Here are Mark's first 10 films. The table of each shot didn't copy. I will work on that.
Introduction.
First of all, please excuse the delay in my posting. I had the information in hand but my knee prevents me from sitting for any great length of time at a computer table. It needs to be elevated and iced and I don’t type well in a prone position.
Second, I would ask all involved here keep comments to the topic of this thread, to the facts (let’s stay away from “I heard...” or “somebody said...”) and all in a gentlemanly manner. I know we will disagree on many things but let’s be men of honor.
Third, is there is a lot of data to tabulate in my state of pain meds and throbbing knee. If I write Mark fired four times and you watch the video and see five shots, accept I made an error in viewing or recording the data, not lying to support Mark. I also ask forgiveness for any typos in advance.
Let me inject something here so you all will know where I stand. I’m not much of a hunter. Africa interests me with its hunting but I rarely hunted in my 30 years here in Alaska. My love is pre W.W.II English double rifles. I like larger calibers. I don’t read hunting or firearms magazines except the African Hunter, don’t watch or buy hunting videos, and don’t buy contemporary books on hunting experiences of others. Except for the charge in the first video I was not too impressed as they seemed like all others I have seen. And, if Mark did not change his style and methods I believe he would have blended in with the thousands of PHs that were plying their trade in Africa. One does not have to look far in the entertainment industry to see how folks develop a style for attention. As not everyone can sing like Frank Sinatra, write like Bob Dylan, or have the charisma of the (early) Beatles so they must do something to bring them to the spotlight. Mark has successfully done this. Some may not like it (that is obvious from the posts on AR when his name comes up) but his name brings out emotion like no other in the business. The reason I wrote of my interests is there is something that has drawn me to Mark’s films.
As to the videos. The first ten of Mark’s films I viewed. I did not watch the “best of” films as it would have been repetitious and I don’t have his last film (although it is on the way). The films are:
1. 1990 Africa’s Black Death
2. 1992 Simba
3. 1992 Mbogo
4. 1995 Sudden Death
5. 1996 Death on the Run
6. 1998 Shot to Death
7. 2000 Death at My Feet
8. 2004 In the Face of Death
9. 2005 Death by the Ton
10.2006 Death Rush
A very important note: the 2004 film, In the Face of Death, is a documentary and not a hunting film with clients, although clients are shown. This is Mark’s “This is what I do and why” film and is not included in the tabulations to follow. When I refer to films I will number them in order 1-10 and then the number of the hunt so you can reference it quickly if you wish. In other words 6-4 would mean film 6, 4th hunt. Remember there will be no reference to film 8.
AFRICA’S BLACK DEATH 1990
Seeing it many times but now with an analytical viewpoint here is my take on the hunt. A disabled hunter shoots his buff (11th and last hunt) several times with Mark encouraging the shots. After the buff falls Mark walks to the downed animal and the hunter is driven over. Mark approached from the back of the buff when the buff lifts his head turns to see Mark, gets up and begins a charge. It took two shots to kill the buffalo. My take is Mark was going to check to see if the animal was dead. If he was not and the distance was greater I believe Mark would have had the client shoot. I believe Mark was surprised and did not expect the events to unfold as they did. The first shot was low, between the eyes, and the second shot was higher and was the brain shot that was fatal. A couple of things happened here. First I (and most of you) have read the literature for over 100 years where the hunter states the brain shot was best performed by aiming at the nose or between the eyes. Mark proved them incorrect and showed that in film. I remember lots of banter over this and many current writers then stuck with the nose or between the eyes story. The second event was the turning point in Mark’s career.
I remember well a fellow teacher coming to me in the hall at school stating he saw the most unbelievable buffalo charge. The owner of a local gun shop was playing it all day on constant loop. Not the video, just the charge, and it was the talk of the hunters here in Anchorage. As any business man knows, one has to set himself (or his product) ahead of the competition for recognition. This charge got so much attention that I would bet this first video of Mark’s outsold his next two, Mbogo and Simba, by a large margin. He was on to something. 30 shots by clients, 7 shots by Mark.
SIMBA 1992
Four great lion hunts. No charges. Great big game footage. What has set this film apart is it (as all of Mark’s films, show no plains game. Just the big stuff. 10 shots by clients, none by Mark.
MBOGO 1992
Eight buffalo hunts. One charge on hunt 5. Client wounds the buff and it runs off into grass that must be 8-10 feet high and very thick. The group enters the grass in a truck and the buff charges immediately. Mark and client shoot together with Mark’s first shot in the eye that stops the buff. 27 shots by clients, 10 shots by Mark.
Commentary of the first three films. These are definitely set apart from the films that follow and are more like the traditional African hunting videos we have all seen for years. First, is a professional narrator. Second is the footage is like most videos where the hunter shoots (and sometimes many times there after) and the PH rarely shoots his rifle. Setting things apart are that in Mark’s early years he shot very nice rifles!. As mentioned there is not much to set things apart from the standard of the day except for the buffalo charge in his first film and, of course, all dangerous game, no plains game. The next group of four film will show a development of Mark’s style has it has become known to all.
SUDDEN DEATH 1995
Three years passed since the filming of the previous two videos. The changes here were very positive. First by using himself as the story teller it brings a much more personal way to show the hunting adventures. Now, too, is Mark asking the client, “Tell me about the shot...” and the client’s perspective is of added importance. The only part of any of Mark’s films I would take issue with is the walk up to a spined buff, hunt 6, (initial shot was off camera) and spending a minute or two talking about the number and size of buffalo running away. Now, since the buff were in the area I would guess the initial shot happened a very short time ago but I would have liked to have seen the buff dispatched sooner and the discussion come after. The end of the film, hunt 8, showed a charge which happened shortly after the first shots and mark, his son, Shawn, and two hunters all emptied their doubles into the buffalo. (As an interesting side note, Shawn was using a Lang .450 no2 which is nearly identical to my Lang, same caliber, and only 40 serial numbers apart). Shots from clients 16, shots by Mark 5, shots by others 6.
DEATH ON THE RUN 1996
This always has been my favorite even though many good films followed. Great animals and great rifles I guess is the reason. Two great charges and absolutely unprovoked. Yes, Mark shot but only after the client shot and failed to stop the animal. On the hippo charge, hunt 2, Mark and his client came to a hippo getting out of the water. The hippo went straight into the brush and Mark and the client turned to their right to go to the bush also. The hippo saw them and began an instant and unprovoked charge. The client’s first shot failed to put the animal down and Mark brained it with a calm and cool single shot. The hippo fell instantly and the client put in his second shot. For the buffalo charge, hunt 10, Mark and the client walked through some open land to some brush where a wounded buff was waiting. As they came around to the left the buff charged instantly and totally unprovoked. The client’s shot missed as dust can be seen at the left of the screen and the buff came on to Mark. With his .600 the first shot was low but stunned the buff and when he dropped his head Mark put a second shot down through the top of the boss. In these two charges it is important to note the charges were unprovoked, one wounded and one not, and in both instances the client had the opportunity to stop the animal. Only when they failed to do so, did Mark finish the job. Shots by clients 17, shots by Mark 3.
SHOT TO DEATH 1998
11 animals killed, no charges. This is film number 6 and it hit me what I think the majority of the reason for the statements the Mark shoots the client’s animals. While watching the 18 minute preview I noticed Mark shooting several buffalo. Lots of gun shots, lots of action, lots of animals, lots of rifles and lots of Africa. However, many of the quick scenes of Mark shooting were not in the body of the film. For 10 animals shot by clients (remember Mark shot one buff on his own--hunt 11) Mark only shot his beautiful rifle twice. He shot many more times than that in the exciting preview but they were not hunts featured in the film. This may lead to the comments as stated. Especially so with the folks who state they watched a few minutes and turned off the film. Shots from clients 21, shots by Mark 2 (plus another 3 at his own buff).
DEATH AT MY FEET 2000
I can see why many viewing this film could jump to conclusions that are not 100% accurate. In the first hippo kill the client makes a great shot as it moves out of the water. It gets up and stands there, no charge, and Mark brains it with the .600. Why? I’d have to ask Mark and that is the proper way to go about things (and I will). Mark did not need to shoot and he and the client have a history of friendship and hunting. Just an agreement? Let’s ask first.
The next hunt was a buff and the client shot six times and Mark three when the bull was running away. I have seen videos where the PH will put in a shot or two when the critter is running just to put extra holes in the animal to slow it down. Next buff, the client shot six times, and it is easy to see a few misses. Upon followup the bull, which ran each prior followup now charges instantly; Mark shot twice and killed it in full charge. The client ran out of ammo. This was proper for any PH. Elephant next. The client shoots when the elephant turns away. It was an ass shot or a miss and some dust on a far grassy area pops up and there was no evidence the elephant being hit. As the bull turns to the left Mark kills it with one shot. Like the first hippo, I would be interested in asking “why” as there was not danger and the client could have kept on shooting. Next buff, client shot twice and the buff ran off and Mark took a shot. Buff found dead. Next buff dropped with one shot from the client. Hippo next and what I would call an unprovoked charge the hippo ran out of the water. Mark told the client to shoot and they both shot at the same time. Mark’s shot in the proper place, the client’s too high. While many feel this type of hunting is wrong, or state so to attack Mark’s actions, it is far more exciting than to kill it (assassinate it as Mark puts it) from the bank as the hippo peacefully rests in the water. If the client relied on just his own shot, he would have died. Two hunters shot a buff on a 2x1 and Mark did not shoot. Last was interesting buff charge. Client shoots 3 and Mark twice. Follow up and instant charge. Both shoot together, client’s shot too high and grazes the boss, Mark with brain shot. Proper PH job and the client shot his last shot. (Why did the client only have four cartridges with him?) Shots from clients 25, shots by Mark 12.
So, Mark did a lot of shooting in this film. Two kills (hippo [hunt 1] and elephant [hunt 4]) did not seem to be needed but Mark needs to be asked the details before speculation. Charges were not staged and happened quickly and any PH would do what Mark did. One may state why get close enough for a charge to happen and I would say it is up to the PH and client at the moment of the confrontation: thick bush, poor shooting by client, excitement.
Mark also blows sunshine up some of the client’s backsides by complimenting on the quality of their shooting when the film show some poor shots and complete misses. I guess all PHs do that is it would not be good business practice to say, “Your shots really sucked on this critter, bub.”
IN THE FACE OF DEATH 2004
This film in not a hunting film. Rather it is 90 minutes of Mark explaining his style and philosophy as well as his opinion on the solids vs, softs debate and the double vs. bolt debate. As to the questions of charges Mark admits if a PH wants to avoid a charge he will never have a charge in 30 years. He would prefer not to do so. And, while Mark states he has always relished the joy and excitement of a close up hunt and/or charge, there is no doubt his filming charges have increased as have his years of experience. And, he mentions clients who ask to be part of a charge. The particular client mentioned in this film shot and missed the charge and if Mark had made any errors the result would have been fatal. This video also tells of the proper placement for a brain shot on both hippo and buffalo and the myths of such shots such as buffalo charge with their head up so a brain shot must be in the nose or that a hippo charges with its mouth open. He also mentions shooting animals at a distance is assassination and not true hunting. There is no doubt truth to this. When I see hunting on television and killing shots of several hundred yards it is great shooting but not real hunting. Also, in all his films Mark never waits at a water hole behind a hide for the clients to shoot. All of his hunting is fair chase, no fences, and on foot. With all the guaranteed hunts out there, shooting from vehicles and at night with spotlights, and shooting endless impala and other plains game it is a nice break to watch someone hunt the way most of us (at least the older generation) learned hunting to be.
In this film I saw confidence, not condescending attitude, facts not fiction, and the narration by a man who has climbed to the top of his profession by both hard work but also by charting a route to follow that had not been done prior. The increase of charges show me a PH who is looking at the best way to market hunts as well as DVDs--and the market wants it and is willing to buy it. If this was not true the law of the marketplace would work in the opposite direction and what Mark sells would not be bought. I do wish, however, that Mark’s detractors would watch this film to get an explanation of why Mark does what he does. I know that would not change the minds to those who just want to hate but I would bet if Mark said what he says on the film to a detractor in person in their living room the statements would take a different tone. It is easy to criticize when one is an armchair quarterback, a PH who wishes he had Mark’s following, clientele, rifles, and income, or from the anonymous status of the internet where one can spew what he wants without having to show his face or let his name be known. I doubt Mark would continue his success if he gave up what he does now and went to shooting plains game and an occasional buffalo. But that’s just my opinion.
DEATH BY THE TON 2005
It has been five years since Mark put out a hunting film and a lot has changed over the years. Mark continues to use fine rifles and is very positive with his clients--even when they screw up on camera (one gent keeps pulling the front trigger on his borrowed double [hunt 4] and a second makes the final walk up with an empty chamber [hunt 6]). Mark does more shooting here than in the past by far and there was only one charge, a hippo (hunt 8), that was properly brained by the client. Mark shot when the hippo hit the ground but it was not needed. What I noticed in the first 7 animals is Mark picks out the animal that is to be shot, encourages the client to shoot, and only shoots as the animal is running away. Unless clients surface and state they asked Mark not to shoot and he did there is probably an agreement between client and PH. I know on many of my hunts my PH asked me if he should shoot if the animal turns and runs. I would bet Mark offers the same courtesy to his clients. Shots from clients 19, shots by Mark 14.
Other changes I notice were an absence of leopard and lion hunts which were very common in Mark’s past films, although only one elephant so far and that the quality of the client’s rifles is improving. Some really nice doubles and bolt rifles here.
So, Mark is shooting more, always after the client shoots (not one exception) and the walk ups find the animal dead most of the time, and only one charge.
DEATH RUSH 2006
This is the last film I have of Marks except for the “Best of” DVDs. This continues to the same format as the previous film. Marks shoots a lot in this one, too. In all cases the client shoots first and Mark puts in shots as the buff is running away. In the hippo charges (hunts 1-4-9) he shoots with the client. Buff charge when wounded and hippo are never wounded when they charge. In the opening hippo scene a huge bull is looking at Mark and the client behind some brush. It will be a long wait so Mark kicks some dirt in the air to stimulate the hippo. When he moves it will be a charge or to run away. He charges and the kill is very exciting. But in all the hippo charges in Mark’s films this is the only time Mark took action to provoke the charge. And, he kicks a bit of dirt--he didn’t wound it! The two buffalo charges (hunts 6 and 8) the initial shot was not on camera (6) and the second the client shoots first and Mark second. Shots from clients 28, shots by Mark 19.
Personal observations:
I like what Mark does even more and now the air is cleared of emotion and only the facts are there. To put it in one word--this is Excitement and hunting at its best. Yes, other PHs produce hunt films. They have good dangerous game or big game footage. One difference lies is that the big stuff in spaced between countless impala and other plains game. I don’t mean to offend as we all have our likes and dislikes about hunting, but I get tired of seeing kudu shot at 250 yards with a synthetic scoped magnum with a fluted barrel and a muzzle brake or warthog killed at a water hole. That is part of this entire game, I know, but Mark’s videos are set apart in that he only hunts dangerous game. He does it where there are no fences, on foot, with open sighted vintage double rifles (that many would regulate to the gun safe to avoid them getting dirty) and does not shoot from vehicles or at a water hole blind. To me, those are really good attributes for any hunter--PH or client.
As to why the negative comments toward Mark? One will never know or tabulate as emotion runs high by anyone who is fanatical on an issue. There is now no doubt that Mark’s exploits have been blown way out of proportion. It is like the dirty politics in US elections from the local to state to national level. Actions or words are taken out of context and magnified to make a point. Such as the “stupid habit” of Mark’s kicking dirt in hippo’s faces to provoke a charge. Stupid is an opinion and while that can be disagreed with it can’t be argued. Habit is something that happens over time, often, and this only happened once in the 2006 video. The hippo could have been shot as it peeked out from behind some brush. Mark chose to make it charge and it was damn exciting. It was not unethical--the animal was not wounded nor hurt in any way. And, it was going to die--either in an exciting manner or a rather dull one.
Many of the negative comments come from arm chair hunters with a mentality of joining the antis to keep up with the Jones’. Much comes from fellow PHs and I would guess a good bit of it is jealousy. Look at the facts. Why would a PH state garbage as Mark asks clients to wound, or a .22 is used to shoot the buff in the balls, to invoke a charge? And, it is always, “I heard this was done”--never once, “I saw it done.” The facts are that Mark is perhaps the best known name in the hunting business, hunts with the finest rifles, makes a damn good income, hunts in the finest safari lands in Africa, and has an endless supply of clients. What PH would not want to be in the same boat? However, with all the hype, if another PH begins to do what Mark does he will be chastised publicly and humiliated for copying Mark. So, Mark stands alone much like the solitary bulls he so ethically hunts. He stated his case once and never attacked his attackers. That showed the quality of character this man has.
After all the verbal diarrhea I hope the facts are now clear. I don’t expect any of the attackers or haters to change their opinion but at least we can say now the total number of charges filmed in 16 years is only 14. The total times Mark killed the animal rather than the client is 2, and the number of unprovoked hippo charges was 5 of 6, and the number of buff charges is a total of 8.
In closing, I would like to say a “thank you” to all who read and comment and I hope all will remain the gentlemen we were raised to be. As I write this Mark’s last film came in the mail and I watched it with interest. Mark stated that while he looks for charges only 5% of his buffalo actually do charge when wounded. The other 95% run away. For the 16 years covered by the 9 films I watched that would explain why only 8 charges in 16 years. That is one charge every two years!
As to Mark shooting at his client’s animals--I just also watched Boddington on Buffalo. This was the first film I have seen of Craig’s. At the end he states he would not have his ego get in the way and have the PH put in some shots to get the animal down more quickly. So, if Craig says this, why is Mark criticized for doing the same?
As for me, my knee is on the mend it was an interesting venture to do this. I think it would be fun to watch and compare Craig and Ivan’s films to see how they are alike and different. It would be fun to watch Saeed’s films to compare with Marks.
That’s all, gents. It’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Let the games begin................*
