I have a problem with Mark and that is I believe he is selfish. Anyone with half a brain knows that the future of global hunting is political and he damages our cause inestimably just to serve his own ends. Without doubt I would be happy to say this to his face and seek to persuade him to change.

That having been said, I am disappointed by what I understand his treatment to have been by SCI. If they have a problem with him they should share it with Mark officially. He should be given the opportunity to stand up for himself and argue his corner. This is nothing more than right and proper behaviour. Anything else is banana governance and damages SCI more than Mark as it renders him the victim. If they have already been through the process with him then fair enough but that does not appear to be the case.

I am no fan of Mark Sullivan. I read his book, understand his philosophy of hunting, and find it to be distasteful. Having said that, to the best of my knowledge he has violated no hunting regulations. Given that, I feel that he should be free to guide his clients as he prefers. I don't plan on being one.
Regarding SCI's actions; as a member he deserves an explanation of why he has been banned from the convention. If it is because SCI objects to the content of his videos than I would expect that the same yardstick be applied to all videos shown at the convention. His are far from the only ones featuring charges by dangerous game.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Gentlemen,

We can argue till the cows come home, and without certain answers from both Sullivan and SCI, we will never know the facts.

Agreed. The videos seem to be a bit damning for Mark. There is always two sides to the story.

Someone please explain in detail exactly what is "damning" or "damaging" about his videos?

Jeff

quote:

I have a problem with Mark and that is I believe he is selfish. Anyone with half a brain knows that the future of global hunting is political and he damages our cause inestimably just to serve his own ends. Without doubt I would be happy to say this to his face and seek to persuade him to change. That having been said, I am disappointed by what I understand his treatment to have been by SCI. If they have a problem with him they should share it with Mark officially. He should be given the opportunity to stand up for himself and argue his corner. This is nothing more than right and proper behaviour. Anything else is banana governance and damages SCI more than Mark as it renders him the victim. If they have already been through the process with him then fair enough but that does not appear to be the case.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Someone please explain in detail exactly what is "damning" or "damaging" about his videos?

Jeff

The argument goes something like this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Mark Sullivan is a hunter.
P4: Mark Sullivan doesn't kill an animal quickly on the chance of provoking a charge.
C: Mark Sullivan is damnable.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must therefore be true. However, if you agree with these premises consider this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Some hunters don't quickly kill an animal preferring that it 'get sick' first.
C: These hunters are damnable.

Or this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Bow hunters don't kill an animal as quickly as a hunter with a rifle.
C: Bow hunters are damnable.

No matter how attractive the premises may be, especially when skewering some perceived foe, you have to be aware of how those same premises might turn around and bite you in the ass. There are few saints among us and damnation by one's peers lurks around every corner - or video or post.

The bottom line? If it's wrong, then make it illegal. But if it is legal, then be very cautious before foisting your ethics upon a fellow hunter. Simple.

Personally I think that 99% of the people on this board who shit all over Marks reputation do it for popularity. To be one of the "upper class" who look down their noses and drink single malt and use phrases like "Dear Sir" or "Good day to you Sir" continually like it somehow elevates them to the "great white hunter status.

Get a life is what I have to say to you.
If you really go and look at Marks videos they are not even one Millionth as damaging as the average Youtube video and they are a lot better than most of the commercially available stuff on DVD.
Hell, there are several of the "hunting gods" right here on this site who do exactly what mark does, on video, and get nothing but a pat on the back.

The man knows more about shooting dangerous game than any of the posters on this site, bar maybe 4 and yet some pipsqueek with an impala to his name is going to sit there and give him gears for his way of hunting.

Anyway,when you have done what he can and still find it to be wrong, then please come here and tell us all how its meant to be done, but short of that you really are all out of your depth.

Good day to you "Sir"

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Someone please explain in detail exactly what is "damning" or "damaging" about his videos?

Jeff

The argument goes something like this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Mark Sullivan is a hunter.
P4: Mark Sullivan doesn't quickly kill an animal quickly on the chance of provoking a charge.
C: Mark Sullivan is damnable.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must therefore be true. However, if you agree with these premises consider this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Some hunters don't quickly kill an animal preferring that it 'get sick' first.
C: These hunters are damnable.

No matter how attractive the premises may be, especially when skewering some perceived foe, you have to be aware of how those same premises might turn around and bite you in the ass. There are few saints among us and damnation by one's peers lurks around every corner.

The bottom line? If it's wrong, then make it illegal. But if it is legal, then be very cautious before foisting your ethics upon a fellow hunter. Simple.

Kim,

A perfect response utilizing my first line of logic in this conversation.

Also my second line of logic involving method of take as well.

Jeff

Sullivan is owed and explanation.


.

+1!!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Sullivan is owed and explanation.


.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Sullivan is owed and explanation.


.

+2 Jim

All SCI members are owed an explanation!

Great posts Kim! I couldn't agree more. Sullivan is owed an explanation. If we banned someone from the Alaska Chapter SCI function we sure as hell would have the balls to tell them why.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Someone please explain in detail exactly what is "damning" or "damaging" about his videos?

Jeff

Nobody gives a damn about my opinion, and I know of no reason they should, but...

My problem with Mark Sullivan's videos is he consistently violates what I was taught is the First Rule of dealing with a wounded animal: Finish it at the first opportunity. On a buffalo, if the Pro decides to let it "stiffen up" to reduce the danger or avoid a long chase, so be it, but the first time a finishing opportunity presents itself, you take it.

In almost every MS video I've seen he makes it clear that his own personal aggrandizement is more important than finishing the animal.

All that said, he certainly deserves to know why he's being sanctioned by SCI.

After all, they aren't the NSA.

quote:

I am interested in what you think about this action by SCI

f*ck 'em

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Someone please explain in detail exactly what is "damning" or "damaging" about his videos?

Jeff

The argument goes something like this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Mark Sullivan is a hunter.
P4: Mark Sullivan doesn't kill an animal quickly on the chance of provoking a charge.
C: Mark Sullivan is damnable.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must therefore be true. However, if you agree with these premises consider this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Some hunters don't quickly kill an animal preferring that it 'get sick' first.
C: These hunters are damnable.

Or this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Bow hunters don't kill an animal as quickly as a hunter with a rifle.
C: Bow hunters are damnable.

No matter how attractive the premises may be, especially when skewering some perceived foe, you have to be aware of how those same premises might turn around and bite you in the ass. There are few saints among us and damnation by one's peers lurks around every corner - or video or post.

The bottom line? If it's wrong, then make it illegal. But if it is legal, then be very cautious before foisting your ethics upon a fellow hunter. Simple.

Kim, great analogy. Let me add a couple of more. Trapping. Is there anything akin to hunting that can compare to trapping in terms of the infliction of undue pain and suffering? You would be hard pressed to come up with something in my view. Yet, trapping enjoys its own forum on AR and no one is calling for the suspension of all trappers from SCI, DSC and other hunting organizations. Long distance hunting. Shooting at elk, mule deer, antelope, etc. at 600 yards is guaranteed to mean that at least on some occasion an animal is going to wounded, some will be wounded and lost. There are simply too many variables at play to suggest that shooting game at 600 yards is fail safe . . . and some would argue humane. Yet, long distance shooting is not only surviving, it is thriving and guess what, there is forum on AR for long distance shooting and hunting. My point is simply that there is clearly a double standard when it comes to those that want to hide behind the cloak of an argument that Mark should be drawn and quartered because in their view he allows animals to suffer (which is an argument by the way that I think is merely a pretense to cover more pity reasons why they complain about Mark). If they really feel that way, then let's hear some vitriol and condemnation of bow hunting, pig sticking, long distance hunting, trapping, . . .

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

Or this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Bow hunters don't kill an animal as quickly as a hunter with a rifle.
C: Bow hunters are damnable.

A body shot animal can run just as far regardless of whether it was hit with broadhead or centre-fire.

Bow hunters are somewhat restricted to body shots, yet centre-fire users have the power/projectiles to reach the brain/CNS.

Essentially,body shot game takes longer to die and consequently suffers more before expiry.
Does that make people damnable for choosing the prolonged suffering body shot?

a PH who encourages or allows their client to take body shots, is in fact responsible for inducing more pain and suffering
on the animal, Yes?

So it seems there are many more people to castigate than just MS!


Maybe someone from the gallery can answer the following:

Q./ what is the acceptable time lapse for animal to expire from a body shot, and still be deemed humane killing?

Q./ I recall a report on a buffalo cull hunt where person shot a string of buffalo spread out over a couple hundred yds,
and was then required to eventually walk down the line of wounded animals and finish them off...
Is that any more/less humane than the way M.Sullivan hunts??

If i was Mark Sulliven i would send SCI a legal notice asking why they should not be taken to court & also demand refund of all donations & membership fees.

SCI would not want this to go to court 7 nor would Mark.

Stuff like this annoys me because it is just the kind of fodder that Antis thrive on.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Someone please explain in detail exactly what is "damning" or "damaging" about his videos?

Jeff

The argument goes something like this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Mark Sullivan is a hunter.
P4: Mark Sullivan doesn't kill an animal quickly on the chance of provoking a charge.
C: Mark Sullivan is damnable.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must therefore be true. However, if you agree with these premises consider this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Some hunters don't quickly kill an animal preferring that it 'get sick' first.
C: These hunters are damnable.

Or this:

P1: If a hunter inflicts undue pain and suffering on an animal he is damnable.
P2: Not killing an animal quickly is the deliberate infliction of undue pain and suffering.
P3: Bow hunters don't kill an animal as quickly as a hunter with a rifle.
C: Bow hunters are damnable.

No matter how attractive the premises may be, especially when skewering some perceived foe, you have to be aware of how those same premises might turn around and bite you in the ass. There are few saints among us and damnation by one's peers lurks around every corner - or video or post.

The bottom line? If it's wrong, then make it illegal. But if it is legal, then be very cautious before foisting your ethics upon a fellow hunter. Simple.

Kim, great analogy. Let me add a couple of more. Trapping. Is there anything akin to hunting that can compare to trapping in terms of the infliction of undue pain and suffering? You would be hard pressed to come up with something in my view. Yet, trapping enjoys its own forum on AR and no one is calling for the suspension of all trappers from SCI, DSC and other hunting organizations. Long distance hunting. Shooting at elk, mule deer, antelope, etc. at 600 yards is guaranteed to mean that at least on some occasion an animal is going to wounded, some will be wounded and lost. There are simply too many variables at play to suggest that shooting game at 600 yards is fail safe . . . and some would argue humane. Yet, long distance shooting is not only surviving, it is thriving and guess what, there is forum on AR for long distance shooting and hunting. My point is simply that there is clearly a double standard when it comes to those that want to hide behind the cloak of an argument that Mark should be drawn and quartered because in their view he allows animals to suffer (which is an argument by the way that I think is merely a pretense to cover more pity reasons why they complain about Mark). If they really feel that way, then let's hear some vitriol and condemnation of bow hunting, pig sticking, long distance hunting, trapping, . . .

Mike makes point 4 and 5 of my argument. My 3 point which has not yet been pointed out is the shooting profieciency of the average hunter. For the sake of argument, lets confine the points made for now to African hunting. We have all heard the stories of clients with varying degrees of ineptitude. So rhetorically speaking how much suffering is caused by poor or inept shootin? Should not basic skills be required and demonstrated?

So MS closing immediately on a beastie rather than waiting prolongs what exactly?

Jeff

quote:

We have all heard the stories of clients with varying degrees of ineptitude. So rhetorically speaking how much suffering is caused by poor
or inept shootin? Should not basic skills be required and demonstrated?

As I've posted to say several times in the past;
- There are legal minimum calibre/power requirements for certain classes of game,
but no law in place stating that a person must have a minimum hunter skill & competency, before venturing afield.

Its quiet legal to be an incompetent hunter that wounds game, just as long as you do it with at least the minimum legally
required calibre or larger.

I believe MS has himself stated that his clients are hopeless lousy shots. He aint breaking any laws by accepting such clients.
and MS is far from being alone,
Tell me of any PHs that have rejected a clients money, because the client was inept.

Kim: you speak with logic and are correct.
Ian: you speak with emotion and are correct.
Cheers, gents,
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Trapping. Is there anything akin to hunting that can compare to trapping in terms of the infliction of undue pain and suffering? You would be hard pressed to come up with something in my view. Yet, trapping enjoys its own forum on AR and no one is calling for the suspension of all trappers from SCI, DSC and other hunting organizations.

+1, Mike. Your's is a devastating example of the hypocrisy at play regarding Mr. Sullivan. (I wish I had thought of it.)

hypocrisy has ALWAYS been SCI's long suit and i am still waiting for the SCI cheerleaders to explain why it isn't hypocritical, since club officers get a pass to do as they please.

Does anyone think that an anti-hunter, or non committed person is going to dissect MS or any other hunting video and discern the differences in "animal cruelty" issues?

Be realistic.

Jeff

Got an email from someone suggesting that many PHs have complained to SCI about Mark silly antics.

Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.

Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????

Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?

"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

Nice quote, thanks for sharing. Sounds like someone I would like to hunt with. I will leave it to other hunters on AR and their PHs to snipe buffalo for fun.

Sounds like a professional hunter I'd like to hunt with personally. Some of that is bravado of course to be "taken with a grain of salt", but some is not. I agree with Mark in that I have no interest in shooting DG from afar. And in the grand scheme of things, his walking up on a wounded animal right away, as opposed to allowing it to stiffen up and "get sick", often closes the chapter in shorter order.

But then again, this is nothing that hasn't been said before. Round and round we go ... bla, bla, bla! But Saeed, it must be a terrible choice for you in this case. Which one to bash? SCI or Mark Sullivan?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Got an email from someone suggesting that many PHs have complained to SCI about Mark silly antics.

Ah, the smoke clears and the truth is laid bare: Mark Sullivan has been banned from SCI, not for the commission of an illegal act, but for committing "silly antics"! It now makes sense!

So, we have a Professional Hunter who donates tens of thousands of dollars to SCI, becomes a paid-up life member, and is then banned from both exhibiting and even attending the annual convention because his less-successful competitors find his completely legal style of hunting "silly". And here I mistakingly thought SCI's Secret Sanctions Police were simply being unscrupulous, capricious, unethical, fickle, ungrateful, cowardly, and underhanded.

As an aside Saeed, would you happen to know whether SCI has a 'Ministry of Silly Antics' that adjudicates cases like this?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Round and round we go ... bla, bla, bla!

Sort of ironic, the more the evangelist preaches, the fewer the converts. Can I get an Amen?

AMEN Brother Jines!!!

I do believe. I believe I'm booked with MS in 2015

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Got an email from someone suggesting that many PHs have complained to SCI about Mark silly antics.

Ah, the smoke clears and the truth is laid bare: Mark Sullivan has been banned from SCI, not for the commission of an illegal act, but for committing "silly antics"! It now makes makes sense!

So, we have a Professional Hunter who donates tens of thousands of dollars to SCI, becomes a paid-up life member, and is then banned from both exhibiting and even attending the annual convention because his less-successful competitors find his completely legal style of hunting "silly". And here I mistakingly thought SCI's Secret Sanctions Police were simply being unscrupulous, capricious, unethical, fickle, ungrateful, cowardly, and underhanded.

As an aside Saeed, would you happen to know whether SCI has a 'Ministry of Silly Antics' that adjudicates cases like this?

I have never kept it a secret that Mark and I have a business relationship (I sell his DVDs) and more importantly we have become friends over the many years that we have known each other. With that disclosure, I have to say there have been many interesting posts and perspectives. I have enjoyed reading them and look forward to reading more. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I have always enjoyed reading Kim’s narratives. They are nicely articulated and usually always manage to convey the essence of a concept(s) delivered clear and concisely. Though you may or may not agree with some aspects there are generally always excellent points to contemplate before reaching a conclusion.

In 2010 I wrote a three page letter to SCI. I addressed the letter to then President Lawrence Rudolph and Ccd Ron Arendt, Ron Bartels, and Terrence Cummins. I captured various aspects of the SCI decision that I believe needed addressed openly.

The letter covered many areas. I described how I felt compelled to write and express my concerns from both a personal perspective as well as my professional capacity representing my company.

I went on to describe how the absence of Nitro Express Safaris at the 2010 convention was noticed and negatively commented on by many attendees whom I personally spoke with during the convention. I also noted that many SCI members and non-members were commenting on public forums regarding this action by SCI and how it is viewed as unfair, unsubstantiated, and unprofessional. This is based on the lack of an explanation or supporting evidence to substantiate such an action toward Nitro Express Safaris. I mentioned that voiced by many are concerns of "If this can happen to Mark Sullivan/Nitro Express Safaris, what can we expect of future SCI action toward less well known individuals without the apparent documented facts to support suspension and/or due process?"

In my letter, I took liberty to describe my concern regarding this topic based upon my personal interaction with Mark Sullivan as well as my professional dealings with Nitro Express Safaris. I went on to share my experience to illustrate the impact that Mark Sullivan has had on me both as an individual interested in dangerous game hunting and as a company owner. I have been told by many who have interacted with Mark Sullivan on a personal level that my experience, as I described it, was not unique.

I went on further to say that I hope SCI has not been persuaded to take action against Mark Sullivan based upon views by those who might see his professional work as insurmountable competition or worse yet, in opposition to his style of hunting, up close and on equal footing with the animals he pursues. If this is so who might be next, a young up-and-coming professional hunter or someone well known? This is a slippery slope in my opinion and with all due respect, one area where SCI should carefully tread.

I made it clear that I do not march blindly on behalf of others simply from receiving a kind word or encouragement to proceed. I will however speak up loudly for those who appear to have been wronged either personally or professionally. Mark Sullivan deserves a detailed explanation for the actions of SCI as does SCI's membership. If they cannot be provided, Mark Sullivan and Nitro Express Safaris should be immediately reinstated with full privileges.

An action of this magnitude should not be taken without strong evidence and an opportunity for full due process. Anything less is an insult to what SCI stands for in the eyes of many of her members and in the spirit of her bylaws.

As I and many others have experienced, and as I described in my letter, Mark Sullivan and Nitro Express Safaris has helped in recruiting new SCI association members while stimulating interest in hunting Africa's dangerous game.

SCI is correct in investigating any well documented complaints received against any individual or company that is a member of SCI. I do not believe SCI should apologize for taking any immediate action that is within the scope and spirit of the bylaws if that action is well supported with substantiated facts. However, if a matter is still under investigation, it should be clearly substantiated and fully investigated as soon as possible or rescinded immediately if a lack of corroborating facts exist. This will keep member confidence strong within the association and is a standard that anyone being investigated should expect to receive by SCI.

I respectfully requested that SCI discuss thoroughly and openly with Nitro Express Safaris the exact nature of this action including all substantiated facts gathered by SCI in the course of its investigation. Any remaining concerns, if they exist, should be openly discussed and any necessary remedies should be clearly outlined and defined for Nitro Express Safaris.

Finally, as a member of SCI, I respectfully requested information regarding the action being taken against Mark Sullivan and Nitro Express Safaris. I asked for a reply from SCI that defines the nature of the ongoing investigation by her board or committee, and any substantiated information that might be useful to me as a member in good standing. I also requested that SCI provide the details of this action and investigation directly to Mark Sullivan and Nitro Express Safaris. They, as the focus of this action, deserve no less.

In closing, I noted that I was not solicited by or requested to write my letter on behalf of Nitro Express Safaris or Mark Sullivan. My desire to contact SCI was based upon my personal and professional experiences with Mark Sullivan and a desire to share that information with SCI.

To date I received no official reply from SCI. In 2013 during the SCI Convention, I had this same letter hand delivered to Craig Kauffman during a meeting that I was unable to personally attend. I have not yet received an official or unofficial reply.

Shawn

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Following is part of a letter he posted on AR.

Is this really written by a PROFESSIONAL HUNTER????

Or a self glorifying idiot who think he is in a Hollywood movie which has absolutely no relations to the truth?

"...I suppose the reason why a great many people hate me and my movies, for lack of a better description, is I do what I do because it is who I am. Just as it may be your nature not to take chances, which makes you who and what you are. I love the confrontation. I seek it. I enjoy a fight to the death. I relish the idea that if I perform poorly I die a horrible death. I’m attracted to the cycle of life and death. I often try and get as close to death as I can, crossing the line if I choose, just to get a good whiff. Last season I enjoyed four outstanding life and death charges with as many clients. No cameraman was present. Each client came away with a life defining experience. Each one would do it again if given the opportunity.

I know my manner and method of hunting is controversial. Yet, in my opinion, it represents the finest hunting there is. I honor the life I am about to take by offering my life in return. I can offer no more and therefore give hunting my all. If I fail to kill, I die. It is as simple as that. If we are to believe in the sport we call “dangerous game hunting,” then why do so many do everything in their power to remove as much danger as possible? Why call it dangerous game? Why not call it “least dangerous” if the object is to remove all danger? Why criticize me for accepting the danger in our sport? I do not like killing. I do like hunting—there is a difference. Anyone can kill a wounded Cape buffalo standing his ground 40 yards away. In my opinion, to do so is killing. On the other hand, to walk up and let that magnificent animal decide how he is to die in battle is great hunting. If you lack courage that is something I cannot help you with. But to condemn me because I have the courage you lack is unfair and unjust..."

Astonishing. I couldn't make up riper parody than that if I intentionally tried to lampoon the guy.

But how SCI can justify banishing him from attendance at the convention is beyond me.

MS deserves an answer.

But to attack various forms of harvesting is short sighted by those who enjoy another type of harvest.

We had DU members here in NJ that protested the bear hunt as vial. They asked, "how could anyone kill such a gloriously beautiful animal?". Guess male hoodies and woodies aren't that beautiful.

There is way too much emotional/physical feelings attributed to animals by many on this post. Have you ever heard a deer yell "OW!" when they hit their shins on a guardrail when failing to completely clear it on a minus 10 degrees night. I hear the sound of shins often, but miss the exclamation of pain every time. My God, if it were my misfortune, I'd be on the ground or dancing around yelling in pain.

As a trapper I've seen and/or heard all the horror stories, some true and the result of careless uneducated trap layers. Most of the stories are rehashed PETA talking points repeated by those who have no idea how to properly set a species specific trap in a populated area. I've yet to see or hear exclamations of pain from any animal I've trapped. The only chew outs I've heard of are the result of using too large/strong a trap. It brakes the leg and allows the animal to twist or chew it's leg loose. Not the act of a responsible trapper. If I were not a Libertarian, I'd say that traps couldn't be sold to un-registered, un-certified trappers.

Again, our idea of pain and suffering does not translate to animals.

Yet to this end, it is our solemn responsibility to harvest animals as soon as possible. If a shot fails to harvest the target animal, human logic must determine the best course to bring that animal to bag. It usually doesn't involve camera setup, lighting changes and explanations as to how to complete the harvest. That should have occurred minutes earlier.

Video cameras in the hands of idiots have done more to harm many aspects of our lives. If it is extremely re-play worthy, it's usually worth passing legislation to regulate or eliminate it. It'll be our own fault for bringing attention to it in the first place.

So don't watch it, and never ever forward and post to a u-tube or head book site.

Lastly, my Pop, who held a very public position in a town of 9,000, used to say "What you hear in the house, Stays in the house."

My apologies in advance to all those I just offended. I'm just sorry I didn't offend even more of you.

I just started watching Mark's new DVD while on the tread mill. Have not seen the whole thing but so far the only hunt I had a problem with is the captive bred lion hunt in SA. He tried to make more of that hunt than there is. Other than that he seemed like he would be great to hunt with. Maybe that opinion will change by the end of the DVD but right now I was presently surprised given what I had read about him here. I wish Mark the best.

i can't say i am surprised( in reference to Shawn's post above). 3-4 years ago when i cancelled my SCI membership i laid out in a letter my specific complaints- re. the pitiful excuse of an Ethics Committee that was anything but ethical. i also pointed out that if they checked their records, they would see i had purchased well over $50,000 in donated hunts, art work, knives, etc. at the convention auctions. NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM ARIZONA!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
i can't say i am surprised. 3-4 years ago when i cancelled my SCI membership i laid out in a letter my specific complaints- re. the pitiful excuse of an Ethics Committee that was anything but ethical. i also pointed out that if they checked their records, they would see i had purchased well over $50,000 in donated hunts, art work, knives, etc. at the convention auctions. NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM ARIZONA!

And you won't. Jerry, you may or may not remember, I publicly renounced my SCI membership right here on AR. I didn't just say I won't renew, I gave them my membership number and told them why.

I, being in Phoenix had more than one, toe to toe, face to face stand off with officers from Tucson. They were coming to our functions. Mark was the subject of many of those rather enthusiastic confrontations.

I was told, in no uncertain terms, SCI is a club. Mark does not deserve and will not receive an explanation of his expulsion.

SCI has lost its way and is run in a very closed society, good ol' boy mentality. The Presidents aren't voted for, it is merely who's turn is it next.

SCI will contact members who refute their memberships publicly. If you want to make a difference, renounce here publicly, with your ember number. They phoned me after I did.

i did that, Steve, making the initial announcement here- but i didn't include my membership #. i laid out in full detail in the letter to them my reasons. it's interesting that the president is chosen by the board of directors(no membership vote) 3 years in advance and simply climbs the hierarchy ladder afterward, with NO OPPOSITION. you are correct- it is an "old boys club" that answers to no one.

quote:

SCI has lost its way and is run in a very closed society, good ol' boy mentality. The Presidents aren't voted for, it is merely who's turn is it next.

This is nothing new Jerry!

Ever heard of the infamous inner circle?

I reckon its not just the Captain that gets elected but also his staff who are accordingly groomed - a bit like African politics

Where has one heard of a Member's Club whose membership has no voting rights ..... none that I know, with the possible exception of SCI.

quote:

SCI has dealt unfairly and out of policy in how they have treated Mark Sullivan.

That is correct, I see it exactly.

SCI had done great thinks for wildlife, hunter, gun-owners, pp.

But here they must correct that case and say sorry to Mark.


Best wishes.

The "B."

If you want to contribute and know it will go towards good causes, Conservation Force or the new DSC Frontline sound like good options.