Zanu-PF poaching links exposed

Dawie Groenewald, the alleged rhino-poaching kingpin, has been linked to powerful Zanu-PF members in Zimbabwe, including Kembo Mohadi, the joint home affairs minister, and Jocelyn Chiwenga, the wife of army chief Constantine Chiwenga.

Groenewald, of Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris, was arrested with his wife, Sariette Groenewald, and a contracted hunter, Tielman Erasmus, in Limpopo last month in connection with poaching. Groenewald was released on R1-million bail and his wife on bail of R100 000.

Also among those held in police raids were two vets from the Modimolle area, Karel Toet and Manie du Plessis, and Toet's wife, Mariza.

Groenewald, a former police officer, is well known among Zimbabwe's ranchers. According to Johnny Rodrigues, the chairman of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTF), Groenewald's association with Zanu-PF's top brass in running illegal hunting activities in Zimbabwe could open a can of worms.

"Groenewald's arrest is likely to expose a lot of high-powered people in Zanu-PF who are involved in poaching activities. The case is a time bomb waiting to explode," he said.

"These Zimbabweans are exporting resources for huge profits when they haven't put a cent into the safari business. It shows the dearth of law and order in the country."

In 2003 Groenewald operated Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris in Zimbabwe before it was banned in September 2005 by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.

Safari industry watchdogs raised concerns that Out of Africa was involved in poaching and hunted on the farms of evicted white farmers in cahoots with war vets and Zanu-PF officials. Out of Africa denied the charges levelled against it.

Groenewald did not want to comment citing sub judice.

Rodrigues highlighted the allegedly illegal hunting operations of the unlicensed Zhove conservancy unit near Beitbridge. Farm owners in the area said that the unit, comprising state security personnel, war veterans and Zanu-PF activists, was a prime target of operators such as Groenewald. The farmers said that the unit "regularly receives hunting quotas from the department of national parks and wildlife".

According to the ZCTF, Zhove invaded five farms in Beitbridge this year. Zanu-PF's control of wildlife-rich areas had enabled it to use poached animals to feed soldiers and crowds at political rallies. Wildlife sources said that three elephants and three buffaloes were killed this week to provide meat for supporters at a Zanu-PF rally in Gokwe to open the Women's Development Bank.

Rodrigues said Zhove also sold animal skins to South African poachers, allegedly including Johannes Roos, who has been linked to a shady alliance, dubbed the "Musina Mafia" by locals.

Well-placed sources in Musina confirmed that Roos and Groenewald were "close associates".

In July Beeld newspaper exposed Roos as part of the "Musina Mafia" and implicated him in arms smuggling across the Zimbabwean border.

Roos's whereabouts are currently unknown, he is said by sources close to the poaching investigation to be in hiding.

An exiled Zimbabwe radio station, SW Radio Africa, has reported that Mohadi is associated with South African-based poachers and facilitated Groenewald's release in Zimbabwe after he was arrested for rhino poaching in the Bubi area.

It is also suspected that Groenewald was released after spending two nights in a Beitbridge prison in August last year as a result of Mohadi's intervention.

Attempts to contact Mohadi for comment were unsuccessful.

Zimbabwean wildlife sources said that, since 2000, when farm invasions began, Zanu-PF loyalists have extended their control over the country's lucrative safari business, grabbing all the best reserves. Jocelyn Chiwenga reportedly controls all concessions in the Victoria Falls area and deals with wealthy Americans.

The farmers said that Groenewald was still very active in Zimbabwe.

"Although they [Out of Africa] were banned from operating in the country, it is known within safari industry circles that they have been using an operation called Africa Dream Safaris to hunt in Zimbabwe," Rodrigues said.

Attempts to get a comment from Africa Dream Safaris were unsuccessful.

Cheers,

~ Alan

I wonder how does affect those who have been protecting him for so many years?

Saeed,
If there politician and in high positions in the government t it will be sweep under the rug just like corruption is in every country

PS how many days till you go hunting ??

ROTTEN, ROTTEN BASTARDS, the whole damn lot of them!!

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
y

PS how many days till you go hunting ??

At least once a month, sometimes twice, maybe thrice. Right here in good old Africa!!

Alan - I have never seen someone so possesed and obsessed by the actions of SCI. I agree that all "proven guilty" parties should be punished, but man you take your rants to a whole new level. With all your personal anger and wanting revenge so badly against this group, makes me wonder if they left YOU off the FREE OoA hunt list or what??? Geez!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Yes Alan!

How very dare you!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Alan - I have never seen someone so possesed and obsessed by the actions of SCI. I agree that all "proven guilty" parties should be punished, but man you take your rants to a whole new level. With all your personal anger and wanting revenge so badly against this group, makes me wonder if they left YOU off the FREE OoA hunt list or what??? Geez!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Larry,

What has Alan done?

All he has done was report what is being reported in the media?

Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to reports about the shinanigans of these criminals?

Wasn't enough for us - as hunters - that our supposed orgenization who claim FIRST FOR HUNTER - has not just turned a blind eye to all the crimes Out of Africa has committed, but actively defended them?

Some of SCI's top management have a lot to anwser for.

I really have absolutely no sympathy for them at all.

Saeed,

perhaps he thinks this has become Alan's life...

I appreciate the updates, but I could do without the constant inferences that SCI is part and parcel of this group.

It reads like this: my next door neighbor's paperboy's sister-in-law's hairdresser's dog groomer's lawn services area supervisor's oldest daughter goes to school with the youngest son of the people who live two houses down across the street from one of the secretaries who was let go by the SCI business office just a couple months ago. She says she overheard two of the SCI board members talking about it at the water cooler; and they were discussing the possibility of some member who hunted with OOA seven or eight years ago could have been involved in some questionable hunting areas.

The SCI Ethics Committee took notice of some OOA issues, but both brothers resigned before a hearing could be scheduled. That is what we KNOW for a fact about SCI's involvement as of this date.

"Stick to the facts, not your personal feelings" is what a teacher told me in a journalism class at college many years ago. We castigate the Liberal Media every day here for the same thing.

Rich

Thank you ISS - You are spot on with your post.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Saeed,

perhaps he thinks this has become Alan's life...

I appreciate the updates, but I could do without the constant inferences that SCI is part and parcel of this group.

It reads like this: my next door neighbor's paperboy's sister-in-law's hairdresser's dog groomer's lawn services area supervisor's oldest daughter goes to school with the youngest son of the people who live two houses down across the street from one of the secretaries who was let go by the SCI business office just a couple months ago. She says she overheard two of the SCI board members talking about it at the water cooler; and they were discussing the possibility of some member who hunted with OOA seven or eight years ago could have been involved in some questionable hunting areas.

The SCI Ethics Committee took notice of some OOA issues, but both brothers resigned before a hearing could be scheduled. That is what we KNOW for a fact about SCI's involvement as of this date.

"Stick to the facts, not your personal feelings" is what a teacher told me in a journalism class at college many years ago. We castigate the Liberal Media every day here for the same thing.

Rich

Is there any relationship between the 3 Elephant and Buffalo used for the ZANU PF rally in Gokwe for the Bank and the offer for 4 Buf and 4 Elephant?

quote:

The SCI Ethics Committee took notice of some OOA issues, but both brothers resigned before a hearing could be scheduled. That is what we KNOW for a fact about SCI's involvement as of this date.

Rich:

That could well be - which issues, related to what?
Were they not given the opportunity to resign so that they would be spared the embarrassment of having to face the ethics committee or vice-versa?

How many years since Out of Africa have been banned from hunting in Zimbabwe?

How many years has the SCI so called "ethics committee" turn a blind eye to A
all the reported misbehaviour of this outfit?

How come some o SCI's higher ups have been hunting with Out of Africa despite all these reports?

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if SCI has taken notice earlier, many of these developments would probably have never happened.

SCI is doing us all a major disservice by backing the likes of Out of Africa for so long.

I bet we have not gotten to the bottom of this yet.

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is any direct link between OoA & SCI with regard to the rhino poaching and I for one would be surprised if there was such a link.

However, I'm sure a lot of people out there are speculating that there may well be a number of SCI members, esp in the upper echelons who may have (probably/mostly unwittingly) have been involved in such things as hunting on seized and/or otherwise dodgy land & breach of game laws.

There's also the issue of why OoA was protected the way it was for so long by the ethics committee and possibly/probably other upper echelon members.

I would imagine those things could well mean investigations for at least Lacey Act violations & corruption etc and that should make anyone who could be guilty of even the slightest violation VERY nervous indeed and they sure as hell don't have my sympathy!

As Saeed says "I bet we have not gotten to the bottom of this yet".

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

The SCI Ethics Committee took notice of some OOA issues, but both brothers resigned before a hearing could be scheduled. That is what we KNOW for a fact about SCI's involvement as of this date.

Rich:

That could well be - which issues, related to what?
Were they not given the opportunity to resign so that they would be spared the embarrassment of having to face the ethics committee or vice-versa?

Why were the resignations accepted? No credible organization will accept the resignation of members if a criminal conviction is confirmed. If it was a police officer or a military commander or a District Attorney convicted of involvement with the Mob - they would have been forced to go through the internal disciplinary procedures and dishonourably discharged.

Is the issue not serious enough for SCI to hold members accountable by investigating the whole issue and taking action? Should SCI not have been seen to be doing the right thing by all hunters & members? Oh...I forgot....the Chairman of the ethics committee was the defense attorney in the Lacy Act conviction case! How convenient!

Larry Anderson should be held accountable by SCI management and fully investigated for his role in protecting OOA. Period! What ever comes out of an open, fair and full investigation should be exposed completely. Federal authorities should then be given the full information!

This is not about a witch hunt. It is about holding accountable those who have protected an organized criminal gang. It is about SCI, the most prominent and powerful hunting lobby on earth, failing to do its job!

Naki - You asked "Why were the resignations accepted?" Any member of SCI can resign their membership at any point and time for any reason, actually for no reason at all. When you pay your dues to SCI whether annually or as a Life Member there is no binding action that says you have to stay a member of must ask permission to terminate your affiliation. It's as simple as that. So SCI didn't have to accept anything, the named just chose to end their association with SCI period, end of story on that situation. SCI would have the right to terminate a member if they saw fit, as in the Mark Sullivan case. So you see, there is no binding agreement between either party. Hope this helps??

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

The SCI Ethics Committee took notice of some OOA issues, but both brothers resigned before a hearing could be scheduled. That is what we KNOW for a fact about SCI's involvement as of this date.

Rich:

That could well be - which issues, related to what?
Were they not given the opportunity to resign so that they would be spared the embarrassment of having to face the ethics committee or vice-versa?

Why were the resignations accepted? No credible organization will accept the resignation of members if a criminal conviction is confirmed. If it was a police officer or a military commander or a District Attorney convicted of involvement with the Mob - they would have been forced to go through the internal disciplinary procedures and dishonourably discharged.

Is the issue not serious enough for SCI to hold members accountable by investigating the whole issue and taking action? Should SCI not have been seen to be doing the right thing by all hunters & members? Oh...I forgot....the Chairman of the ethics committee was the defense attorney in the Lacy Act conviction case! How convenient!

Larry Anderson should be held accountable by SCI management and fully investigated for his role in protecting OOA. Period! What ever comes out of an open, fair and full investigation should be exposed completely. Federal authorities should then be given the full information!

This is not about a witch hunt. It is about holding accountable those who have protected an organized criminal gang. It is about SCI, the most prominent and powerful hunting lobby on earth, failing to do its job!

What action? What do you think SCI is? The only action SCI can take is to teminate their membership. SCI has no legal teeth, criminal or civil, to take action against a member for any reason. It's like not paying you monthly dues at the gym, they can only not let you in... Not investigate why.
It is shocking how little people understand about the organization they belong to...or mabey not belong to from these post.

SCI has never had any power over members, except by threatening/promising a hearing in front of, in this case, the Ethics Committee. The committee notifies the concerned parties of intent to hold the hearing and the issues. The affected party/parties can resign, and SCI no longer has any control over the issue.

This is similar, I would expect, to what they did with Mark Sullivan, but MS was stupid. He initially played the injured party to us and the rest of the world. You will all notice that marky-boy has disappeared from public view after his bawl baby post. So have the few who so courageously castigated SCI from the safety and anonymity (mostly) of AR. I would suggest that SCI may have told him they would make the hearing he likely had and/or the terms of his expulsion public. He had promised one of our more prominent members here to sit with him (in a to be taped for TV show) about five weeks ago and tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." of how he was tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion with out recourse to clearing his good name. It hasn't happened and I doubt it will.

The only recourse SCI has is to sever the relationship, and/or make the hearings public. Any of you could do as much, except you don't have a way to air the deal.

This is pre-law first year stuff. Common Sense...

Rich
DRSS

Pre law stuff.....yes

It is also pre school stuff to not accept the resignation but dishonourably dismiss the person publicly. You do not need to be a criminal court to do that. You do not have to charge the person with a crime. You can just expose the person in public rather than let them resign. In this case SCI should have done it publicly so that they are seen to protecting the image of the organization as well the image of all hunters.

Naki, mate, the key to thread is that people are accusing others of having nothing better to do with their lives than attack the SCI, blissfully unaware of the irony that they seem to have nothing to do with their lives but defend it.

You can't get a reasonable answer from people like that mate, even simple questions are interpreted as either "blowing smoke" or some other dark agenda.

Can someone please enlighten us on what is the purpose of the so called "ethics committee" is?

If it is not supposed to investigate the shinanigans of its members, why was it created?

Naki - Exposing someone or their actions in Public in this Country without absolute proof of wrong doing most likely would bring a slander or defamation of character suite by the offended party. So SCI or anyone else would have to be extremely careful to avoid this type of situation. It's not really SCI's job to prosecute or belittle it's members or former members in a Court of Law or Court of Public Opinion.

Saeed - The Ethics Committee at SCI is there to hear complaints/concerns about Members actions ie. Mark Sullivan, OoA and a host of others and determine if that Member can still be a part of the organization as I see it. My take on this, not a "official view" is usually but not always, the concern/violation has to be breaking of Law or some other action that is determential to the goals of SCI. If it's a law breaking thing, SCI will most likely wait until the lawbreaker has received his day in Court and has be found guilty and sentenced before taking action as in OoA's case. To do something prior to this action by a Court could bring a slander of defamation of character proceding against them. If the offense is something of an ethical or other action deemed in not the best interest of SCI then that would most likely be a judgement call on the part of the Committee.

Not being a "member" of the Ethics committee I have no idea how individual concerns are handled by them. I do know that some of the posts here about SCI, their upper management, and such are awfully close to being slanderous and let's just say, I wouldn't want to be in those shoes.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Pre law stuff.....yes

It is also pre school stuff to not accept the resignation but dishonourably dismiss the person publicly. You do not need to be a criminal court to do that. You do not have to charge the person with a crime. You can just expose the person in public rather than let them resign. In this case SCI should have done it publicly so that they are seen to protecting the image of the organization as well the image of all hunters.

It would appear I was mistaken Naki.

It's not that asking the question is blowing smoke, rather that any answers given could be construed as slander and so it's best just to let them get on with.... whatever it is that they do.

Good innit?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
It would appear I was mistaken Naki.

With an admission like this, do you really think you belong on this forum?

No, you are right.

Grown men do not admit mistakes, even within the framework of over-arching irony.

No one is defending SCI or what the " Good Ol'e Boy's" in the EC have done in the past.Anyone who has more than general membership experience in SCI knows what a huge political power strugle goes on and how the current contoling faction has made some selfish and poor decisions. Just trying to staighten out the ignorance about what the organization is capable of doing in the situation that has lit this forum up. And I don't think SCI has the capability to charge any comment on here as slander. No piont

Anthony

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
No, you are right.

Grown men do not admit mistakes, even within the framework of over-arching irony.

Larry, I am confused. Groenwald was convicted of violating the Lacey act & Anderson was his attorney. So there would be no slander in exposing Groenwald for all his shenanigans and setting an example in SCI that no one is above the ethics committee.

Any Medical Council would have dishonourably discharged a member who is convicted of a criminal felony. So also any Law Society. Why cannot SCI have similar standards of ethics in hunting, particularly when anti hunting groups consider hunting to be an unethical sport?

Groenwald's resignation should not have been accepted. He should have been discharged from SCI. Period.

Naki - I was not speaking of Groenwald specifically when mentioning the slander thing. Just trying to point out the fact that everyone should be careful about accusing and making potential misleading statements period. If Groenwald resigned his membership before SCI could boot him, then nothing could be done.

Do I think SCI should have acted sooner against OoA? Not my call really as I don't know all the FACTS involved just like ever other poster here on the subject. Assuming someone is guilty and that SCI did not act soon enough based on hearsay and ones own personal beliefs just doesn't fly in this case.

As I said before, SCI doesn't have to accept any members resignation, it just happens, members choice.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Larry, I am confused. Groenwald was convicted of violating the Lacey act & Anderson was his attorney. So there would be no slander in exposing Groenwald for all his shenanigans and setting an example in SCI that no one is above the ethics committee.

Any Medical Council would have dishonourably discharged a member who is convicted of a criminal felony. So also any Law Society. Why cannot SCI have similar standards of ethics in hunting, particularly when anti hunting groups consider hunting to be an unethical sport?

Groenwald's resignation should not have been accepted. He should have been discharged from SCI. Period.

here's a fact for you. OoA was expelled from Zim in 2005 for conducting illegal hunts. is that good enough? the "ethics committee" sat on that one for 5 years.

Exactly. And Larry, with all due respect, the suggestion that SCI could start leveling charges against others for slander or whatever at this time is just laughable. Who would care, even if they had the gall to do so? Imagine what a field day the defense would have against such a charge right now? Regardless of what the 'slander' was....
I have always supported SCI - not a member but have always been in their corner as I believed they truly were first for hunters. But this is beyond the pale. For his association with Groenewald, Anderson should be banned and investigated, period. Ooh, do you think he will sue me now? How scary.

jd - If your comment was directed to me it makes no difference if it's good enough for me.

Was it good enough for SCI and the EC? Obviously not in their eyes. So really a moot point with exception of the committee members themselves. Since me and all other general members and non membbers alike are not on the Committee nothing we can/could do about the situation. Simply not the way it works.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
here's a fact for you. OoA was expelled from Zim in 2005 for conducting illegal hunts. is that good enough? the "ethics committee" sat on that one for 5 years.

FYI:

SCI has no legal options to do anything except expel members who are determined to have violated the bylaws. They are the equivalent of a gun club like the one you belong to. Expressing your opinion of anybody or anything today in an uncomplimentary fashion is an open invitation to a lawsuit.

Look at the litigious society we live in here in the US today.
Twenty-some years ago a woman in the SF area sued the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Authority because she allegedly fell on her ass on a trolley and became "unable to be satisfied sexually..." She got sixteen million dollars, IIRC handed to her by a jury. A woman in SoCal (again IIRC) went thru the McDonalds drive thru on her way to work. Got a cup of coffee. Hit the speed bump on the way out and spilled the coffee on her lap. The judgement in that one was several million dollars, PLUS; McD had to put a warning label on the coffee cups that warned people that the friggin' coffee was hot. And, cut the temperature. Some dork in Ohio sued McD saying their sign that claimed "X" billion hamburgers served could not be proved and he was traumatized. He won the case, but it was dismissed on appeal.
I dealt with legal issues at a state hospital here for a couple years. They had a young man there whose father had him committed there at age five because he was a burden to the family. The dad came to get his son for a two hour outing every other Friday. He brought a van so he could strip this resident(in front of the building he lived in) and hopefully find a bruise or some signs of an injury. He evidently hoped to find sufficient evidence of an injury he could sue the state over.

This country is run by mouth breathers.

I thought about running the list of MS' twelve most ardent supporters here, but one of you would probably sue me for damaging your reputation here, and Saeed for letting me post it.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
jd - If your comment was directed to me it makes no difference if it's good enough for me.

Was it good enough for SCI and the EC? Obviously not in their eyes. So really a moot point with exception of the committee members themselves. Since me and all other general members and non membbers alike are not on the Committee nothing we can/could do about the situation. Simply not the way it works.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
here's a fact for you. OoA was expelled from Zim in 2005 for conducting illegal hunts. is that good enough? the "ethics committee" sat on that one for 5 years.

you asked for facts and i gave you 2- OoA WAS EXPELLED FROM ZIM FOR ILLEGAL HUNTING 5 YEARS AGO AND SCI DID NOTHING ABOUT IT -EVER!! not heresay, absolute fact. of course they did continue to rent them booth space, accept their hunt donations and allow them to advertise in SCI publications.it wasn't till the latest cock-up(MONTHS AFTER THE U.S. FELONY CONVICTION) that SCI FINALLY GOT OFF THEIR COLLECTIVE ASS AND DID SOMETHING.those are facts too. how many more would you like? i thought it was only ostrich's who stuck their head in the sand. when something smells like S--t, i tend to believe it is S--t.

David - Nowhere did I post or suggest that SCI would consider a slander suite against anyone!! I simply pointed out the possibilities of someone getting in trouble with "slanderous comments" period. This applies to everyone on any subject, not just those on AR. There have been some "personal attacks" on various people here, hence my mention of slander possibilites. If this type of behavior floats anyones boat, have at it.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
Exactly. And Larry, with all due respect, the suggestion that SCI could start leveling charges against others for slander or whatever at this time is just laughable. Who would care, even if they had the gall to do so? Imagine what a field day the defense would have against such a charge right now? Regardless of what the 'slander' was....
I have always supported SCI - not a member but have always been in their corner as I believed they truly were first for hunters. But this is beyond the pale. For his association with Groenewald, Anderson should be banned and investigated, period. Ooh, do you think he will sue me now? How scary.

jd - I don't recall me asking you for facts. In fact your facts have nothing to do with me. I can't use your facts to do anything, except second and third party them on maybe? If that were the case would they still be facts? As a matter of fact, why not forward your facts to SCI and let them deal with them? They seem to be your issue here?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
jd - If your comment was directed to me it makes no difference if it's good enough for me.

Was it good enough for SCI and the EC? Obviously not in their eyes. So really a moot point with exception of the committee members themselves. Since me and all other general members and non membbers alike are not on the Committee nothing we can/could do about the situation. Simply not the way it works.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
here's a fact for you. OoA was expelled from Zim in 2005 for conducting illegal hunts. is that good enough? the "ethics committee" sat on that one for 5 years.

you asked for facts and i gave you 2- OoA WAS EXPELLED FROM ZIM FOR ILLEGAL HUNTING 5 YEARS AGO AND SCI DID NOTHING ABOUT IT -EVER!! not heresay, absolute fact. of course they did continue to rent them booth space, accept their hunt donations and allow them to advertise in SCI publications.it wasn't till the latest cock-up(MONTHS AFTER THE U.S. FELONY CONVICTION) that SCI FINALLY GOT OFF THEIR COLLECTIVE ASS AND DID SOMETHING.those are facts too. how many more would you like? i thought it was only ostrich's who stuck their head in the sand. when something smells like S--t, i tend to believe it is S--t.

My apologies Larry, it was late and I was skimming through the posts, something I have promised myself not to do!

David

It seems all questions have been answered and "beat to death" on this subject. Now we know what SCI can and cannot do in respect to dealing with their Members. We know the SCI EC can only conduct investigations concerning possible breech of their Clubs rules. We know SCI has no Police powers over it's Members or anyone else. We know any SCI Member can resign his/her Membership for any reason they so choose. We all want ALL "proven in Court" guilty parties in the Rhino poaching case to get their due. OoA and Dawie are no longer members of SCI.

SCI will continue on it's path of defending us all from the anti hunting crowd out there. They will continue do defend the rights for all of us to hunt Worlwide as we see fit. They will continue to work with our elected represenatives in DC on a daily basis. They will provide, any of us who want to attend, the absoulte best venue for meeting up with Outfitters from around the World at their Convention.

For those who want to continue to hate and chastise SCI on these threads more power to you. It's quite obvious by all the misconceptions that have been brought to life here, most detractors really don't have much of a handle on how things at SCI really work. I'll not continue to "beat this old horse" any longer as doing so would be like
"pounding sand down a rathole". Besides I have an Elk hunt, Coues Deer hunt and Whitail hunt to go on for the next month or so starting this midweek. Good luck and good hunting.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

David - Hey man, no problem. I sometimes stay up late myself, but usually not to post here on AR.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
My apologies Larry, it was late and I was skimming through the posts, something I have promised myself not to do!

David

quote:

SCI will continue on it's path of defending us all from the anti hunting crowd out there. They will continue do defend the rights for all of us to hunt Worlwide as we see fit

Larry,

Are speaking for SCI?

You did say "we" in the above statement.

Frankly, I for one cannot see where SCI is actually defending my right to hunt anywhere in the world.

SCI seems to be embroiled in their self glory more than anything else.

The convention is their major source of income. Lots of that income comes from African outfitters.

Each time one of us dared to ask where is the money going, we get no answers or directed to their annual report.

This fiasco with Out of Africa has been going on for years.

Many people have complained about them.

They were banned in other countries.

Why did SCI not act before?

Is it because some higher ups in SCI had personal and financial interest in Out of Africa?

The management of SCI need to get their hands out of the cookie jar if they want to be taken serious by hunters.