George,

With my question to you on retailers, I was mainly aiming that at the area of commissions having to be disclosed for investment and insurance products and/or interests in a particular financial institution.

You say a gun writer offers advice. So does a retailer. If I go to a computer shop or a car dealer, the salesman might recommend a certain brand of computer or car. Their "profit" will depend on how much they paid the wholesaler or manufacturer.

In the case of retailing such laws do not get off the ground because there would be economic problems if the buyer knew the "target" price he could try and beat the seller down to.

The bottom line is that disclosure of interests or financial reward, whether it be for gun writers or those in the financial services industries is based on some "advisers" being potential baddies, so the public should be protected.

Gun laws and proposed gun laws are based on exactly the same principle and also have the same people behind them.

Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike375 (edited 01-14-2002).]

Mike,
If you ask a financial adviser whether he gets a larger commission from the investment he is pushing compared to another investment, he must divulge that fact. If you don't ask, they don't have to volunteer that info.

How do you ask a gun writer if he received an accommodation? You can't, that's why I think they ought to print a disclaimer when they tout a hunt or product that they didn't pay the same price you or I would.

Again, I don't propose a law requiring this, just the exercise of professional ethics by the gun and hunting publications.

For example: you read a hunting article about say, PP Outfitters, where the writer extols its virtues and what a grand hunt he had without revealing he was "comped". You booked a hunt based on that information, only to have a bad hunt, or had the outfitter abscond with your deposit. How would you feel when you found out about the "comp"? Betrayed, or enlightened?

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

George,

A bit different in Australia. If the product is investment based, as opposed to risk insurance only, then the written material issued has to show all commissions be they upfront or ongoing.

I think most gun writers would not report up a gun or hunt if they thought it was bad.

But I am a great believer in the "buyer" being aware rather than relying on some "system" to protect him.

Again I would come back to what I said earlier. If the gun writer has to disclose rewards etc. then those readers who are not wary will assume he must be honest in his report. However we still have the problem that he did not test 100 rifles or 100 hunts.

Perhaps I can give an example of a thread on Big Bores to which I think you posted.

The question was about the quality of barrels fitted to Model 70 375 blued/walnut models.

As I remember you "reported" that yours was accurate and OK and I believe that was an honest report. Now let us also say that the thread was Africa HA, where being moderator would mean your "report" would have greater credibility.

However, I say that M70 375s blued/walnut models can have barrel problems due to the barrel recoil lug. My opinion is based on probably having owned more than 30 of them over many years plus being directly involved with perhaps another 30 or 40 of them and also a large number of 458 M70s.

Now for the sake of this exercise I am assuming that the number you have owned is limited to 2 or 3. I am also assuming your experience with them being rebarreled is limited.

So, if your setup is such that your "report" is seen to be all honest and above board, the unwary can be lead astray. Of course another variable is what the person rates as "good" or "bad" or "just OK"

It is my belief that the majority of gun writers and salesman in other areas put forward a story that is basically honest. Moves to try and pickup the few "baddies" always result in a negative outcome for everybody.

The main reason why the gun writers report will not always match up is simply because he does not test the numbers and also may have a different view as to what is good, bad or just OK as one of his readers.

This also applies to you and me "reporting" n M70 375 barrels as we may have and probably do have, a different view or measurement in terms of accuracy.

Mike

Mike,
I certainly hope that my position at HA doesn't give me any extra credibility ; it's a strictly voluntary position which I assumed for fun (i.e., I'm not compensated).

I haven't had my .375 out of its stock since shortly after I bought in 1997, but I don't remember it having a secondary recoil lug.
My .470 Capstick, which is a re-barreled .375, does have a secondary recoil lug, and its accuracy is excellent.

I don't have a stake in someone buying or not buying a product I have an opinion on. No one pays me to give my opinion (God, if I got $1 for each of my opinions, I'd have have income in the seven figure range ), no one provides free items to me for evaluation, and I am not representing my self as an "expert" or authority.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

George,

I am not saying you represent yourself as an expert. What I am trying to say is that if the gun writer due to disclosure is perceived to honest it does not mean his appraisal will be any good but shooters may be more inclined to believe his report.

By the way, I only need 10c an opinion for my 7 figure income

Also, the second recoil lug becomes a problem depending on how it is put on.

Probably the best way is what Weatherby does by putting it only about an inch from the receiver rather than several inches up the barrel.

Mike

George S. and Mike 375, This is a very interesting thread to me. Mike for the sake of debate has posed a question to you in a scenario that could conceivably exist.

George, do you think it is possible for all morons and idiots to be protected from themselves in every conceivable manner. This seems to now be the case in America as well as other parts of the world. This protection always comes at a price to the other 90+ percent who then are made to suffer because of this protection.

George, In my opinion,morons and idiots for freedom to work, are bestowed by the creator the same freedom to make mistakes and learn from them, as you and I have, or until they eliminate themselves from society or the gene pool altogether. Can you think of a better way to reach this end without restricting freedom for others? Has this protection led to the erosion of freedom in our society, as some have abdicated personal responsibility to an entity that then corrects bad decisions they have made?-------Chainsaw

Chainsaw,
Perhaps I am not writing it clearly enough.
Let me try this: I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY LAWS!!! I AM NOT TRYING TO PROTECT MORONS AND IDIOTS FROM THEMSELVES!!!

I am merely stating that gun writers (and anyone who reviews an item) should disclose whether or not they received the item/hunt for free or at a discount not available to the readers of the review.

What disturbs you so much about the idea that a reader (who paid money for a magazine) should know whether he is getting an honest opinion, or one that is colored by self-
interest on the part of the writer?

As for people learning by making mistakes, I am all for it, but if you made that mistake based on a "bought and paid for" recommendation by a gun writer, you'd feel cheated, wouldn't you?

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

[This message has been edited by GeorgeS (edited 01-14-2002).]

George,

I will try and explain how the anti system gets a run at things and your last post provides fertile ground for such an explanation.

From your post:

I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY LAWS!!! I AM NOT TRYING TO PROTECT MORONS AND IDIOTS FROM THEMSELVES!!!

You should examine your previous postings. I think you used the word "savvy" or similar and you had it but others lacked itand I guess therefore needed protection.

George, I know you personally are not proposing laws but you are saying readers should would be given a better deal if the gun writer had to disclose his interests.

You seem to really believe this will make gun reviews and hunt reviews more accurate.

You have already said that you are not taken in but others are.

To an anti, you are like a seed in the ground.

What you are suggesting is that Boddington and others should have to reveal their personal financial arrangements with manufactures for the good of the mass of readers.

George, there is an another alternative. That is, the people don't have to buy the magazines.

From your post:

As for people learning by making mistakes, I am all for it, but if you made that mistake based on a "bought and paid for" recommendation by a gun writer, you'd feel cheated, wouldn't you?

What if the gun writer has disclosed his interests but either lacks the knowlegde or simply does not have 100 guns or 100 hunts to test.

How do you plan to fix that problem?

Or are you saying that as long as the writer discloses financial rewards from a manufacture it does not matter that the article is wrong.

As I said above, to an anti, you a seed in the ground.

Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike375 (edited 01-14-2002).]

Mike,
Is it that you don't understand what I am saying, or are just unwilling to listen?

If a writer receives compensation from a manufacturer or hunt provider and then writes a glowing review, a conflict of interest has occurred.

The conflict is where the writer represents himself as an expert, but his opinion MAY have been colored by the compensation received.

There's a simple solution to this ethics problem. A simple disclaimer whereby the magazine or writer discloses the fact that the product or hunt was provided free or at a discount would be informative and could be used by the reader to determine whether that opinion was valid or a shill job.

According to you, ANY attempt to promote ethical behavior provides ammunition to the antis. I just don't see that as being the case, and I am VERY active in that fight.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

How does Boddington stack up against these guys? The only guy on the list I ever heard of is Jack O'Conner.

Weatherby Hunting and Conservation Award (formerly known as the Weatherby Big Game Trophy Award).

Arnold E. Alward of Canada is the 1996 recipient of the The Weatherby Hunting and Conservation Award. Arnold Alward is a very successful hunter, taking after his grandfather, a great local hunter and avid outdoorsman. He has traveled to all seven continents of the world and he hunted on six of them where he has taken 368 animals of 282 different species. Over two thirds of his animals have made the SCI Record Book with 65 of those being in the top ten. He has achieved and been awarded 11 Grand Slams including the African Big Five, 17 Inner Circle at the Diamond Level, the Fourth Pinnacle, the Crowning Achievement, and the World Hunting Award. He has taken 21 species of wild goats, 49 different categories of antlered game, and 22 different categories of pigmy antelope.

In 1983 Arnold and Janice took their first trip to Africa. He was so astounded with the multitude of game he saw that he decided to try to collect different species and display them for others to see. It was during one of his hunts that Arnold met an SCI member who told him about the club. He joined as an international life member and began using the SAFARI Magazine, the SCI Record Book and World Hunting Awards to plan his hunts.

He began seriously hunting in 1984, at age 46. He became involved with several hunting conservation and fishing organizations and he became interested in reforestation. He has planted over one million trees in Havelock. In the last few years he has helped to re-establish pheasants and wild turkey, and has funded studies on Urial and other wildlife projects. He promotes hunting, sportsmanship, conservation and the important benefits of game management through the sport of hunting by founding the "North American Outdoorsman". The company sponsors wildlife videos for cable and other media.

In 1989 Arnold collected an African elephant from Ethiopia with certified ivory weights of 115 lb. and 110 lb. In 1994 he traveled to the Salt Range in Pakistan to successfully collect a Punjab urial, the first hunter to receive permission for several years. In 1995 Arnold was invited to a new area in Greenland to hunt muskox and collect information for the possibility of opening this area to additional hunting.

Arnold Alward is considered by those that know him to be a very generous and giving man. For several years now he has donated the airfare for the recipient of each year's Special Hunter award to travel to Africa for the hunt of a lifetime. He contributes regularly to many conservation and wildlife management programs and organizations including Safari Club International and Ducks Unlimited. He has received a Certificate of Merit Award from the Canadian Government. He has founded a private organization called the Alward Charitable foundation to further pursue conservation and wildlife management issues for years to come.

http://www.alwards.com/

Enrique Zamacola Millet of Spain the 2000 winner of the Weatherby Hunting and Conservation Award. He has hunted in 63 different countries, collecting 252 different species and placing 197 animals in the record books. He has collected 37 sheep of 28 different species, including 11 different Argalis; the Big Five and all the spiral-horned antelope of Africa; and three Markhors, two in Pakistan and one in Uzbekistan.

Weatherby Hunting and Conservation Award (formerly known as the Weatherby Big Game Trophy Award).
Previous Winners/ Presenters
1956�Herb W. Klein, Texas
1957�Jack O�Connor, Idaho
1958�Warren Page, Connecticut
1959�Berry B. Brooks, Tennessee

1960�Elgin T. Gates, California
1961�Julio E. Estrada, Mexico
1962�H.I.H. Prince Abdorreza Pahlavi, Iran
1963�John B. Lagarde, Alabama
1964�Dr. Frank C. Hibben, New Mexico
1965�Francois Edmond-Blanc, France
1966�Dr. W. Brandon Macomber, New York
1967�Dan W. Maddox, Tennessee
1968�Weir McDonald, Arizona
1969�C.J. McElroy, Arizona

1970�George L. Landreth, Texas
1971�Juan Naude Cordova, Mexico
1972�James R. Mellon, II, Pennsylvania
1973�Basil C. Bradbury, Wyoming
1974�Dr. Kenneth W. Vaughn, Oregon
1975�No award.
1976�Rudolf Sand, Denmark
1977�Valendn de Madariaga y Oya, Spain
1978�Arthur W. Carlsberg, California
1979�Dr. Robert E. Speegle, Texas
1980�Watson T. Yoshimoto, Hawaii
1981�Dr. Carlo Caldesi Biella, Italy
1982�Glenn Slade, Texas
1983�Mahlon T. (Butch) White, Colorado
1984�Jacques Henrijean, Belgium
1985�Thornton Snider, California
1986�Hector Cuellar S., Mexico
1987�Dr. James E. Conklin, Pennsylvania
1989�Donald G. Cox, Michigan
1990�Robert K. Chisholm, Kansas
1991�Gary R. Ingersoll, Texas
1992�Hubert Thummler, Mexico
1993�L. Irvin Barnhart, Texas
1994�Dr. Gerald L. Warnock, Oregon
1995�Jesus Yuren, Mexico
1996�Arnold E. Alward, Canada
1997�Ricardo Medem, Spain
1998�Dan L. Duncan, Texas
1999�Pete Papac, Washington
2000�Enrique Zamacola Millet, Spain

[This message has been edited by Buffman (edited 01-14-2002).]

Buffman,
Thanks for the nice post. I shoulda been a Doctor. "I coulda been a contender"