Thanks for all the information that has come in on this. I am sure that there is more.

Cheers,

Alan

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

Originally posted by almostacowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Well folks, I've seen a lot of accusations and complaining about OOA and SCI, so much so that I haven't joined SCI because of it. I guess it's time for the people that have been doing it to fish or cut bait.

I, unfortunately, joined SCI before I found out it was supporting the effort to return all the white-owned property in RSA to the black majority. I won't renew.
Dave

Well that's Bullshit. Where did you pull that one out of?

After doing my homework I realize I inaccurately stated SCI's position; they support "black empowerment", not necessarily returning all property to blacks. [SEARCH:SCI support black empowerment] But, as we have read recently, the wind seems to be blowing in that direction. I admit and apologize for my inaccuracy.
Dave

I am a SCI member and I hope to be a member in the future. I think the sheer volume of complaints about this says loud and clear the ethics committe better deal with it. IE. Ban this group from being SCI members, advertising or being affiliated in any way with SCI. If that doesn't happen I would be saddened to have to accept that such a great hunting organization has absolutly no use at all. Lets all hope SCI does the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Quickshot,

It is good you have a written contract and written evidence of what was offered and your written accounts of what actually happened. Imagine it if you just relied on blind trust! Absolutely useless for any follow up.

NitroX, you are spot on. Here is a perfect example of why it is IMPERATIVE to have a written contract with as much DETAIL as possible. Still blows my mind that some of the more "esteemed" outfitters that post volumes here are so against written agreements. Just doesn't figure!

At the end of the day this is all about hunting. Our love for the sport, care for wildlife and the wild places and guns that bond us all together. SCI is the biggest group we have and if there is a complaint with ANY Outfitter or PH they should take up the matter and act on it and not sweep it under the carpet regardless of who the person might be or what they may have contributed to SCI.

Ex- Chapter Director of SCI chapter for 6 years

What follows is a copy of a letter I sent to SCI headquarters. If you have feelings on this, I suggest that you also send a letter to them and encourage them to do the right thing. Whizzing about it on a message board may make you feel better, but until SCI gets a groundswell of complaints and inquiries, they may not feel compelled to do anything. If you are a member, use your status to email them and to write letters to them. Also, encourage officers in your local chapter to do the same.


SCI International Headquarters:
4800 West Gates Pass Road
Tucson, Arizona 85745-9490
USA

Gentlemen:
For some time, I have been aware of a controversy involving the ethics and conduct of Out Of Africa Adventurous Safaris. It is alleged that they book hunts in Zimbabwe for which they do not have the required permits. Further, on at least one message board on the internet, a copy of a letter of formal complaint regarding this has been posted. For your information, here is the web address of such complaint:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tp...1043/m/397102143/p/1

It is my considered opinion that SCI should withhold any donated items from the benefit auction in January (Reno) until these charges are cleared up and OOAAS has been exonerated of any and all wrongdoing. Failure to do so will jeopardize our public image and will certainly impact the perception of our organization. We will be seen as caring only about the money we can raise without any regard as to the ethics of the organization donating the trip. I look forward to your response to this letter.

Respectfully,

I certainly agree that that letting SCI know is a good step. Regrettably I expect the only real difference is going to occur when/If members stop paying their dues. IMO there is just no way SCI can be "for hunters rights" and allow something like this to continue and even condone this behavior by allowing them to be members, advertise and donate hunts. The whole thing just smacks of greed and it's a sad thing for all of us to be brought down by this kind of behavior.

Thank you for those who have emailed or snail mailed your complaints and concerns over OAAS. Sorry for the delay in contacting/replying to everyone. I am a bit behind in responding to them all. I will get to them as fast as possible. For those that would like to send in their difficulties or horrifying experiences, just email or snail mail them to the addresses (Mike or Jerry) listed on the complaint posted by Alan. Again, sorry for the delay in getting through the numerous correspondences that have being sent.

Nothing sweeter than the smell of fresh blood on your hunting boots-- good luck hunting!

Great suggestion! The more SCI members send in a letter similar to yours, the sooner the SCI leadership will start to respond and behave in a responsible manner

quote:

Originally posted by patrkyhntr:
What follows is a copy of a letter I sent to SCI headquarters. If you have feelings on this, I suggest that you also send a letter to them and encourage them to do the right thing. Whizzing about it on a message board may make you feel better, but until SCI gets a groundswell of complaints and inquiries, they may not feel compelled to do anything. If you are a member, use your status to email them and to write letters to them. Also, encourage officers in your local chapter to do the same.


SCI International Headquarters:
4800 West Gates Pass Road
Tucson, Arizona 85745-9490
USA

Gentlemen:
For some time, I have been aware of a controversy involving the ethics and conduct of Out Of Africa Adventurous Safaris. It is alleged that they book hunts in Zimbabwe for which they do not have the required permits. Further, on at least one message board on the internet, a copy of a letter of formal complaint regarding this has been posted. For your information, here is the web address of such complaint:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tp...1043/m/397102143/p/1

It is my considered opinion that SCI should withhold any donated items from the benefit auction in January (Reno) until these charges are cleared up and OOAAS has been exonerated of any and all wrongdoing. Failure to do so will jeopardize our public image and will certainly impact the perception of our organization. We will be seen as caring only about the money we can raise without any regard as to the ethics of the organization donating the trip. I look forward to your response to this letter.

Respectfully,

Part of the problem that I see is that there are good people as well caught up in this. My guess is that there are a lot of people who might otherwise come forward, but are afraid of being caught up in the Lacy Act, banking violations, and all the other headaches that go with it. I expect that there are people who once there on the ground, or even after once returned home, realized things were not quite right. It is easy to sit back and say do the right thing when it dosnt cost you anything. I would like to think if it were me I would do the right thing, but at this point it is just an academic exercise.

Now as to SCI. I have said before and I will say it again. Whenever there is a controversy of this nature there should be a hold on any type of donations until it is resolved. The ethics committee should do an investigation and make a ruling before any donations can be accepted. It is not a matter of guilty until proven innocent. I am not talking about OOA here but in general. We should take a position that puts us above suspicion or reproach. It appears that 25% of the time SCI is furthering the cause of conservation and hunters and the rest of the time it is trying to protect the organization from itself. When there is a question of ethics like this it must be resolved satisfactorily before any donations can or should be accpeted. I dont care how much money is involved. It is not worth ones reputation and integrity. The second part of this is hiding behind calling it a failure to fullfill a contractual obligation rather than an ehtical violation. I understand the bylaws. However, I believe that all too often what is considered as a failure to fullfill a contractual obligation is actually an attempt to defraud and is therefore an ethical violation in my book.

I would urge everyone here who is affiliated with SCI to contact them about this issue. The only way things will change is if the majority of the membership puts pressure on national and lets them know how we feel about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Part of the problem that I see is that there are good people as well caught up in this.

Part of the problem is there is also guys who knowingly sell these hunts as well and others who knowingly buy these hunts just because they are 'cheap'. There have been members pushing outfitters such as OOA and similar right here on AR.

John, No argument there. I have no sympathy in those cases. I am talking about the ones who really didnt know better until it was too late. I know that is hard for us to believe because we are so aware, but I have come to realize we are an exception. I have talked to numerous people about OOA and it is amazing how many have no idea that any of the rumours or accusations even exist. You would think after a couple of years of controversy that it would be fairly common knowledge but apparently not. You are right though in that there are many who are either looking to make money or save money by gaining from confiscated land and shall we say less than normal hunting activities in ZIM. I was at the convention in Reno last year and OOA had this huge booth set up and it was geeting a lot of traffic. Myself, and several of the guys from Zim watched them for quite awhile. It was very apparent from listening in that most of these potential clients had no clue as to any controversy even existing. That in itself was a real eye opener.

Are there any SCI officers here?

To clarify your question, you need to specify whether you are referring to chapter officers or SCI International Organization Officers. There are a number of us who post on this board who are chapter officers. What is it that you think we should do that we have not done?

Patrykhunter,
I gather that your indicating you are an officer? I'm a national member and I've never been to a meeting. I don't know who to call etc. Which is why I'm asking if there are any officers here.
Does anyone know how/if SCI dealt with James Bay Adventures? There are warnings about them on the Hunting report and this website. The owner was prosecuted and they are on the vendor list for the convention in the past. I'm just wondering if/how SCI dealt with people like this in the past.

I just searched the convention auction schedule of donations and can find nothing about James Bay Outfitters listed. Perhaps the SCI has auctioned off their donations in the past.

I don't know where your location in the USA is, but if you are close to where I am located in southcentral PA, we would be happy to have you in the Mason-Dixon chapter. Being a chapter member does give one access to information that is a bit harder (but not impossible) to get if not a chapter member.

I am vice-president of our chapter, which coupled with fifty cents, gets me a cup of coffee at some restaurants, plus the enviable benefit of a key to the executive washroom.

As to the Out of Africa controversy, I emailed the national headquarters last year and received a reply that no formal charges had been lodged against them and that SCI would not take action against an outfitter based upon rumor, innuendo, or postings on a message board without EVIDENCE of wrongdoing. I am not questioning the motives nor the information of those who are filing the formal complaint at the beginning of this thread, but will wait to see how this plays out before condeming an organization that does so much good. I have no problem with those who don't want to join SCI. Don't if you don't want to.

I probably will not be bidding on any trips offered at the convention auction this year, but the main reason is because I am nearing my spending limit on such. I have bought several trips at auction, and have not had a bad one yet. I always check the outfitter out as best I can before buying the trip. It seems to work for me. Sometimes a bargain seems too good to be true. If that is the case, it usually is.

The anti-SCI rhetoric spewed by some reminds me of the anti-NRA stuff spouted by those too cheap to join. "I don't like the NRA's stand on assault weapons," they say. Or, "The NRA wants me to own an AK-47." Since we don't like one thing the organization does or did, we throw the baby out with the bath water. Just my opinion.

patrkyhntr

What do yu want to know about "James Bay" I know of the outfit...

A very good friend of mine hunted with him

I was on the Board of SCI until July '05 when my term ended (my position was because I was a Chapter President, and that is a two-year job at my Chapter). Anyway I am no longer in the official saddle.

I gave copies of the OoA Zim Parks letters to SCI officialdom last January at the Reno Convention. They were passed to me by Ganyana. I am pleased to see some principals have filed charges with the Ethics Committee. Perhaps this can be resolved in that forum.

Chapter members should ask their President (who is a Board member) to provide a letter asking for action.

jim

quote:

Originally posted by Widowmaker416:
patrkyhntr

What do yu want to know about "James Bay" I know of the outfit...

A very good friend of mine hunted with him

Ron:
There is a message on the BIG GAME thread stating that James Bay Outfitters is being investigated. The message is as follows:


Posted 09 May 2003 07:53
The Hunting Report has just learned that a Quebec caribou outfitting company by the name of James Bay Adventures has been indicted by a US federal agency, and that other indictments are almost certainly on the way. If you or anyone you know has money at risk with James Bay Adventures, we welcome the opportunity to send your contact details on to the US agent who is heading up the investigation into this firm. You can contact us at: jba@huntingreport.com .

By the way, I note that Dallas Safari Club's Exhibitor list includes the reknowned Out Of Africa Adventurous Safaris. Is this evidence that the Dallas club also prizes money above ethics? I think not. Perhaps those who are members might wish to question the organization about this? Do we have any Dallas members who post here?

Does DSC have an ethics committee?
I notice outfitters who have lost their membership etc. in the SCI paper. I'm a newer member and this sort of thing does give rise for concern. If there is an ethics committee then they should deal with this issue ASAP and let all members know the outcome. If SCI can't stand tall they have to expect the heat to get turned up, especially from members who pay to be a part of the organization.
I do have to say I never expected SCI to be my outfitting babysitter when I joined. I signed up to meet other people who enjoy hunting.

patrkyhntr,

Yes I was aware of the troubles that James Bay made for himself years ago, my friend found out about this a few months after he hunted with him. (I think it was just after the Reno show in Jan 2002)
He ended all ties with him for future hunts right then and there.

I also am a chapter board member. I can tell you there has been much debate and some heated discussions about OOA. This isnt just recent, I might add, this goes back over four years that I am aware of. Many of us have done what we can. It has been a serious point of controversy at the Detroit chapter for some time.Who knows how this thing will finally play out but you do what you can. Not everything is as simple as it seems on the internet. I can tell you I wish this thing would be resolved once and for all. I would be much happier.

As to James Bay Outfitters, I will see what I can I find out from my fellow board member who is on the international ethics committee. Chuck Bazzy is a good guy and will tell us what he can. However, he will not cross a line where he feels he is in jeopardy of leaking what he considers to be confidential information. Although I dont necesarilly agree with not divulging all the details of an investigaion to the membership, that is the policy and I respect him for maintaining what he sees as a confidence. He will tell us as much as he is able without betraying that trust.

Has OoA been convicted of anything? In any court?

Not that I am aware of. Although there has been lots of smoke, no fire. If there were to be a conviction in any court there would be no question of an ethics violation. It is somewhat a catch 22 if you see my point.

I just want to make sure that everyone caught this comment in the latest Mark Sullivan thread. I hope that "boerinnibosveld" will come back to tell us more about what he knows. At least I urge him to send me some details privately.


30 OoA PHs in 2 years

quote:

boerinnibosveld

New Member

Posted October 13, 2005 3:08 AM

If you wanna see DG PH`s, you must see what Out of africa adventoures safaris in SA is useing after more than 30 of there PH`s has left them in 2 years!

Posts: 1 | Registered: 12 October 2005

There seems to be no end to the Out of Africa saga. Other allegations include 23 complaints sweep under the rug by the SCI Ethics Committee. However, with the hard evidence that has been obtained for this latest complaint, I hear that OoA is really worried that they won't be able to keep a lid on this one.

Another hunter that went over to Zim this year was alledgedly told point blank by Headman Sibanda that there had been no trophies exported from Zimbabwe for the last three years. The reason being, if no trophies get shipped to the U.S., then technically no U.S. laws have been broken, therefore no action can be taken for Lacey Act violations.

With 23 complaints in three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars ripped off from SCI members, still SCI stonewalls and it's leaders do everything they can to protect OoA. If this is true, wonder why this is happening? There are plenty of African outfitters who donate hunts, so the amount of money donated can't be that much of an issue when there are others who will gladly step up to the plate.

What is really needed is the names of the hunters and details of the former complaints that SCI has refused to deal with. If there is anyone out there who knows anything, now would be a good time to let the USFWS know the details. The Feds aren't interested in prosecuting hunters who cooperate with them to take down the real perpertrators.

Please e-mail me what you know and you can remain out of it.

Is there anyone with any ethics on the SCI Ethics Committee? The whole world wonders.

Alan

Alan

I know of one person who recieved his trophies. He bought the Saturday night hunt in 2003, hunted hin the Fall of 2003 and recieved his stuf in August of 2005.

The link you posted took me to the thread in the African Hunting forum where the discussion is about PHs shooting too soon with dangerous game. What does this one have to do with OoAAS and the current discussion? Perhaps I missed something.

Perhaps you also missed something. OoAAS is not a hunt donor at the SCI convention in Reno this year. The poster you quote is long on accusation and short on facts. It is easy to say that an organization is unethical. I challenge you or anyone to prove it. Stating an opinion is not fact. You might genuinely believe that SCI's ethics committee has swept charges against OoAAS under the rug, as your quoted poster states, but can you actually prove it? Were formal charges filed? Who filed them? What evidence was presented? Was the evidence backed up by documentation? Would it stand up in a court of law in the USA?

It is my opinion, and that only, that there is sufficient smoke here for SCI not to auction off any trip by OoAAS this year. I don't know, and neither do you, whether or not the current complaint is the reason for SCI removing the OoAAS donation from the auction venue. You also know nothing of the legal validity of past charges, or of this one. I am disappointed in African Hunter dot com being a party to rumor mongering. Further, I am very disappointed in those who post here falling for such.

I will wait to see if the Ethics committee acts on these charges, and what action they take. In this issue of the SCI newspaper, there were several outfitters whose membership has been terminated. Will OoAAS be one of these? I guess we will have to wait and see, won't we. Until then, you may pass on rumors if you like, but it won't convince me of what you are evidently trying to sell. Like others, I would like to see HARD evidence. The first post in this thread came closer to that than any other. Yours does not.

An example:
"With 23 complaints in three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars ripped off from SCI members, still SCI stonewalls and it's leaders do everything they can to protect OOA."
Prove it. Name the 23 complainants, or have them post here in their own names.

quote:

Originally posted by patrkyhntr:
The link you posted took me to the thread in the African Hunting forum where the discussion is about PHs shooting too soon with dangerous game. What does this one have to do with OoAAS and the current discussion? Perhaps I missed something.

Perhaps you also missed something. OoAAS is not a hunt donor at the SCI convention in Reno this year. The poster you quote is long on accusation and short on facts. It is easy to say that an organization is unethical. I challenge you or anyone to prove it. Stating an opinion is not fact. You might genuinely believe that SCI's ethics committee has swept charges against OoAAS under the rug, as your quoted poster states, but can you actually prove it? Were formal charges filed? Who filed them? What evidence was presented? Was the evidence backed up by documentation? Would it stand up in a court of law in the USA?

It is my opinion, and that only, that there is sufficient smoke here for SCI not to auction off any trip by OoAAS this year. I don't know, and neither do you, whether or not the current complaint is the reason for SCI removing the OoAAS donation from the auction venue. You also know nothing of the legal validity of past charges, or of this one. I am disappointed in African Hunter dot com being a party to rumor mongering. Further, I am very disappointed in those who post here falling for such.

I will wait to see if the Ethics committee acts on these charges, and what action they take. In this issue of the SCI newspaper, there were several outfitters whose membership has been terminated. Will OoAAS be one of these? I guess we will have to wait and see, won't we. Until then, you may pass on rumors if you like, but it won't convince me of what you are evidently trying to sell. Like others, I would like to see HARD evidence. The first post in this thread came closer to that than any other. Yours does not.

An example:
"With 23 complaints in three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars ripped off from SCI members, still SCI stonewalls and it's leaders do everything they can to protect OOA."
Prove it. Name the 23 complainants, or have them post here in their own names.

Post here in their own names? Are you kidding? And be brought up in front of the Ethics Committee for besmirching the reputation of SCI? Have you ever read the By-Laws?

I don't know how many complaints have been filed, suffice to say quite a few. The Ethics Committee is a tool of the President now, they do what they're told.

By the way, Ethics charges do not have to be able to stand up in a Court of Law. Ethics and Legal are two diffent issues.

There are those who do post under their own names here, Mickey. There are also those who attempt to hide behind an assumed name and spread rumors that they have no intention of proving. As to my identity, my email is posted in my profile. Anyone who wants to know who I am can easily find out, but the task is not much easier than finding out who you or anyone else who posts here would be. If you stated something that is true and were brought up before the ethics committee of SCI because of it, would SCI be an organization you or I would want to be a part of anyway? I don't know about you, but my membership would be ended at that moment. If you have proof that many complaints have been shuffled under the rug by the ethics committee, be specific. List the names of the complainants, dates they were officially submitted to SCI, and any other pertinent information. You made the statement that there have been quite a few. Otherwise your post goes where all rumor mongering posts go.

As to another of your statements, you are probably correct that evidence needed for an ethics complaint doesn't have to stand the test of a court of law, that is until the person expelled for an ethics violation takes the SCI to court. If I were an outfitter thus expelled, you can be sure that I would do so if the charges couldn't be proven.

It appears that what some would like is to have SCI act on vague messages posted on AR or some other message board. They can't do that, and you know it. In order to declare an outfitter personna non grata, you had better have a good case that is backed up by documentation. If such happened before, and if you have proof of it other than "a friend of a friend stories," then post it.

patrkyhntr,
Have you been on safari with OOA? Are you their attorney?

If you have followed this forum over the last 12 months you would be less "in denial" of what appears to be obvious about OOA.

Especially various "statements" made by Ganyana and ZATSO about their operations.

If you are planning a hunt in the future, perhaps you may want to try OOA and see for yourself.

Happy hunting!

A new member has registered as Ex-OOA-PH, I hope he will find the time to tell something.

Ex-OOA-PH - - - - - - - - - - -

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!

I for one am really looking forward to hearing from this "member"

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
patrkyhntr,
Have you been on safari with OOA? Are you their attorney?

If you have followed this forum over the last 12 months you would be less "in denial" of what appears to be obvious about OOA.

Especially various "statements" made by Ganyana and ZATSO about their operations.

If you are planning a hunt in the future, perhaps you may want to try OOA and see for yourself.

Happy hunting!

No, I am not their attorney, nor have I hunted with them, Mich. If you read all of my posts, I am certainly not going to hunt with an outfit with a cloud of suspicion hanging over them. What I am trying to do is to exact a measure of fairness from those on this board who wish to hang SCI because they haven't done what you want them to. To decide not to hunt with an outfit because of what members of a message board say is one thing. To expell them from an organization is another. To expell them you should have proof. If we were to apply the same standards to the booking or travel agents on this board who have had rumors spread about them, should SCI expell them? I suspect that they and you would want more than rumors and assertions.
On the other hand, a cloud of suspicion is sufficient for me not to book a hunt with them. I will wait and see how this turns out. If you choose to believe everything you read on a message board, it is your choice to do so. Be aware that there are those who post here who have axes to grind, in case you weren't cognizant of that.

You imply/question that other complaints haven't been sent to the ethics commitee--that's total dung. I just received a copy of a complaint filed on July 7, 2004. I will pm you his phone number and name (if you wish)so you can varify what I say. You should call him and get a taste of his bad experience. He booked a crock and buff hunt with OAAS to hunt in Zim. I quote from his complaint, "...I arrived at our first camp to find a dilapidated, filthy, bug infested room with no hot water, no shower curtain and non-working toilet." It was a disastrous hunt for this guy; poor food, lack of fresh food etc. At one point, he was taken to hunt in an area that was illegal for them. The area was either private property, or it was a concession under someone else's control. He and the PHs were stopped and threatened at gun point! Give him a call if you wish. The complaint was filed with SCI--did you hear of this complaint from the SCI??? I think not. Alan can give more names than I, but believe me--plenty of complaints have crossed the ethics committee's desk-lack of action on their part is nothing short of being enablers for such discusting conduct. Several hunters have voiced their bad experiences on this thread and others on other threads on AR. Are you questioning their integrity--are they just "rumor mongering posts"? I don't think many people will go out of their way to share their embarassing dirty laundry--it isn't easy or fun to make it publicly known you were taken advantage of. If you have proof that many complaints have been shuffled under the rug by the ethics committee, be specific. List the names of the complainants, dates they were officially submitted to SCI, and any other pertinent information. You made the statement that there have been quite a few. Otherwise your post goes where all rumor mongering posts go[/QUOTE]

Hey - 465 H&H,

Don't be too quick to assume that the DSC is any cleaner than SCI. As I recall, some officer (I think he introduced himself as the President) of the DSC came over to Out of Africa's table at the January '04 show, to heartily endorse them to me as I was talking with them about my interests.

Gratefully, in Mid 2004, just as I was about to book with OoA, I happened to get a special report from The Hunting Report saying that OoA was being investigated. I started doing some searches on AR and found more to scare me off - looked like it went back a ways.

Ironically, when I finally made it to Matetsi for my first safari this past June, I got to hear more tales from our PHs of the havoc that OoA had wreaked during the previous year in the unit we were hunting.

Regards,

Richard Lawson
(Don't think it is apporpriate to remain anon when stating such things.)

While we are on the subject of some of SCI's blue eyed boys, has anyone heard what had happened to van der Mullen? The PH who was awarded SCI Hunter Of The year just before he ran off with so many hunters money and trophies?

Have they managed to get anything out of him?

Perhaps you misunderstand, Quickshot. I don't question that others have had bad experiences with OOAAS. What I am trying to get across is that I don't accept everything posted on a message board as factual, nor do I think SCI or any organization should expell an outfitter member without proof and due process. I never implied anything. I state what I think to be the case, and don't imply. If you say that a complaint was filed on July 7 of 2004, that is fine. It falls short of proof, because you didn't name the person who is complaining and quoted a portion of it out of context, but don't let that upset you. It is typical of those who post here.

The post that was the most factual of the whole bunch was the first one on this thread. It named names, gave dates, and was very specific as to what happened. We are told that this complaint is exactly as forwarded to the ethics committee, but only the ethics committee and the poster/complainants know that for sure. It is now up to the ethics committee to deal with this complaint.

A month or so ago, I and others who are members of SCI emailed and sent letters to SCI suggesting that it might be best not to auction off any donations from OOAAS until this matter is cleared up. I got a response email from Rick Parsons, who identified himself as Counsel to the Ethics Committee, asking that I provide him with a link to this thread, which I did. He further stated that my "information will be passed on, but due to the confidentiality restrictions of the SCI Bylaws, we cannot discuss the case with you." As a member, I feel that my concerns are not being taken lightly.

Now, let's get this straight for the last time. I am not representing OOAAS, nor am I stating that they are an ethical and/or reputable outfitter. I also am not booking any hunts with them until this is cleared up, if then. What some of you seem to have trouble understanding is the difference between an individual posting something on a message board and actual, honest to God, proof of wrongdoing that will stand up to scrutiny and challenge. If we are to believe everything on this board, and should not question anything posted, I should not book any trips with any of the booking agents who post here, nor should I book travel with travel agents who have been maligned here. Is that what you want of me? After all, if there is smoke, shouldn't there be fire also?

While the SCI ethics committee is indeed slow, it seems to function. I notice nobody questioned my statement that two outfitters were expelled by SCI, notice of which is in the October, 2005 issue of Safari Times on page 26. You might then wish to turn to page 72, on which the Ethics Committee Rules of Procedure are published. If you care to read this, please pay careful attention to sections 3 through 8.

I posted the date and said I will pm you his name and number to call if you wish. I didn't post his name because I haven't asked him for permission. Though, send me your fax number and I will fax you the complete complaint. would that help you? My point is that multiple, factual complaints have been filed over several years to the SCI --still, it seems to the casual attendee to SCI functions that OAAS is held in good standing with them. If their is so many complaints, then doesn't the SCI have a duty, ethically and morally to at least state that their are issues or complaints that they are enquiring about. Don't they have duty to help protect their membership? I do agree with you that there is a difference between an angry post and a 'filed formal complaint" and also a factual wrong doing. Documentation of wrong doing and multiple complaints from reputable members should be enough to oust any donator or exibitor--don't ya think?

quote:

Originally posted by patrkyhntr:
Perhaps you misunderstand, Quickshot. I don't question that others have had bad experiences with OOAAS. What I am trying to get across is that I don't accept everything posted on a message board as factual, nor do I think SCI or any organization should expell an outfitter member without proof and due process. I never implied anything. I state what I think to be the case, and don't imply. If you say that a complaint was filed on July 7 of 2004, that is fine. It falls short of proof, because you didn't name the person who is complaining and quoted a portion of it out of context, but don't let that upset you. It is typical of those who post here.

"Though, send me your fax number and I will fax you the complete complaint."

Since I am not on the ethics committee of SCI, what would you like me to do with it? Was it not enough that I don't question whether or not others have had bad experiences? If you would like to send me the complete complaint, could you scan it into a Word file or PDF file and email it to me? My email address is in my profile.

"still, it seems to the casual attendee to SCI functions that OAAS is held in good standing with them."

This may be true. OOAAS is not on the auction schedule, but they do have a booth at the SCI Reno Convention (should you wish to visit it, it is booth number 1939), and they also do have one at the Dallas SCI show according to another poster. I suppose that to the casual observer, this would indicate that they are in good standing with the Dallas Club as well?

You have done what you can do to publicize the shortcomings of OOAAS, as have other posters on this board. I am unsure of what you would like me to do. Do you want me to agree that if there are rumors, SCI should expell the agency or outfitter that is subject to rumors? Should SCI's ethics committee expell OOAAS without due process? If you read the material that outlines what that procedure is in the references I supplied you would understand better why this takes time to do. If it isn't fast enough for you, I suggest you join a better organization that expells outfitters and agents at the drop of a hat, that is if one exists.

There is not one organization on this planet that pleases every single one of its members as well as those who are not members. SCI does much good for hunters. Like any organization, it may have faults or shortcomings. One must decide whether those faults or shortcomings outweigh the good the organization does. If one decides at any point in time that the good does not outweigh the bad, one should not be a member. I have made that decision for myself. So should you.