First you claim what I said "falls short of proof, because you didn't name a person..." I offered proof and now you say, "what would you like me to do with it?" Let me think on that for a while. ha-ha haa -just kidding. Look, I will send you the complaint --likely later tonight. I made the offer because you are sounding so much like a politician trying spin it. no offense meant. Basically what I quoted from the complaint was short and concise and gave an overall impression of his hunt with OAAS. I am not interested in posting the whole multipage detailed report-you can understand that. You still don't seem to receptive to everyones point -which is, how many "bad experiences" does the membership of SCI have to have with any outfitter(not just OAAS) before SCI feels compelled to do something about it. We are not talking about chump change for a cup of coffee-- these hunts cost 10's of thousands of dollars. Just because someone or some company is not prosecuted for a crime doesn't mean that the SCI should give them support by agreeing to give them exibit space or allow them to advertize. I don't thing the SCI approves or supports ZIM's gov. land grab, nor is it illegal by Zim law; nor would the SCI allow the Zim gov to exibit booth space for promoting such behavior. So is it so much to ask the SCI leadership to step in and stop allowing exibitors (that they are receiving complaints on) space to sell their troubled hunts? I agree that not every hunter is going to be happy evey time even with the best of outfitters --but come on pardner, when there is a pattern of similar events and documentation to support claims of bad behavior etc.. ---enough is enough! It seems that you what to hang your hat on that there is no formal legal litigation that has been made public --I don't think that is neccessary --enough complaints in a restaurant would get the cook fired even if is food was legal --- so should such action be taken by the SCI to outfitters. Part of being a member of a group is for the group to help each other. Wouldn't the SCI membership be better served if the SCI would stop allowing troubled outfitters from selling or donating hunts at their functions?
I will stop by OAAS booth just to give them my regards --- ha-ha hahah

Gosh. Maybe I'll think about running for office, Quickshot. I'm not trying to spin anything, but if it seems that way to you, I'm truly sorry. If I were an outfitter, I would want my "day in court" before SCI expelled me, and so would you. But, as you say, that is not the point. There are lots of stories floating around these boards about OOAAS. That is sufficient (smoke, where fire might be found) for a wise hunter to consider booking elsewhere, even if the SCI or NRA or anyone else has not yet kicked them out. Should they have a booth at SCI or at Dallas? Personally, I would like the answer to be "no," but I don't know the whole story as to what it takes to deny an outfitter or agent a booth. Should you deny someone a booth because a complaint has been filed with the ethics committee, or should you wait until the process runs its course to make that decision?

I am going out for dinner now, and will read your email when I get back. I promise you I am not dismissing what you post nor what you email me out of hand. What I am trying to do is to take SCI's side of the story. If this seems like I am defending OOAAS, please don't take it that way. In no post have I recommended that anyone book a hunt with them. This is only proper, since I have never hunted with them and cannot serve as a reference. Others who have should be the ones to do the references. While there are lots of posts here, very few are by persons who have hunted with OOAAS. I would like to hear more from those who have.

enjoy dinner-- personally-- I think SCI and other organizations should just have an open format where all complaints can be requested or viewed! Maybe someone out there can get a formal change in SCI's handling of such matters --something like- any member can inquire and receive copies of any complaints filed on; any and all outfitters, safari operators, booking agents etc. That would solve lot of disputes.

SCI has a bylaw that allows for 'Emergency Suspension' if, in the eyes of the Ethics Committee and the Executive Committeee the subject poses a threat to the membership of SCI.

This provision has been used on numerous occasions to evict exhibitors from the Convention before a formal hearing can be held.

What they fear is an expensive lawsuit for restraint of trade from OOA. Add to that the threat of exposure of high officials in possibly unethical or even illegal hunts by OOA and you have a group that is nervous about proceeding without all the t's being crossed and i,s dotted.

Saeed points out David Van Der Mullen as an SCI Golden Boy gone bad. He had hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding hunts, both donated and sold when he 'retired'. Most of the money has not been recovered although their are warrants out for him still in RSA, Britain, Tanzania and the US. Along with numerous Death Threats. He was expelled from SCI. He was SCI Hunter of the Year, which means he did service for SCI and gave the incoming President a free or discounted hunt.

Saeed

The last I heard he was rumoured to be in UAE, setting up Golf Tournaments for wealthy visitors and locals. Perhaps you could check with your Golfing buddies and see if he is still around?

I guess I'll have to be on the loosing side again!
I hunted with OOA in RSA for Plains Game last year. I have no ethical complaints.
I have no idea if the proper permits/licenses etc were in place. I'm just a dumass hunter from Alaska. Does everyone here know what permits/licenses are required in the country they are hunting in? Do they ask to see the permits/licenses?
My opinion of OOA is, they went overboard to help us. We cut out hunt short and they helped us with transportation to Nelspruit. They also paid money from their own pocket to transport our trophies to Namibia to the taxidermist. (Not in the contract.)
My only complaint might be, the area we hunted in was overhunted.
I have no personal experience with them in any other country.
I would hunt PG with them again.

TJ, Dont worry about it. I dont like OOA but their problems as far as I know are not in RSA.

As to the rest of this debate I am afraid I have to agree with both Mickey and patrkyhntr. We will have to wait for the process to play out regardless of personal feelings. The one thing I dont agree with is the "secrecy clause" that everyone on the ethics committee is bound by. I am told that they can not even admit that an investigation is going on if asked. I would ask the international why the need for such secrecy? This would be especially true at the conclusion of an investigation. Wether exonerated or found guilty all the facts should be a matter of public record for the membership. I understand the need to not leak information in an ongoing investigation but once it is concluded what is the point?

Mike

If you are a Board member you can ask if their is an investigation going on. You will get a yes or no.

The reason for secrecy (confidentiality) is to protect the innocent. A lot of charges are made that are found to be baseless. When you are dealing with people's reputations and livelihoods it is important to keep things low key until guilt is established. If there is no ethical violation found than why should someone's name be drug through the mud?

One of the tennants of the Ethics Committee is that if one of the parties publicizes the complaint in an effort to bring pressure to bear or to just publicly smear the other side than the complaint can be dismissed. This is actually a violation of the Code of Conduct and the By-laws that the Ethics Committeee works under and is reason, in itself, for a complaint to be filed by the Committee.

The Ethics Committee is not a club to beat people you don't agree with.

Well, at least it didn't used to be.

It would be beneficial for the SCI organization to have more transparency in there operations. Secrecy invites suspicion and distrust. I understand that some issues should be behind closed doors on a temporary basis for many reasons, however, at some point, a complete disclosure of all matters of investigations etc. should and must be open for members to inspect.

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:
Mike

If you are a Board member you can ask if their is an investigation going on. You will get a yes or no.

The reason for secrecy (confidentiality) is to protect the innocent. A lot of charges are made that are found to be baseless. When you are dealing with people's reputations and livelihoods it is important to keep things low key until guilt is established. If there is no ethical violation found than why should someone's name be drug through the mud?

One of the tennants of the Ethics Committee is that if one of the parties publicizes the complaint in an effort to bring pressure to bear or to just publicly smear the other side than the complaint can be dismissed. This is actually a violation of the Code of Conduct and the By-laws that the Ethics Committeee works under and is reason, in itself, for a complaint to be filed by the Committee.

The Ethics Committee is not a club to beat people you don't agree with.

Well, at least it didn't used to be.

Mickey1, are you saying that by posting the complaint on this message board the poster might have given the ethics committee grounds for dismissing the complaint? If true, did the poster Alan Bunn know this before he posted it?

quote:

Originally posted by patrkyhntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:
Mike

If you are a Board member you can ask if their is an investigation going on. You will get a yes or no.

The reason for secrecy (confidentiality) is to protect the innocent. A lot of charges are made that are found to be baseless. When you are dealing with people's reputations and livelihoods it is important to keep things low key until guilt is established. If there is no ethical violation found than why should someone's name be drug through the mud?

One of the tennants of the Ethics Committee is that if one of the parties publicizes the complaint in an effort to bring pressure to bear or to just publicly smear the other side than the complaint can be dismissed. This is actually a violation of the Code of Conduct and the By-laws that the Ethics Committeee works under and is reason, in itself, for a complaint to be filed by the Committee.

The Ethics Committee is not a club to beat people you don't agree with.

Well, at least it didn't used to be.

Mickey1, are you saying that by posting the complaint on this message board the poster might have given the ethics committee grounds for dismissing the complaint? If true, did the poster Alan Bunn know this before he posted it?

May have is correct. It is up to them to act, if they choose. I don't know if Alan knew that before he put this up or not.

It all goes back to protecting the innocent. If SCI is looking for an excuse to drop this issue than this could be a legitimate reason.

If SCI uses the excuse to avoid acting on complaints, "Gee, we can't investigate or act on this issue because someone mentioned it on the internet" then, they are yellow spine cowards who deserve the bashing they are receiving! Protecting the innocent---hogwash. It is more like protecting the hunt donator at the expense of their own membership----it always boils down to money--doesn't it.

Because someone posts a complaint in a format that actually would allow SCI members a chance at seeing it (unlike the ethics committee of the SCI) doesn't excuse the ethic's committees from acting. How is the innicent protected by sweeping the issue aside?

Imagine if our crimminal justice system worked the same way--gee, the newspaper ran a story and posted a complaint of the theft in our home town--gee, I guess we can't investigate it now! What joke. I have been a member of SCI and a financial supporter for years but not sure if I will renew this year.

I also currently have membership in state and national organizations (not anything to do with SCI or hunting). What I have always noticed in leadership of large organizations is that incompetent, yellow spine individuals always hide behind rules, regs and bureaucracy as an excuse for no action -to accomplish nothing.

Hold on! -before you fire off an angry response -ha-ha! I realize that their are many good able people in the SCI (and SCI does lot of good things). My dishing remarks are only meant for those who deserve it. -ha-ha.

SCI should be first concerned about protecting its members and not its financial contributors. What goes on outside the control of the SCI should NOT influence their investigations. They should do their own analysis and determine their own findings and recommendations. All of this secrecy and can't act if someone voices opinions (or post complaints) outside the closed doors of the SCI --is quite troubling. What is this garbage. know one is to voice opinions or discuss issues/complaints without first getting permission or formal responses from the SCI-come on.

Remember, as to the OAAS complaints listed at the head of this thread, they were posted on AR well AFTER it was presented to the Ethics Committee of the SCI and only after no action or lack of response from the SCI was it posted here.

Mickey, I did ask and I got told basically by the fellow I asked that he could not even admit there was an investigation. All he could do was sit there and smile. I can tell you he has no love for OOA either. We will just have to wait and see how this thing plays out. Where I think everyone is really missing the boat is that a lot of people would come forward if guaranteed immunity. There are a lot of stories out there but no one wants to be involved officially. Hell I wouldnt want to take a chance of being drug up in court on the Lacy act. As far as protecting the innocent, if exxonerated it should be clearly stated, but I still believe this information should be available to the membership.It would become apparent who is telling the truth and who is using it as a political weapon quite quickly.

I called the D.C. office and spoke with Vincent who fields inquiries with regards to the ethics committee. He gave statements similar to what Smith reports above. He wouldn't comment on any current investigations as a matter of policy. He stated that it is SCIs policy not to indicate or comment on who is or if anyone is under current investigations. He can only comment on completed past investigations. Therefore, he would not confirm if OAAS is under investigations. He did say that the next ethics meeting is scheduled around November 8th. We will have to see if any news is released after that meeting.

quote:

Originally posted by quickshot:
I called the D.C. office and spoke with Vincent who fields inquiries with regards to the ethics committee. He gave statements similar to what Smith reports above. He wouldn't comment on any current investigations as a matter of policy. He stated that it is SCIs policy not to indicate or comment on who is or if anyone is under current investigations. He can only comment on completed past investigations. Therefore, he would not confirm if OAAS is under investigations. He did say that the next ethics meeting is scheduled around November 8th. We will have to see if any news is released after that meeting.

You have to be a BOD for SCI.

Chapter President, Reg. Rep, Director at Large, International Director, SCI Executive Committee Member.

The question is "Are there any ethics charges against OOA?"

The answer is "Yes or No."

You must be an SCI Board Member or you will not get an answer. You may not get an answer anyway as it is up to each individual member of the Committee to decide who he answers.

quote:

You have to be a BOD for SCI.

Does this mean the international or at the chapter level like I am?

quote:

The question is "Are there any ethics charges against OOA?"

The answer is "Yes or No.

Then, are we free under the bylaws to pass this info on to the membership or others? All this Big Brother stuff is giving me a headache as well as a pain in another part of the body that shall remain nameless.

quote:

You must be an SCI Board Member or you will not get an answer. You may not get an answer anyway as it is up to each individual member of the Committee to decide who he answers.

This is total BS! It is a straight forward question and should be given a straight forward answer to anyone who asks. The yes or no is sufficient in an ongoing investigation. All this secrecy and evasiveness can only serve to protect the guilty in my opinion. Even if that is not the case it certainly gives the appearance of doing so. That in itself is enough to make most people distrust the system. I agree with you that it isnt about beating up on people you dont agree with. I do however think it would be better served if the whole process were more transparent.
Mike

PS I guess I am going to have to do some serious reading of the bylaws. Nice light reading in my spare time! LOL!

I did some digging. SCI Ethics Committee assigned an "investigator" to the complaint filed. They will be examining/discussing the case at their next committee meeting slated for Nov. 8th. Out of Africa has officially responded to the charges--what the response was I haven't been able to determine.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:

quote:

You have to be a BOD for SCI.

Does this mean the international or at the chapter level like I am?

quote:

The question is "Are there any ethics charges against OOA?"

The answer is "Yes or No.

Then, are we free under the bylaws to pass this info on to the membership or others? All this Big Brother stuff is giving me a headache as well as a pain in another part of the body that shall remain nameless.

quote:

You must be an SCI Board Member or you will not get an answer. You may not get an answer anyway as it is up to each individual member of the Committee to decide who he answers.

This is total BS! It is a straight forward question and should be given a straight forward answer to anyone who asks. The yes or no is sufficient in an ongoing investigation. All this secrecy and evasiveness can only serve to protect the guilty in my opinion. Even if that is not the case it certainly gives the appearance of doing so. That in itself is enough to make most people distrust the system. I agree with you that it isnt about beating up on people you dont agree with. I do however think it would be better served if the whole process were more transparent.
Mike

PS I guess I am going to have to do some serious reading of the bylaws. Nice light reading in my spare time! LOL!

Mike

You have to be a member of the SCI BOD, the International, not a Chapter. As a member of SCI BOD you may NOT pass on any information to anyone that is not on the International BODs.

If you do you are risking being in violation of your oath of office..

Board Meetings are open to any member of SCI. At the end of most the meetings, the Board goes into Executive Session. This means only members of the Board may stay. No visitors, no staff etc. No notes may be taken or recordings made.

At this point items of confidentiality are discussed and Board informed to the extent that the Executive Committee chooses. This is where questions may be asked about Ethics Investigations. You may not leave the room and pass on the information learned to others outside of the Board. Leaking information from Executive Session is grounds for expulsion from the Board and from SCI.

I believe this is typical of a lot of BOD meetings as I am on three other boards with similiar practices.

Any update on the Ethics Committee ruling? The thread seems to indicate that a decision should be made no later than today? Has SCI finally taken a stand?
Anyone here "in the Know?"

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
Any update on the Ethics Committee ruling? The thread seems to indicate that a decision should be made no later than today? Has SCI finally taken a stand?
Anyone here "in the Know?"

Bill

Why do you assume that? The Committee will be lucky if a decision is made before May.

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
Any update on the Ethics Committee ruling? The thread seems to indicate that a decision should be made no later than today? Has SCI finally taken a stand?
Anyone here "in the Know?"

Bill

SCI would probably delay any decision so OoA can screw a few more hunters to be able to make another "donation" to SCI!

From what I have been hearing in Africa, The SCI Ethics Committee does not even know the meaning of the word!

An earlier post by Quickshot indicated the next ethics committee meeting was scheduled for about November 8th. I am well aware that SCI may not make any decisions at this time. It would seem that letting another meeting date go by without addressing this issue would tell us something about their priorities once again.

From my earlier posts it should be obvious that I don't have much faith that SCI will ever address these issues. That doesn't mean I can't keep hoping!
It would be interesting to hear if any news whatsoever regarding the OAA investigation comes from this most recent meeting.

Bill

Gentleman, Although I have no official or unofficial knowledge for that matter, I believe the behemoth is beginning to wake. It may take awhile but I have faith in the organization in the end. The are too many rumblings and a lot of pressure being brought from various sources. The organization is evolving and changing albeit vary slowly. Mark my words. I dont go out on a limb like this vary often. I predict we will see the correct thing done.

I just received info that the Zim Safari companies (& Zim gov.?) is sending letters directly to hunters who hunted with Out of Africa demanding payment for trophies and daily rates.
The Zim company is informing them that they will not release their trophies until the fees are paid.
The letter also claims that the Zim company has been writing Dawie (of OAAS) demanding payment but Dawie doesn't answer their correspondence. The clients state that they paid in full (to OAAS) for their trophies.

Looks like the clients are not going to get their trophies unless they pay TWICE by having to send money to zim!.

SCI needs to WAKE UP!

Quickshot, Do you have a copy of that letter? I would very much like to get my hands on a copy of it.

yes, I have a copy. the copy is little tough to read do to the poor fax condition (it arrived as).
pm your fax number or I can email it to you later this evening.
you got feel some pain for those guys--- They will collectively have to fork out nearly $34K in duplicate fees!!!
what a screw job!
let's hope OAAS will pay up so these guys can get their trophies!

I have been following this issue for some time. I will say up front that I am a member of SCI. I will be the first to admit that SCI does have some problems. Most of these stem from a structure that appears to be the result of the original intentions of being a wealthy man's good ol' boy hunting club that has grown beyond anything in their wildest dreams.

However, I do believe that there are enough well intentioned individuals within SCI to allow the organization to evolve the right direction. I also believe that this OoAS issue will be dealt with. But I am equally sure it won't be finished up with the speed many of you would like to see. This is pretty much the case in any form of proceedings where someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, there are unscrupulous guides and outfitters in the hunt business, just as there is in any industry. Bad car dealers, home builders, etc. will eventually be found out and run out of business. Word of mouth sharing of information (including these types of forums) does help, but it is actual proof brought about through due process that makes the difference.

For years I have been responsible for coordinating all the hunt donations for our charper fundraiser. We have auctioned off up to 80 such hunts each year. It is not uncommon to be approached by someone telling us we shouldn't sell this hunt or that hunt because someone they know had a bad experience or a disagreement with the guide or outfitter. In my experience, these claims are unsubstantiated rumors. Usually, the number of satisfied customers for any given outfitter are overwhelming compared to any complaints. It is also not uncommon for the complaints to revolve around unreasonable expectations of the hunter (wanted a 58" kudu and got only a 53" bull, etc.). I fully understand why any organization cannot make a knee-jerk reaction to rumors, but needs proof. But when that proof is in hand, the organizaton needs to act.

PHASA has charged OAAS with breaching the PHASA constitution and/or the code of conduct of PHASA members in regard to the Nave/Anczak case at the head of this thread. The hearing will be held on 13th December 2005, at the PHASA offices. Dawie Groenewald has been served.

At least PHASA is going to take a stand for ethical behavior. Hopefully, SCI will follow the same path.

I just received a copy of Safari magazine from SCI. It contains a color ad from OOA, leading me to believe that SCI still financially benefits from poaching.

I haven't heard if OAAS is renting a exhibitor booth at the Reno show.
Anyone know for sure?

On the current SCI web site they are listed as #76 on the current exhibitors list fot the show.

You must understand as much as I hate to say this, that until there is an official ruling there is no reason not to accept their ad or booth rental. Nothing can be done until they are given their day in court so to speak and due process plays out. Would I prefer they were out now? You bet! However I wouldnt have it any other way as far as everyone getting a fair "trial" or process or whatever you want to call it. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Even well intentioned people can make something right become very wrong by ignoring that fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
You must understand as much as I hate to say this, that until there is an official ruling there is no reason not to accept their ad or booth rental.

The fact is that lots of other operators are denied both booth space and advertising space on the "sorry we're full" excuse. Now keep in mind that these are legitimate companies with no cloud of criminal investigations, allegations of poaching or officially having been banned from Zimbabwe like OOA. So it's just not true that SCI's hands are tied. SCI still gives OOA preference over many companies that are not breaking the law.

I remain extremely disappointed by SCI and their "ethics" committee.

Dan, I know you were not a criminal lawyer but you still understand how the game is played. The bad guys dont play by any rules. The good guys are bound by all kinds of them. Frustrating as that is, it is the nature of the beast. You and I are on the the same page where OOA is concenered. It is just the instant gratification thing where we differ. I think all the ele hunting has gone to your head. Just kidding of course and extremely jealous I might add. There is alot more going on behind the scenes than is visible at this point. I still have faith that this thing will play out right. Have a little faith and patience. If I am wrong I will bring the pitch forks and torches.

Mike,

My point is that SCI could do more. SCI is not a court, a government agency or even a common carrier. It is a private club. And it is a private club that treats similarly situated members differently. There are a lot of safari companies that are members of SCI that cannot get booth space. Yet SCI provides booth space to OOA. It would be quite simple to tell OOA that the convention is oversold and they will not receive booth space. OOA would not have grounds to sue any more than the outfitters who are currently denied booth space can sue. The criminal laws have nothing to do with it.

The higher ups at SCI like to see those hunt donations from OOA because donated hunts are free money.

In other words, I think that SCI is being deliberatly slow about this for a reason. Meanwhile, SCI members continue to get scammed. Frankly if I bought a donated hunt at SCI, went on the hunt, and then got prosecuted under the Lacey Act, I would pursue a civil action against SCI. In the OOA case, SCI has been on notice of the illegal conduct for years but stood by and did nothing. Any good lawyer would advise his client NOT to sell a good or service which is likely to lead the customer to fact criminal charges.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Mike,

My point is that SCI could do more. SCI is not a court, a government agency or even a common carrier. It is a private club. And it is a private club that treats similarly situated members differently. .... Yet SCI provides booth space to OOA. It would be quite simple to tell OOA that the convention is oversold and they will not receive booth space. .... The criminal laws have nothing to do with it.

The higher ups at SCI like to see those hunt donations from OOA because donated hunts are free money.

In other words, I think that SCI is being deliberatly slow about this for a reason. Meanwhile, SCI members continue to get scammed. Frankly if I bought a donated hunt at SCI, went on the hunt, and then got prosecuted under the Lacey Act, I would pursue a civil action against SCI. In the OOA case, SCI has been on notice of the illegal conduct for years but stood by and did nothing. ....

500grains --well said!!

I noticed that OAAS recent ads don't list Zimbabwe anymore.
maybe to much legal trouble?

quote:

Originally posted by quickshot:
I noticed that OAAS recent ads don't list Zimbabwe anymore.
maybe to much legal trouble?

I believe so. A step in the right direction. As far as SCI not acting because of money I agree. However, with all the stories out there until just recently no one has stepped up with documented proof. It has all been he said she said type of stuff. Many of the "elite" in the organization have had a "unique" relationship with OOA and hunted with them in the past. As such they are worried and I believe rightly so.SCI may not be a court but you can be damn sure they are worried about this mess ending up in one. You had better believe that anything that is done at this point will be sure to have everything well documented. There will be no colouring outside the lines on this one. First there is the danger of lawsuits from OOA. Second we have USFW, the Zim govt types, and numerous others following this with interest. Lastly. the entire membership as well as many others are following this thing closely. Way to much scrutiny and discension among the ranks to try and pull something blatant.

Well I believe there is more to come!
PHASA is stepping up to the plate--with a hearing on OAAS conduct very soon.

There is a civil law suit being prepared right now--it likely will be filed in Nevada soon.

I understand that the Zimbabwe government is continuing to investigate the issues of OAAS and there hunting activities.

Lots of eyes watching whats developing. The next few weeks will be interesting

A year ago I would have never bet you Phasa would have ever moved on this either.

I think there is lots organizations etc. that want to do something--but know one wanted to lead or go first. Now that things are starting to break---

there could be a piling on effect. PHASA, SCI and suits etc.
sometimes it just takes a spark to get things going

I do know that OAAS is watching everything and damn nervous /upset at the recent developments.