richard prior in shooting times

Perhaps the word 'rumbled' was a little innapropriate. I'd of thought that his editor would have advised against?
 
he was told how to recognise the buck he was allowed to take by it's antlers, age and other distinguishing marks.
I would add that there was another buck in the area, but that one was not to be shot under any circumstances.

It's quite clear that the buck that was meant to be shot has been fully described to the client, and the undescribed 'other buck in the area' covers anything ese which might turn up. The client is made fully aware the specific animal he is allowed to take, and the professional is ensuring that nothing else that he might rather preserve, but is not there to make a decision on, is not shot by accident.

Can't see what the fuss is about. :confused:
 
i agree with the mole , i cant see what all the fuss is about either !!
i too have used this tactic on more than one occasion when having more than one client , and some times it works and some times don't , it all depends on the deer if the buck wishes to present himself he will but if he doesn't it does not mean he is not there ! half the problem with some clients and i mean SOME NOT ALL !! they do not actually have a clue about deer or deer stalking they are just trophy hunters , and if they don't get a buck , they feel ripped off , when actually there in the right place just the fact the buck did not present him self , will in my opinion that's ya luck and that's DEER STALKING FOR YOU !! we are hunting wild animals in the wild not in a park or a zoo !
i have spoken to Richard prior on more then one occasion , and have found him a true gentleman and he knows more about deer than all of us put together !!

cheers lee
 
I have taken two stalkers many many times out. If they have been before it is not unusual to use your judgement and allow a client to sit in a highseat on his own.

Many estates I have stalked on in the past only have single highseats, double seats are quite often not available.

A stalker should be able to trust folk to a point, I did it two weekends ago with someone off this site and in 20 minutes he had one of the two yearling bucks I described to him :D

If you have a large cull of bucks to take you cannot be everywhere at once, and the days are long enough, and if you have the clients to help pay for your overheads/leases its make hay while the sun shines. Wait till next month, I will be at it for nearly two weeks, up at 3am and back to the lodge at 10.15pm I have no doubt, thats me finished then until the rut.
 
When I read the article I thought it was a sensible method of ensuring that the right animal was taken off the ground. The context is important - managing two clients who the professional doesn't know and so has no idea of their discipline in taking the shot or holding fire. In those circumstances it seems to me to be a not unreasonable ruse to ensure that the high seat client takes a good long look at what he intends to shoot and doesn't simply blatter the first thing with antlers that wanders in to view.

It really is no more than a very simple behaviour management technique which has been around for decades. It has recently come to some prominence in a book 'Nudge' which describes how folk can be influenced to make 'better' or 'right' decisions.

I suspect the 'rumbled' comment is simply indicative of RP's understanding that no matter who we are, we can all sometimes be a bit too clever for our own good? :)
 
Looks like the forum is split right down the middle on this one - glass half full or half empty?!

I didn't think there was a problem with what RP wrote until he included the bit about the Belgiums, not describing the second buck and "being rumbled"!!
 
From an engineers point of view the glass is neither half full or half empty you simply have too much glass for the job.

Dave
 
When I read the story I thought that Mr. Prior was describing a means for putting 'the one he trusted least' in a position phsyically and psychologically where he would be neither able to take a shot nor wander about putting himself or others at risk. In my interpretation, the buck described in detail does not exist, and the bit about the undescribed 'other buck' coupled with the threat of being sent home for any misbehaviour is enough to prevent his firing a shot at anything.

I suppose this could be justified (sort of - I write from the point of view of someone who might have this strategy used on them) if the high-seat-dummy and the one being taken on the proper stalk swapped over at some point so that both paying rifles actually stood a chance of a shot, as Mr. Prior has described. Certainly one could see why an estate stalker acting under non-negotiable orders to take a pair of unknown guests out at once might reasonably have recourse to this ruse.

In general, though, might it not be ethically more justifiable as well as safer simply to say that you were not happy to take both out at once and leave it at that? Or perhaps to take one rifle on a stalk and give the other one the option of staying in the hotel or sitting armed only with sandwich, flask and binoculars in the high-seat and seeing what is about (not an unpleasant occupation).

I feel that if such a subterfuge were tried on me and I found out about it I'd be a bit fed up, Belgian or not!
 
delua

this is exactly what i would have posted in the first place if I possessed tact and diplomacy.
I bumped into a shooting friend over the weekend at the southern counties and we discussed this post. He used to take clients out for deer, grouse flighting etc and he said that he has had to (bookings taken by the estate rather than himself) take out clients that he felt he did not trust on either a safety or an accuracy basis that he could see the rationale behind restricting the chance of a shot.

pete
 
I agree completely with the tactic used by Mr Prior, it is the only way to ensure that the exact beast on the cull plan was culled and no other, so if it didnt show there was no chance of a "mistake" This icon, and world renowned number one authority on Roe has been managing Roe Deer for longer than most of us on here have lived, and note I used the word managing, not shooting.

The guest would also of had the opportunity to say he was not happy with the arrangement before agreeing to the event and ask for a refund.

I know the original post has been edited, too late imo, to suggest that anything unethical was being practised by Mr Prior is unforgivable, may I respectfully suggest that he probably had a hand in "training" many of the older members of your "club"

I trust you have sent a PM to Mr Prior apologising for your defamitory remarks.
 
Richard Prior said:
so don't try the same ploy with too many of your clients or you will be rumbled, as I was

At least Richard Prior was brave enough to admit what he had done and advise against it.

Just because he writes a good book it does not mean he is a god.

It just goes to show that even the highest regarded stalkers can be swayed by money, how hard would it have been for RP to have said he could only take guests out one at a time?
He elected to "dupe" them instead but was eventually 'rumbled' his words not mine.

The Mole said:
Can't see what the fuss is about. :confused:

That is a shame mole I expected better judgement, given your newly elected position :cry:
 
buck52 said:
I agree completely with the tactic used by Mr Prior, it is the only way to ensure that the exact beast on the cull plan was culled and no other, so if it didnt show there was no chance of a "mistake"

This is the interesting bit: I don't think that is what Mr. Prior was describing at all.

I might have misread it, but if it were that, what could he possibly have been 'rumbled' as having done?
 
buck52 said:
I agree completely with the tactic used by Mr Prior, it is the only way to ensure that the exact beast on the cull plan was culled and no other, so if it didnt show there was no chance of a "mistake" This icon, and world renowned number one authority on Roe has been managing Roe Deer for longer than most of us on here have lived, and note I used the word managing, not shooting.

The guest would also of had the opportunity to say he was not happy with the arrangement before agreeing to the event and ask for a refund.

I know the original post has been edited, too late imo, to suggest that anything unethical was being practised by Mr Prior is unforgivable, may I respectfully suggest that he probably had a hand in "training" many of the older members of your "club"

I trust you have sent a PM to Mr Prior apologising for your defamitory remarks.


This is taking hero worship a little far. He is not the messiah but a very well respected man who has done a great deal for stalking and deer in general.
I made the comments based on the content of the text rather than the identity of the writer, i have no axe to grind with richard prior.
Im not sure of the "club" thing you refer to is?

Pete
 
Rubeus said:
Richard Prior said:
so don't try the same ploy with too many of your clients or you will be rumbled, as I was

At least Richard Prior was brave enough to admit what he had done and advise against it.

I think you may find this was the advise given, just not to often :)
 
this is the part i don't understand

I would add that there was another buck in the area, but that one was not to be shot under any circumstances.
On the whole this worked well untill one of a party of Belgians, discussing my instructions with another, remarked on how impressed he was with my knowledge of a particular buck.
he told his companion that i had there was another buck about.
"Did he ever describe the buck you weren't allowed to shoot?"
His companion asked and the reply came,
"well no"
so don't try the same ploy with too many of your clients or you will be rumbled, as I was


so is there another buck in the area to which he was refering too or not,
from the way i read it there was not , as this was just a ploy and as already mentioned , and was rumbled over it :rolleyes:

So all you agreeing that there was nothing wrong in what went on , and saying this is an exceptable manner in which to treat your clients ,
so should this be come standard practice then ??
Ps
Before you answer , please can you take away the Belgians and Mr R Prior out of the equation as they are not important in this question as far as i am concerned it is the pratice method i am interested in
By the way welcome to the site Mr Prior 8)
regards
stone
 
pete evans said:
buck52 said:
I agree completely with the tactic used by Mr Prior, it is the only way to ensure that the exact beast on the cull plan was culled and no other, so if it didnt show there was no chance of a "mistake" This icon, and world renowned number one authority on Roe has been managing Roe Deer for longer than most of us on here have lived, and note I used the word managing, not shooting.

The guest would also of had the opportunity to say he was not happy with the arrangement before agreeing to the event and ask for a refund.

I know the original post has been edited, too late imo, to suggest that anything unethical was being practised by Mr Prior is unforgivable, may I respectfully suggest that he probably had a hand in "training" many of the older members of your "club"

I trust you have sent a PM to Mr Prior apologising for your defamitory remarks.


This is taking hero worship a little far. He is not the messiah but a very well respected man who has done a great deal for stalking and deer in general.
I made the comments based on the content of the text rather than the identity of the writer, i have no axe to grind with richard prior.
Im not sure of the "club" thing you refer to is?

Pete

You are right he is not the Messiah; he is a verry naughty boy!!

Dave
 
Back
Top