, on film. Maybe some are just unlucky!

Mac,

Don't you think a charge could be ethically intentionally engineered.

1. A client shoots a buffalo. He does not wound it intentionally. Perhaps shot in the lungs. Even perhaps quite a good shot placement but not brain or spine. The buffalo falls in full sight ie perfect for the camera.

2. Instead of waiting a short while for the beast to expire, the videomaker approachs the buffalo to close range, from the head and perhaps upwind.

ie instead of the usual downwind approach, and from the rear of the buffalo, not the head.

3. Most large beasts take a while to expire and if provoked (eg by the close approach) especially with adrenalin, may find the strength to rise and charge.

4. The charge and the dropping shot is captured on film.

Normally the PH would want to avoid putting the client in danger, but the purpose here is to capture dramatic film footage.

Ethical or not?

Is it more ethical to sit for five minutes for the downed buffalo to fully expire ie bleed out? Or ethical to provoke a charge as above? Is the buffalo killed any quicker by either method?

Well first off, I say each to his own. But when I plunk down my hard earned bucks to hunt buffalo, I want to kill the buffalo. Now I would expect anyone to shoot in "true self defense" but losing the trophy fee is my problem. I go to hunt not collect.

With all that said, I have never had a problem. The PH I hunt with, Nigel Theisen, is a good friend of mine. His favorite saying is: "the last thing I want to do is shoot your animal and besides that cartridges are expensive in Africa!"

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

Is it more ethical to sit for five minutes for the downed buffalo to fully expire ie bleed out? Or ethical to provoke a charge as above? Is the buffalo killed any quicker by either method?

If you can watch it bleed out, you put in a finisher. Don't let the beast suffer.

quote:

Originally posted by N'gagi:
If you can watch it bleed out, you put in a finisher. Don't let the beast suffer.

Your opinion.

If the heart and lungs has already been destroyed how is shooting it again going to kill it any quicker?

What shot would you use, a brain shot?

I disagree. And I know a lot of African PHs would disagree as well. Probably every one I have hunted with.



(note - I am not talking about an 'insurance' shot immediately before checking to see if the buff is truly dead.)

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

quote:

Originally posted by N'gagi:
If you can watch it bleed out, you put in a finisher. Don't let the beast suffer.

Your opinion.

If the heart and lungs has already been destroyed how is shooting it again going to kill it any quicker?

Why do you think putting a another bullet into a buffalo's chest will kill it so much quicker? Is that why some guys claim to have shot buffalo "ten times!" before it died? So to kill it, I imagine you brain shoot your trophy buffalo?

I disagree. And I know a lot of African PHs would disagree as well. Probably every one I have hunted with.

Again, nothing but the purest of ignorance spouted as though it were gospel.

Spine a downed buff and he dies.

Right now.

Try it some time.

I have.

It works.

Whereof one does not know, thereof one should not speak.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by N'gagi:
If you can watch it bleed out, you put in a finisher. Don't let the beast suffer.

Your opinion.

If the heart and lungs has already been destroyed how is shooting it again going to kill it any quicker?

What shot would you use, a brain shot?

I disagree. And I know a lot of African PHs would disagree as well. Probably every one I have hunted with.

+++++

With all due respect ol buddy, you said in the post I quoted, "a lung shot". Not a heart lung shot. If in fact, the heart was hit, there will not be a long "bleeding out" as the pumper is no longer operational.

Personally, I'd prefer to drop him, and put in another, right through the boiler ASAP. As you know, I've only been on one safari, so I'm far from an expert, and I'm only sharing what I did, and what I plan or hope to do next time. I just prefer the thing die as quickly and quietly as possible. As for a brain shot, I'll take the best shot presented, but I'll go for a H/L shot every time if I can...except in August. I hope to brain my ele.

I know this is far from a comparison, but I've hunted pheasant with guys who stuff a semi-dead bird in their vest and let if flutter and kick for a few minutes until it expires. Myself, I give them a quick spin by the neck and end it right there. Call me a wuss. Just my way.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

Again, nothing but the purest of ignorance spouted as though it were gospel.

Spine a downed buff and he dies.

Right now.

Try it some time.

I have.

It works.

Whereof one does not know, thereof one should not speak.

If you were not so bitter about some imagined slight and looking for any chance to attack, you would notice I mentioned in my earlier post the "insurance shot" which is usually a spine shot from behind.

quote:

(note - I am not talking about an 'insurance' shot immediately before checking to see if the buff is truly dead.)

Funny enough I have done this as well.

Maybe you could give us the details of your actual hunt again as part of a discussion instead of the petty personal attacks.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
. . . I mentioned in my earlier post the "insurance shot" which is usually a spine shot from behind.

Nice attempt at ex post facto editing yet again.

I guess I must remember to turn off my bullshit detector before responding to your idiotically hypothetical posts.

Experience tends to militate against that, however.

quote:

Originally posted by N'gagi:

With all due respect ol buddy, you said in the post I quoted, "a lung shot". Not a heart lung shot. If in fact, the heart was hit, there will not be a long "bleeding out" as the pumper is no longer operational.

Personally, I'd prefer to drop him, and put in another, right through the boiler ASAP.

Ngagi,

Fair enough. However with a damaged heart, bleeding out may actually be slower than with a functioning heart. Don't know for buffalo but this is certainly the case in lighter game.

What I was referring to as "bleeding out" is when the animal is down, lying down, perhaps quivering and shaking. This might go on for a few minutes.

As for "MrLexma's" "purest ignorance" comment, and taking my comment out of context, I guess the PHs that have advised us to sit down and wait were all "ignorant" as well. I don't see the point to rushing in to shoot an animal. Let it die in dignity.

(PS edited slightly!)

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
. . . I mentioned in my earlier post the "insurance shot" which is usually a spine shot from behind.

Nice attempt at ex post facto editing yet again.

I guess I must remember to turn off my bullshit detector before responding to your idiotically hypothetical posts.

Experience tends to militate against that, however.

More insults .... I think "bitter" was an understatement.

The sentence you claim was edited after, was there all the time. At least it was there when I finished the post. It may have been posted and on re-reading the post I may have edited it immediately to change a sentence or add a sentence, as these forums do not have a "preview" function.

Please explain though by what you mean by "yet again"???

However personally I would rather talk about hunting. It might be better to ignore each other from now on perhaps.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
What I was referring to as "bleeding out" is when the animal is down, lying down, perhaps quivering and shaking. This might go on for a few minutes.

My buff dropped like a hammer with a H/L shot at about 25 yards. His legs were stiff as oak trees, and he was bellowing. One more right between the front legs and he went limp and quiet. The only time I might hold off on a second shot immediately, is if I am worried about damaging harvestable meat.

In the case of my buff the only meat I was thinking about was my own! Have a nice weekend John.

As a general rule, when hunting with a rifle I don't let an animal "bleed out" if I can help it. If I can see it and its still conscious and kicking, I will try and put one in the CNS (usually the spine from the shoulders to the head) to end its suffering as quickly as possible. If its just kicking from nerve impulses, I don't keep shooting until its still. Most times its easy to tell the difference (eyes not glazed over or rolled back, still trying to breath etc).

I have had PHs instruct me not to shoot an animal that I normally would put a "finisher" in on. I am not sure why? I should have asked, but in the moment I did not. I guess the reason is to minimize shooting and potentially making the game in the vicinity more wary??? Or perhaps its just the preferred way of doing things in Africa??

Nitro, to answer your question about whether charges could be "ethically" induced, I would say "yes", sort of. I am sure you can rush in on an animal that was shot fairly well, and induce it to charge before it expires (rather than waiting to follow up and allowing it to expire).

To pull that off often enough to make a series of videos though, I still question. Given how quickly most animals go down from a good heart lung shot, it seems that you'd have to have a good proportion of "marginal" shots (just lung, etc) to find enough situations where the terrain and vegetation allows you to find and approach the animal from the front while it is still able to get on its feet to charge.


Just my thoughts...

Cheers,
Canuck

I have never been a fan of Mark Sullivan's for all the reasons that have been posted here in these forums for years. However, I recently watched one of his videos (can’t remember the “Death By…†title) where he verbally defends his reasons for the quick follow up. And since I try at times to be intellectually honest, I have to agree that his logic does make sense if you are concerned about minimizing the animals suffering. We would all have to agree that a quick follow up will normally be a quicker death than the “wait for the bellow†approach. Logic dictates that if, after a quick follow up the animal is still alive and you finish it, the mere fact that it “was†still alive means you reduced its suffering. That’s where he loses me though. Any caring hunter would take the first reasonable shot at a wounded animal once approached. Mark and apprentice take their time, slowly walk up to the animal, all the while blood is dripping from its nose, until the desired charge is provoked. And the description here is much more sanitized than the actual video. To watch this spectacle just seems wrong, at least the way we were raised as hunters. Maybe in the end Mark is on to something when it comes to the quick follow up, I don’t know. But somehow I find it hard to believe that his action packed routine is in any way related to quickly ending the suffering of anything beyond his bank account.

quote:

Originally posted by G L Krause:
I have never been a fan of Mark Sullivan's for all the reasons that have been posted here in these forums for years. However, I recently watched one of his videos (can’t remember the “Death By…†title) where he verbally defends his reasons for the quick follow up. And since I try at times to be intellectually honest, I have to agree that his logic does make sense if you are concerned about minimizing the animals suffering. We would all have to agree that a quick follow up will normally be a quicker death than the “wait for the bellow†approach. Logic dictates that if, after a quick follow up the animal is still alive and you finish it, the mere fact that it “was†still alive means you reduced its suffering. That’s where he loses me though. Any caring hunter would take the first reasonable shot at a wounded animal once approached. Mark and apprentice take their time, slowly walk up to the animal, all the while blood is dripping from its nose, until the desired charge is provoked. And the description here is much more sanitized than the actual video. To watch this spectacle just seems wrong, at least the way we were raised as hunters. Maybe in the end Mark is on to something when it comes to the quick follow up, I don’t know. But somehow I find it hard to believe that his action packed routine is in any way related to quickly ending the suffering of anything beyond his bank account.

He is not telling the truth!

In all my buffalo hunting, we have ALWAYS followed the buffalo as soon he is shot, and if necessary, additional shotys are fired at him to kill him quickly.

There is NO WAY IN HELL he could get charged so often in any sort of what we might call normal hunting.

He is grandstanding in the grand Hollywood style, including the B rated heavy breathing.

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
I have had PHs instruct me not to shoot an animal that I normally would put a "finisher" in on. I am not sure why? I should have asked, but in the moment I did not. I guess the reason is to minimize shooting and potentially making the game in the vicinity more wary??? Or perhaps its just the preferred way of doing things in Africa??
Cheers,
Canuck

Chris, You know, this again touches on something which has been alluded to many times here but always seems to slip by the wayside. I recall it arising also on a number of occasions where the general rule of "keep shooting until he's down" seemed to prevail. I think it deserving of its' own thread. I've got my own thoughts on it, along with those of some PH's I remembered to ASK. - Nick

Chris,

I could not agree with you more. Unless the animal dangerous or not is obviously flat out I will shoot until I'm happy he is not getting up. How many times on one of these videos do you see the hunter make a shot, the game goes down and he immediatetly without reloading the rifle looks at the camera, the back slapping begins and nobody is watching the animal. What if the hit was only close to the spine causing a temporary collapse but no real damage? Even in the situation of down and out on the first shot a hunter should immediately reload and pay close attention to whether the animal is truly down for good. I personally have no attachment to 1 shot kills. I'd rather have put in an extra shot or two and know the animal will not get up.

As for the PH being reluctant to let you shoot as many times as you feel is necessary he may have been chastised about bullet holes ruining capes. Personally I don't care at all about bullet holes as they just tell the story but everybody is not like that. I had 14 holes in one buffalo because all 7 solids exited and I didn't regret any of them.

Mark