Did your Professional Hunter just shoot your animal??

[crs]

No, but one did loan his handgun to me to finish off a Gemsbok that was down from my shoulder shot and unable to move.. One shot to the heart did the trick.

 

[crs]

No, but one did loan his handgun to me to finish off a Gemsbok that was down from my shoulder shot and unable to move.. One shot to the heart did the trick.

 

[curtism1234]

Good thread!! I could see a number of scenarios playing out like the client shoots but misses, then the ph shoots and actually kills the animal. What do you do if there's only one hole?

If I gave instructions for the PH to shoot right after I shoot and I missed, that's probably mine

 

[flatwater bill]

A similar situation in Alaska brought a court case. A client shot at a bear. His guide shot soon after. The bear was not charging. Upon skinning, there was only one bullet in the bear, and that was the guide's. The operator forced the client to tag the griz. He did so under protest. Later he sued the operator and the FG dept wanting another tag (some areas are very difficult to draw in Alaska). The court sided with the Guide/operator and the Gameys, Client lost. He was required to claim/tag a bear he had not shot. (I am am citing from memory, don't recall specifics). I think both sides would have been better off to have discussed this possibility before hand. .................FWB

 

[Randy F]

My feeling on it is that I didn't spend years saving, planning, contemplating, worrying, etc., to get to the moment of truth just to have someone else shoot it. For most, this is a once-in-a-lifetime event, two if really lucky.
If the agreement is for him to back me up in an iffy situation and I miss my first shot, that's on me, I agreed to it. Oops. But if he just lights one up before I even squeeze the trigger, he will hear my checkbook slam shut like a clap of thunder!

I understand protecting the client in the event of a charge. That's part of it and I get that. But if it's not the one you're after, (cow or small bull etc.), and you didn't even have a chance to shoot, are you forced to take it? Hunt over? I would have a tough time with that one.

 

[ActionBob]

I understand protecting the client in the event of a charge. That's part of it and I get that.

I agree with the first part of your post. But if there is a charge or an attack and the client does not shoot and the PH or anyone else for that matter kills or even wounds the animal, isn't that part of their job and there should be provisions for that. If a ranch/fenced hunt... sorry for the owner but just as he has profit potential, he assumed some risk of loss being the owner. It most certainly should not take away the opportunity for the client to continue his hunt. If in a proper wild area, where the animals are essentially owned by no one or the government, there has to be riles in place and that animal should not be paid for nor deducted from quota.

 

[Randy F]

I agree with the first part of your post. But if there is a charge or an attack and the client does not shoot and the PH or anyone else for that matter kills or even wounds the animal, isn't that part of their job and there should be provisions for that. If a ranch/fenced hunt... sorry for the owner but just as he has profit potential, he assumed some risk of loss being the owner. It most certainly should not take away the opportunity for the client to continue his hunt. If in a proper wild area, where the animals are essentially owned by no one or the government, there has to be riles in place and that animal should not be paid for nor deducted from quota.

Exactly my sentiment. If you read to the end of my post, I would have a hard time accepting that. 100% agreed.

 

[Sabattiboy]

Exactly my sentiment. If you read to the end of my post, I would have a hard time accepting that. 100% agreed.

If the PH has been told to shoot after the client does that include time to evaluate where the client shot went? Hit or miss? bad hit? Not qualifying exactly the terms of "shoot after me" falls on the client.
If the client want all shots made my him or her then baring a charge that endangers lives the follow up cost and risk of loss of the animal falls to the client.
These things are easily said on a forum but putting oneself in that situation during the hunt it might not be so easy to swallow.
I watched a lion hunt on youtube where the lion charged and the client made a kill shot merely a few feet away and the lion skidded right up on him. Of course there were handshakes and back slaps and memories of an unbelievable lion vs man in which man prevailed. However, had he not made a kill shot and the lion was on top of the client issuing some karma who is responsible? The PH for letting it get that close? The client for saying don't shoot unless the lion has my neck in his mouth?
Nobody wants a hunt to end with a bad taste in their mouth but DG don't care one way or the other.

Mostly this thread should serve for any hunter to evaluate what terms they want applied to their PH and team.

 

[Randy F]

If the PH has been told to shoot after the client does that include time to evaluate where the client shot went? Hit or miss? bad hit? Not qualifying exactly the terms of "shoot after me" falls on the client.
If the client want all shots made my him or her then baring a charge that endangers lives the follow up cost and risk of loss of the animal falls to the client.
These things are easily said on a forum but putting oneself in that situation during the hunt it might not be so easy to swallow.
I watched a lion hunt on youtube where the lion charged and the client made a kill shot merely a few feet away and the lion skidded right up on him. Of course there were handshakes and back slaps and memories of an unbelievable lion vs man in which man prevailed. However, had he not made a kill shot and the lion was on top of the client issuing some karma who is responsible? The PH for letting it get that close? The client for saying don't shoot unless the lion has my neck in his mouth?
Nobody wants a hunt to end with a bad taste in their mouth but DG don't care one way or the other.

Mostly this thread should serve for any hunter to evaluate what terms they want applied to their PH and team.

The example you give is of a client shooting first on his intended target animal. I was referring to a scenario wherein the client either never intended to shoot, or where the PH fired before the client did had the chance to in a non-charge situation. Two different things. I guess I'm missing something and/or wasn't clear, sorry.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that is all about communication first. It's a subject easily confused and clarification is crucial. (This exchange is a prime example) Get it figured out ahead of time.

What I was referring to is that if we're on a stalk and a critter comes blowing in (I don't care if it's a snake or an elephant) and the PH stops in his tracks as he should, I'm not buying the critter and ending my hunt. It's just an example.

There are a gazillion scenarios where there are valid arguments for either side of it. Head it off. Discuss it and be as specific as you can and get clarification.

Me and my PH talked extensively and candidly about it before we ever headed out.

 

[mark-hunter]

I think that on entire globe, world wide,on planet Earth, on all continents, there is universal rule for all gun owners:
The one who pulls the trigger bears the responisbility (or cost) for what is done by that action.

Life saving situation in grave and imminent danger does not change that fact.
Moreover, dealing with dangerous animals on entire African continent, was not supposed to be under individual commercial clients tag. It is more likely to be rare coincidence, when it happens.

Moreover, clients safety is PH responsibility. So, if PH is acting under that responsiiblty why the client should pay for that action?
So why a buffalo, who unexpectedly charged, and is killed by PH should be on account of clients bag?
By contract, the client is entitled to his first shot, if it doesnt happen it is not clients fault

I think that this particular situation should be checked under proffesional hunters national organisation code of conduct, or code of ehtics. (I am sure it has been an issue raised before)

One other point, is european continental hunting tradition, the rule that probaly comes from driven hunt practise.
The trophy (or animal) belongs to the hunter who shot the animal first. (it can be finished by someone else, but first shot counts). For birds it is the opposite, the bird and small pray shot with shotgun, belongs to the hunter who brought it down, not to the one who wonded it.
So, once again, who shoots (first) bears the responsivility (and cost) of his action. I dont think that in PH/client relationship is any different

 

[Sabattiboy]

The example you give is of a client shooting first on his intended target animal. I was referring to a scenario wherein the client either never intended to shoot, or where the PH fired before the client did had the chance to in a non-charge situation. Two different things. I guess I'm missing something and/or wasn't clear, sorry.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that is all about communication first. It's a subject easily confused and clarification is crucial. (This exchange is a prime example) Get it figured out ahead of time.

What I was referring to is that if we're on a stalk and a critter comes blowing in (I don't care if it's a snake or an elephant) and the PH stops in his tracks as he should, I'm not buying the critter and ending my hunt. It's just an example.

There are a gazillion scenarios where there are valid arguments for either side of it. Head it off. Discuss it and be as specific as you can and get clarification.

Me and my PH talked extensively and candidly about it before we ever headed out.

Sorry if I got off track.
It totally is about communication. And all the ways a thread can wriggle back and forth. Which I will say has opened my eyes to things I never considered might or has happened to somebody.
As far as I understand, the PH is under legal requirement to deal with life threatening situations whether it is from an animal to be taken, following up and dispatching a wounded DG or just encountering a critter with a bad attitude. That a client might be willing to take it on his bag and save the PH from paperwork is a different story. If I booked a low dollar PG hunt my wallet doesn't have the option of adding an elephant. I don't want bit by anything and figure most PH's wouldn't mind if a client dispatched something that was about to bite him or her. All stuff to figure out if it happens on any hunt.
And I wouldn't want a PH shooting my animals at will. If I can't perform for some reason I might stop my hunt.

 

[thi9elsp]

I've not hunted with a guide anywhere (USA including Alaska, New Zealand, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe) who would take the shot first in a hunting situation on a target animal.

As others have said, I spoke to both PH's on my buffalo hunts and told them if they felt it necessary to take a follow up because of my poor performance, they are in charge and I won't question it.

We experienced a charging animal where the PH had the trackers pull me and my wife into the brush and waved to attract the charge away from us. That animal was not counted as part of his quota let alone my bag.

 

[Nhoro]

Good thread. As has been said-communicate with your PH before the hunt. ask the difficult questions and know the answer before you book the hunt.

I can give you the legal perspective in Zimbabwe- an animal shot in self defense is not part of a hunting bag or license and you will not be required to pay anything. Whoever shoots the animal in self defense is legally required to justify that it was self defense and National Parks officials will investigate. So it is better to have your PH shoot and then he will deal with Parks officials rather than you. But you are also justified to shoot if you or any member of your party is in danger. You might lose a day of hunting while you deal with national parks. The national parks scout will be a big help in the investigation.Worst case scenario if you are judged to have shot too soon or weren't in any danger -is a fine-probably around the price of the trophy fee-no jail time.In a justified self defense there is no cost or loss except time and lots of paperwork and bureaucracy. I have several PH and photographic guide friends who have had to shoot an animal in self defense. None have been fined or sanctioned in any way.

In my opinion, a PH should shoot of the animal may escape/not be recovered or if anyone in the party is in danger. If you request a backup shot then he should shoot a little after you.

 

[JKO HUNTING SAFARIS]

I was reading a couple of threads about back up shots, and there were some comments about PHs shooting first. (Does this even happen ?!?!)
Anyway, I posted the following (or similar) on there, but decided to start a new thread instead, and I'll go back and delete my post from there. I don't want to derail somebody's thread.

Ok, so in reading the comments it looks like most people agree on a few things. In a hunt the PH should NEVER fire the first shot. The ONLY exception to this would be in the event of a charge where lives are in danger. Fine. We agree on this. But then what happens? Do you continue on our hunt? Or is it now over..... that animal that was shot (in self defense by the PH) is now YOUR trophy animal? I would suspect that it may depend on quotas/if more of the same species can still be hunted.
Here's an example: I save up (what is to me a small fortune) and go on a buffalo hunt. As we are approaching the herd, one of them charges and the PH puts it down. Great. But is that then automatically my Buffalo? Is my hunt now over? Or pants get cleaned, the buff picked up to be processed, and we carry on with my hunt with me having an exciting story to tell? I'm curious as to what The opinions are of my fellow Hunters, as well as the Outfitters and PHs on here.

Great topic and good question.... I believe that if this would happen in most cases if you are hunting with a reputable outfit they will not accept that buffalo as yours if it was a unprovoked charge out of nowhere.... I personally believe that PH's should know when to stop pushing animals if you are following or trying to get the first shot into the animal.

On the backup shot, there is always different scenarios to the situation but again my personal opinion and how I have been hunting my whole life is to not shoot at my hunters animals until it is really really necessary and in dire straits... I would also then always try to just "pull up the handbrake" as we say in Africa so my hunter has another opportunity to take a shot or finish off what he started. Some might say this is not ethical and the wounded animal should be put out of it's misery asap but in the other hand I am not there to shoot and kill my hunters animals. They are paying me to put them onto the animal and keep them safe, in my mind I am merely helping them to make sure they are not hurt and that they are taken care off out in the bush.