quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
So, we've finally cleared it up then........ none of us know what the bastard piece of legislation actually means!

I was audited by WA State Labor & Industries. Big fine for reporting workers hours in "wrong category" Case went to trail. My witness said, "before I retired from L&I my last job was to write the labor categories. Howard adhered to both letter and spirit of the way they were intended to be used".

L&I witness said, "it's our job to interpret the law, it means what we say it means, you are guilty." L&I second witness said, "we can't decide among ourselves how the codes should be interpreted and used"! Even the judge rolled his eyes at that one.

Case dismissed but I was still stuck with an 8 grand attorney bill.

All too often in the country the laws are interpreted, legally, by the agencies charged with regulating and enforcing them.

Bottom line is agencies interpret and enforce to benefit themselves not to uphold the purpose or reason behind the original intent of the law.

a lot to be said for that last sentence Howard....too true too much.

troy

The accused as they appeared in court.

They have guilty written all over them.
Does anyone know when they next appear?

Just got the following from SCI, at least they are acknowledging the story but thats about it.

quote:

Arrested Poaching Gang

“Dawie Groenewald, owner of Out of Africa Adventure Safaris company, and his wife, Sariette, were arrested on Monday in South Africa, for allegedly being the masterminds behind an illegal rhino poaching gang. Nine other people, including veterinarians and hunters, were also arrested for poaching. The gang appeared before a magistrate in South Africa on Wednesday, which is ironically also the day declared International Rhino Day by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The case was postponed until April 11, 2011, after Groenewald reportedly posted bail of about one million rand, with the others paying less.” (Source: AllAfrica.com) http://bit.ly/cVOsYN.



· The arrest of Dawie Groenewald in the USA in January 2010 and the subsequent conviction in a U.S. court could have led to an internal SCI Ethics Investigation and subsequent expulsion from SCI. Both brothers resigned from SCI before SCI could investigate their conduct. Additionally, Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris has officially been denied entrance at all future Safari Club International Conventions in the USA.

quote:

Both brothers resigned from SCI before SCI could investigate their conduct

This makes one sick!

Well, SCI turned a blind eye long enough

quote:

Both brothers resigned from SCI before SCI could investigate their conduct. Additionally, Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris has officially been denied entrance at all future Safari Club International Conventions in the USA.

It sounds to me like they were allowed to resign, because if they were expelled, they might have gotten pissed off and started talking too much.

INVESTIGATE??? That's a real joke. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of trophies never delivered, who knows how many people extorted and ripped off money, scores of ethics committee complaints, playing patty cake with Zimbabwe war vets, and a felony conviction for leopard smuggling.

Oh yeah, I can see how Safari Club might not have had the time to investigate. They were all throwing up in the shower.

BTW, I suppose it is OK for them to exhibit at SCI shows outside the US.

Cheers,

~ Alan

SCI is becoming more of a joke by each day passing!

Me and three of my best friends just made our travel and Convention plans yesterday for SCI in January!! Sorry to see some of you won't be there this year due to your misguided, self centered, self serving ideas about this organization. Not really, I won't miss you at all or lose any sleep over the fact you are not there. We will go have our normal great time, see and visit with our many friends in the Safari industry, book some hunts, toast the hunts of years past without giving you a second thought. Your loss, not mine, because of your shortsighted vision of what is really best for this thing we call hunting. Since you won't be there, just what WILL YOU be doing to protect and make sure we ALL have a place in the future to hunt as we see fit? Just as I thought, NOTHING.


Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Me and three of my best friends just made our travel and Convention plans yesterday for SCI in January!! Sorry to see some of you won't be there this year due to your misguided, self centered, self serving ideas about this organization. Not really, I won't miss you at all or lose any sleep over the fact you are not there. We will go have our normal great time, see and visit with our many friends in the Safari industry, book some hunts, toast the hunts of years past without giving you a second thought. Your loss, not mine, because of your shortsighted vision of what is really best for this thing we call hunting. Since you won't be there, just what WILL YOU be doing to protect and make sure we ALL have a place in the future to hunt as we see fit? Just as I thought, NOTHING.
Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Mate, if you don't mind me saying so and before you get too far onto your high horse, I hope you don't mind me pointing out that SCI's ethics committee's consisent refusal to address the decades of complaints about the company from their own members, their consistent acceptance of numerous donated hunts per year and their apparent refusal to even acknowledge there is even a problem now with the rhino poaching issue has almost certainly done a thousand times more damage to the "future to hunt as we see fit" (hope you don't my pointing out that wasn't the best choice of phrase under the circumstances ) than the guys who either resign or choose not to not to attend the convention in protest.

Do these guys own the Out of Africa stores in OR Tambo?

Steve - No "high horse" riding here. Personally I don't care what the ethics committee does or doesn't do. As a regular member there is nothing much I can do about how they act and make decisions with the exception of letting them know my feelings. This also goes for the "Inner Circle" as a lot of you like to put it.

OoA seems to be getting their just rewards for their wrongdoings and if anyone is "actually" involved with them among the SCI membership, double goes for them as well. If you think not attending the Convention or withholding your $55.00 dollar membership will make all wrongs right then go for it. It simply makes more sense to be a part of the solution by standing pat, than taking the whole organization to task for what a small percentage of the group may or may not be involved with.

People here make this sound like its totally SCI's fault for not "policing" OoA. Heh folks, that's not their job. No body here can even agree on what is ethical and what is not, on lots of hunting issues, so why would you expect one organization to please everyones ethical ideas? Also a lot of SCI detractors out there seem to be jumping on this bandwagon over this. It's simply not going to be that big of a deal when all is said and done, much to the dismay for some of you.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Me and three of my best friends just made our travel and Convention plans yesterday for SCI in January!! Sorry to see some of you won't be there this year due to your misguided, self centered, self serving ideas about this organization. Not really, I won't miss you at all or lose any sleep over the fact you are not there. We will go have our normal great time, see and visit with our many friends in the Safari industry, book some hunts, toast the hunts of years past without giving you a second thought. Your loss, not mine, because of your shortsighted vision of what is really best for this thing we call hunting. Since you won't be there, just what WILL YOU be doing to protect and make sure we ALL have a place in the future to hunt as we see fit? Just as I thought, NOTHING.
Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Mate, if you don't mind me saying so and before you get too far onto your high horse, I hope you don't mind me pointing out that SCI's ethics committee's consisent refusal to address the decades of complaints about the company from their own members, their consistent acceptance of numerous donated hunts per year and their apparent refusal to even acknowledge there is even a problem now with the rhino poaching issue has almost certainly done a thousand times more damage to the "future to hunt as we see fit" (hope you don't my pointing out that wasn't the best choice of phrase under the circumstances ) than the guys who either resign or choose not to not to attend the convention in protest.

Wow, aren't AR members great? We have Doctors, Lawyers and Chiefs and now we have someone who can predict a persons guilt by just looking at them in a picture. I think most of the "party" is most likely so, based on facts out there, but will let the Courts make that decision rather than my own personal observations.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by homgoreb:
They have guilty written all over them.
Does anyone know when they next appear?

Larry

I am not an SCI member & have never been to Africa. But I have spent a lot of time in the bush & climbed high mountains and spent night under the stars. I am passionate about my hunting and about wildlife - I have been so from the time I can remember as a toddler.

I would like to disagree with you on some critical points.

1. SCI ethics committee has repeatedly ignored complaints against OOA. Would you not vote out your government if this happened in your local city, state or congress elections?
2. Where is the professional and corporate accountability? Does Kevin Anderson's position not reek of conflict of interest and nepotism?
3. This is not a "jump on the band wagon beat up SCI". This should be a global outrage at the worlds largest and most influential hunting lobby having senior officials who are so closely linked with the worst animal poaching scandal in history. Again - if your local politician was even vaguely associated, you would vote him out. So why not SCI top brass?
4. I am dissapointed that you do not care about the ethics committee. We citizens need to hold our leaders accountable - whether in politics or in lobby groups. Who else is going to hold them accountable?

Naki - In response to your #1 - We will try and vote out our current government starting with the mid term elections this Fall here in the US. As far as "voting out" the Ethics committee, regular members don't have that privilege and it's an appointed membership thing I believe. So it's not so much not caring, maybe a bad choice of words by me, but since I have no way to change it, it's not a real concern. I have always been told, don't worry to much about the things you CAN'T change but worry about the ones you can. Thus I am still a member and support SCI in general.

I also cannot change who wants to hang out with OoA, but do agree it doesn't bid well. Never have said I think a close association with OoA by SCI "inner circles", regular members or whoever is a good thing. Do I think SCI could be better, sure I do, as with most all organizations. Again I have my own ethics, don't hang with OoA, just make the best of MY situation. I am not under the illusion that everything can be perfect, all persons will be upstanding and that I can save the World from the bad guys out there. Just doesn't work that way in real life.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Larry

I am not an SCI member & have never been to Africa. But I have spent a lot of time in the bush & climbed high mountains and spent night under the stars. I am passionate about my hunting and about wildlife - I have been so from the time I can remember as a toddler.

I would like to disagree with you on some critical points.

1. SCI ethics committee has repeatedly ignored complaints against OOA. Would you not vote out your government if this happened in your local city, state or congress elections?
2. Where is the professional and corporate accountability? Does Kevin Anderson's position not reek of conflict of interest and nepotism?
3. This is not a "jump on the band wagon beat up SCI". This should be a global outrage at the worlds largest and most influential hunting lobby having senior officials who are so closely linked with the worst animal poaching scandal in history. Again - if your local politician was even vaguely associated, you would vote him out. So why not SCI top brass?
4. I am dissapointed that you do not care about the ethics committee. We citizens need to hold our leaders accountable - whether in politics or in lobby groups. Who else is going to hold them accountable?

Larry,

If we as members cannot change what SCI does in our name, then we have already lost the plot.

Thanks for proving my point.

SCI has become nothing but a tinpot dictatorhsip!

And should be treated as such.

Just look at some of the past behaviours of their presidents. Who are supposed to set an example for us.

Illegal hunting, just to satisfy their own personal craving for some silly glory of saying "mine is bigger than yours".

Look at some of the recpients of their Hunter Of The Year Awards.

Who have turned up just as crooked as those who have voted them winners.

Look at all the questions we have asked what SCI actually DOES for AFRICAN hunting.

All we got was some lame excuse that we should not ask these questions.

Now the top SCI management has been accused of being involved in rhino poaching!

How low can it get before we, as members, should start asking questions?

Going as fas as saying you do not care what the SCI ethics committee does is just you throwing in the towel.

Many of us do care what is being done in our name.

And we are not afraid of airing our opinions.

Saeed - Come on man, there hasn't been a single SCI top management person accused of being involved in rhino poaching. Where do you come up with this stuff? Please enlighten us of your source, names of the accused who are SCI top management rhino poachers and who is accusing them. I am sure the Prosecutors in RSA would love to hear from you and sign you up as a wittness. Just more of the same old twisted retoric by folks, who for unkown reasons, dislike what SCI is doing, how they do it, yet offer up nothing in a positive nature for improving things. Talk, opinions and accusations on the internet are just that, BS. As they say bull shit walks. Until a person is charged, gone through the legal process of a trial, found guilty and sentenced all accusations above and beyond from bystanders are just that, BS.


Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Larry,

If we as members cannot change what SCI does in our name, then we have already lost the plot.

Thanks for proving my point.

SCI has become nothing but a tinpot dictatorhsip!

And should be treated as such.

Just look at some of the past behaviours of their presidents. Who are supposed to set an example for us.

Illegal hunting, just to satisfy their own personal craving for some silly glory of saying "mine is bigger than yours".

Look at some of the recpients of their Hunter Of The Year Awards.

Who have turned up just as crooked as those who have voted them winners.

Look at all the questions we have asked what SCI actually DOES for AFRICAN hunting.

All we got was some lame excuse that we should not ask these questions.

Now the top SCI management has been accused of being involved in rhino poaching!

How low can it get before we, as members, should start asking questions?

Going as fas as saying you do not care what the SCI ethics committee does is just you throwing in the towel.

Many of us do care what is being done in our name.

And we are not afraid of airing our opinions.

Larry,

How long has SCI management been protecting Out of Africa?

Who has been protecting them?

Please answer these questions.

I for one wouldn't for a moment suggest SCI members have been knowingly involved in the rhino poaching operation itself but I think it's not impossible that some individuals, possibly/probably some of the higher echelons might have been unknowingly and unwittingly involved in the breaking of game laws here in such ways as shooting rhino for a reduced cost and not keeping the trophies that then might have found their way into the black market. That could very easily open some to possible prosecution both here in Africa and also in the US under the Lacey Act.

I also reckon the level of protection given to OoA over the years is extremely suspect to say the very least..... in fact, I think it's as dodgy as a nine bob note.

As I've said before, I hope this doesn't turn into a witch hunt of SCI members but I do think they need to address the issue and if nothing else I reckon that a few resignations might be in order for the good of the organisation and a clear statement from them condemning the poaching and all those involved with it.

Clearly this is a very emotive issue and has several seperate issue that need clarity.

1/ Is there a clear and established tie between SCI hierarchy , office bearers and OoAs. given the Anderson/Ooas relationship, clearly the answer is yes.However clarity on the Ethics Committee Role and Ooas representation is needed. Is a clear and current conflict of interest in place, or is this just assumed??
2/ Once OoAS was banned from Zimbabwe for transgressing clearly defined Laws, did SCI continue to conduct business with them. If so, they were clearly stating that the Zim authorities were not justified in banning them in the first place. If so, did SCI issue any statement codemning or supporting the action.
3/ Has SCI ever asked ANY independent commission to conduct investigations into entities such as OoAS or even into the behaviour of their own managementin connection with accusations and possible wrong doing. If the conduct of the Ethics committee is/was ever called into question, what is the resolution process , and is there even one laid down.?? Clearly there have been accusations levelled against various persons and committees and given this, how are these investigated or resolved. Are they handled in house, by their own Committees or is there a laid down resolution proceedure.

4/ Does SCI have a Code Of conduct applicable to employees?? If so, is this code available for any member to access and if necessary lay down complaints for violations thereof??Once again who handles such complaint?? In house committees or independent authority.The point behind the above is simply that if there is a laid down process, then record of that process would have to be kept and SCI can prove action , public or not, and satisfy many of its critics

Personally I think that it would be foolish to look at SCI as an entity and condemn the entire structure from its members up to its President. Clearly there are a number of issues that people(members or not) feel demand attention.

However there is too much heresay and supposition to make a sound and educated decision from.
Given that SCI does in fact make use of public funds(membership fees) , it could be beneficial to all concerned, but especially to SCI if it appointed an independent body to cover this issue and publically release its findings.
Currently the whole issue is clouded and completely unclear.
Even the staunchest SCI supporter here has to admit that there are certain questions which need to be asked and answered.
Even its biggest detractors will admit that there are way to many unconfirmed reports and grey areas to be comfortable with.
Only once this has happened, can each one of us make an educated and sound decision on where we stand with respect to an organisation that given the aforementioned uncertainly , could actually be damaging hunting and hunting prospects for the future, but if cleared by an independent authority, could ensure the future of hunting and hunting rights.

The bottom line is get rid of the bull and lets get the truth established

I personally don't have any FACTS about and if SCI management has been protecting OoA at all, only hearsay, mostly from here on AR. Protecting them from what? That should answer you question?

Who are the accused rhino poaching SCI management people you mentioned? Please answer that if you will. Thanks.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Larry,

How long has SCI management been protecting Out of Africa?

Who has been protecting them?

Please answer these questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
I personally don't have any FACTS about and if SCI management has been protecting OoA at all, only hearsay, mostly from here on AR. Protecting them from what? That should answer you question?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Mate, you can hardly deny that the SCI ethics committee haven't been unfairly defending them for decades rather than years.

Hell, it must be nearly 10 years ago that the ethics committee threw out a complaint where something like 16 or 18 hunters found themselves sharing a camp all at the same time and each 2 hunters had bought a 2x1 hunt with camp exclusivity at the same auction!

Steve - I can't beleve this. I actually agree with everything in your post except the "protection" part. What did SCI protect OoA from? All this talk about "protection" but no facts or answers to what and how SCI "protected" OoA. Didn't know or realize SCI was in the "protection racket"?

I wouldn't say that continuing to give OoA booth space at the Convention and accepting their donations up until they were "proven guilty in court" could be called protection? Hearsay from AR and others most likely wouldn't influence anyone to do that kind of thing. If all issues were solved by what is said here on AR, all of us would be in a fix!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
I for one wouldn't for a moment suggest SCI members have been knowingly involved in the rhino poaching operation itself but I think it's not impossible that some individuals, possibly/probably some of the higher echelons might have been unknowingly and unwittingly involved in the breaking of game laws here in such ways as shooting rhino for a reduced cost and not keeping the trophies that then might have found their way into the black market. That could very easily open some to possible prosecution both here in Africa and also in the US under the Lacey Act.

I also reckon the level of protection given to OoA over the years is extremely suspect to say the very least..... in fact, I think it's as dodgy as a nine bob note.

As I've said before, I hope this doesn't turn into a witch hunt of SCI members but I do think they need to address the issue and if nothing else I reckon that a few resignations might be in order for the good of the organisation and a clear statement from them condemning the poaching and all those involved with it.

Larry,

Yeah I guess it is unusual that we agree huh! - but that's what friendly debate should be about.

When I said that SCI had defended OoA, I meant that the SCI ethics committee had consistently and unfairly defended OoA.... over a very long period of time .

We all know that there have been many, many complaints made to the ethics committee from both sides of the industry and at least the lion's share (probably all) of those complaints have been perfectly valid and yet it would appear that not a single one of those complaints (incidentally, from SCI members) has been uphelp.

If that isn't unfairly defending them then I don't know what is.

To my eyes at least, that stinks higher than an Apollo mission.

I'll add that despite all these years of complaints to the ethics committee, SCI itself continued to allow the company booth space and that (in my eyes at least) is also very dodgy indeed...... but that of course is an entirely separate matter...... and one that (IMO) if SCI hope to retain any vestige of respectability, they'll investigate and resolve sooner rather than later.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Can any of you guys in RSA tell me if the kind of postponment like these pupos were given is normal? I guess that means without cause.

Appauling actions from fellow South Africans... actually scum of the earth... not to insult scum.

To answer your question, the complexity and number of accused in this case would certainly warrant several postponments.

This is such a high international profile case that justice will prevail. The R1million bail is the highest I've heard of.

quote:

Originally posted by accit:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Can any of you guys in RSA tell me if the kind of postponment like these pupos were given is normal? I guess that means without cause.

Appauling actions from fellow South Africans... actually scum of the earth... not to insult scum.

To answer your question, the complexity and number of accused in this case would certainly warrant several postponments.

This is such a high international profile case that justice will prevail. The R1million bail is the highest I've heard of.

If my mathematics are correct would that figure not equate to approx. $135,000?
Peanuts actually when you consider the kind of money they were making !

Compare that to:

"Lindsay Lohan Out of Jail after Posting $300G Bail - Drug related probation violation charges"

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Wow, aren't AR members great? We have Doctors, Lawyers and Chiefs and now we have someone who can predict a persons guilt by just looking at them in a picture. I think most of the "party" is most likely so, based on facts out there, but will let the Courts make that decision rather than my own personal observations.

quote:

Originally posted by homgoreb:
They have guilty written all over them.
Does anyone know when they next appear?

Wow, Larry sorry if some of us don't meet up to your high standards, us mere mortals

So I'm just curious, so if I'm a hunter, and I book a hunt that doesn't turn out exactly like I thought it should, can I report them to the SCI ethic committee...and expect them to refuse their donations and entry into the show?

If this is the logic...outfitters beware!

Larry

When OOA was banned from Zim by the Parks dept (around 2004?) for unethical and illegal practices, should SCI not have done a full investigation into the matter and acted on it? Who in SCI should have done this but did not? I would really like to know your answer to these important questions.

The fact that they did not do so means that the top management of SCI was protecting OOA. The fact that the defense attorney of OOA is the chairman of the ethics committee means that there is a serious conflict of interest and a high likelihood of nepotism. Anderson should have stepped out of the ethics committee if the hearings & investigations were to have been conducted in a fair manner.

If I was a Federal agent, I would be investigating every single business connection of some SCI officials - all bank, credit card, phone & travel records for the last 30 years!

I have nailed a few crooks with a very high strike rate by using such logic.

I tried to find out how the structure of SCI operates but was not able to do so.

Is SCI an organization run by & for its members Or is it a private club that accepts public membership?

Why are top officials appointed and not elected?

Larry I agree with you, BS walks. What I think you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that MONEY talks.

Surely you don't think for a minute that all the money, free hunts etc, that OOA had contributed hasn't bought them "most favored nation" status?

Maybe the root of the problem is the way in which SCI raises money?

PS I know nothing about the specifics of this case. Don't pretend that I do. I do know human nature and something about business and marketing. All that money and free hunts and donations from OOA where not really gifts. That money was spent to purchase something. It wasn't a surplus of profit freely given from the goodness of their hearts.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
Larry I agree with you, BS walks. What I think you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that MONEY talks.

Surely you don't think for a minute that all the money, free hunts etc, that OOA had contributed hasn't bought them "most favored nation" status?

Maybe the root of the problem is the way in which SCI raises money?

PS I know nothing about the specifics of this case. Don't pretend that I do. I do know human nature and something about business and marketing. All that money and free hunts and donations from OOA where not really donations. That money was spent to purchase something. It wasn't a surplus of profit freely given from the goodness of their hearts.

You mean like the politicians "donations" work?

SCI, "A Tin Pot Dictatorship" a description that really fits.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


You mean like the politicians "donations" work?


SCI, "A Tin Pot Dictatorship" a description that really fits.

Truth? That is exactly what I was thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I tried to find out how the structure of SCI operates but was not able to do so.

Is SCI an organization run by & for its members Or is it a private club that accepts public membership?

Why are top officials appointed and not elected?

SCI is a CORPORATION. Its members have absolutely no say whatsover. New office beareres can only come on board at the initiative of existing directors, with ordinary members having absolutely no say in that either.

In the end, the "upper echelon" is a power unto itself, and the members merely pawns. It is not by any definition an ASSOCIATION of like minded members. You can read their by-laws in this regard here: http://www.scifirstforhunters....gust%2027%202010.pdf

Hope that helps.

quote:

Originally posted by Oryxhunter1983:
So I'm just curious, so if I'm a hunter, and I book a hunt that doesn't turn out exactly like I thought it should, can I report them to the SCI ethic committee...and expect them to refuse their donations and entry into the show?

If this is the logic...outfitters beware!

You SHOULD be able to expect the committee to thoroughly investigate your accusations, reach a fair conclusion and announce a just decision.

For example, if you and a hunting partner were promised camp and area exclusivity but then found yourself sharing a camp and area with 9 other pairs of hunters (ie 20 hunters in all) then one would expect the ethics committee to find fault with the company concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Oryxhunter1983:
So I'm just curious, so if I'm a hunter, and I book a hunt that doesn't turn out exactly like I thought it should, can I report them to the SCI ethic committee...and expect them to refuse their donations and entry into the show?

If this is the logic...outfitters beware!

You SHOULD be able to expect the committee to thoroughly investigate your accusations, reach a fair conclusion and announce a just decision.

For example, if you and a hunting partner were promised camp and area exclusivity but then found yourself sharing a camp and area with 9 other pairs of hunters (ie 20 hunters in all) then one would expect the ethics committee to find fault with the company concerned.

Unless the company in question employs the man in charge of that committee!

The shinanigans the higher echlons of SCI have been up have been going on for years.

And sadly, it all points to that silliest of excuses! MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS syndrome!

Men in charge of SCI have been breaking laws for years to get one up on the next guy.

We have already seen a number of them exposed.

How many are there we do not know about?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
If I was a Federal agent, I would be investigating every single business connection of some SCI officials - all bank, credit card, phone & travel records for the last 30 years!.

My guess is that that's exactly what they are doing just now.

Gentlemen and Ladies

With regards too the Bail for Groenewald,

1 Million rand is not the highest bail ever, and in my opinion should have been way more

WHY, cause 10 years ago , I had the highest bail awarded in the Kempton Park Court, too a Chinaman that smuggled ABALONE,

The amount 4 Million Rand , yes 4, for a measly abalone poacher,

So Groenewald with the amounts that are involved should have been slapped way harder, the investigator and prosecutors were not good enough in my eyes at all

On the lunch-time SABC news today, 21 rhino poaching wankers have been arrested in the last three weeks??

Hi All

I was in attendance today at the minister of environments special summit on rhino poaching. It continues tomorrow and I will be able to give better feedback by the weekend.

I have a very good initial feeling about what is being done, and I honestly think the will, talent, ability and method to really beat these guys exists. More on that later but here is a link to a news report on todays opening of the summit:

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfr...no-poaching-20101005

Cheers
Stephen