As I have stated elsewhere, I think BWW is a major problem. They can't be gone soon enough for me. However, I do have concerns over the hammering of outfitters. If the goal of all of this is to have a negative impact on BWW, I wonder if an alternative approach might be better.

Specifically, I am thinking of putting together a package on this matter setting forth all that happened in chronological order, complete with documentation. In addition, obtain a petition requesting SCI to review the matter. This petition would be signed by SCI members complete with membership numbers.

I have to wonder what kind of response would be obtained if we were able to obtain a LARGE number of signatures?


I do think that we have to realize that if the BWW contract is properly written (from their perspective) , there may be no basis for any of this. It is a complete waste of time if the client executed a contract that BWW complied with and exercised their rights under the contract.

What are your thoughts?

Agreed Larry and a proper way to settle the issue. Consider me in on the petition.

Great idea Larry. I will sign it.

Larry,

I am in. If necessary, I will toss in the disputed $500. My Usangu complaint was not limited to myself.

Jeff

I think targeting BWW instead of the outfitters is the proper approach.

Several of those outfitters have pretty dang good reputations.

I'm all for impacting BWW book of business and hopefully potential clients will utilize other agents (if they use them) but I think focusing on the outfitters is a bit misguided.

I would join SCI again to sign the petition

I will sign it. If just to get all the facts out in the open by an investigation as there maybe something that we all do not know. Not defending BWW as I thought they were the spam kings of the hunting industry before all of this.

Count me in......Tom

Sure can't hurt and might help. I will sign.

Count me in Larry.

+1!

quote:

Originally posted by David Culpepper:
I will sign it. If just to get all the facts out in the open by an investigation as there maybe something that we all do not know. Not defending BWW as I thought they were the spam kings of the hunting industry before all of this.

I totally agree. When this first went down, I got a whole bunch of info. I had court records with all of the legal issues involving Heathington & Blair. I do not recall the contract.

It is POSSIBLE that the clients signed a contract which totally protected BWW. If so, we all need to forget the matter.

I can tell you that I have absolutely refused to sign certain waivers before because they were way too broad. Did that happen here? No idea.

You can add my name to the list.

I have been following the other related thread and was getting sick of the outfitter bashing.
I found it almost like bullying that the easiest target was being targeted.
I'm glad that a more positive attitude is being taken and that a more appropriate avenue is now being pursued. If I were still a member of SCI I would be signing the petition.

I'll sign the petition.

I recall receiving an email from BWW with hunt listings. I responded to them with the $70K thread and told them just as soon as they resolved this issue, I would take a look at what they had to offer. I haven't heard a peep from them since. I guess I was removed from their mail lists.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by David Culpepper:
I will sign it. If just to get all the facts out in the open by an investigation as there maybe something that we all do not know. Not defending BWW as I thought they were the spam kings of the hunting industry before all of this.

I totally agree. When this first went down, I got a whole bunch of info. I had court records with all of the legal issues involving Heathington & Blair. I do not recall the contract.

It is POSSIBLE that the clients signed a contract which totally protected BWW. If so, we all need to forget the matter.

I can tell you that I have absolutely refused to sign certain waivers before because they were way too broad. Did that happen here? No idea.

Larry,

You are correct. And as everyone knows, just because something is legal does not make it moral or ethical. Sometimes there are different threshholds. Our elected leaders seem to dance this line often.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
It is POSSIBLE that the clients signed a contract which totally protected BWW. If so, we all need to forget the matter.

I can tell you that I have absolutely refused to sign certain waivers before because they were way too broad. Did that happen here? No idea.

Good points, however, we are not filing suit against BWW. Rather bringing an ethics complaint. As far as SCI is concerned, ethics is the issue. Will they consider the legal agreement? Probably to some extent.

I'm in, even if the clients signed a broad waiver.

I will also sign it.

Thanks gentlemen.

I want to pose a question. BY my count, there were less than 20 people willing to sign. I believe we need more, A LOT MORE.

If I put this thing together, how many of you are willing to work to obtain signatures? BY work, I mean contact your friends as well as spread the word on other forums.

I believe we need a number of signatures that is so great that SCI can't ignore the matter.

Finally, how do you all feel about non SCI members signing? My feeling is the more the merrier. However, I feel that an SCI member signature will carry more weight than a non SCI member signature.

Larry - I am pretty certain that if you present the info you will get a lot of signatures. 50 SCI member signatures will count for a LOT in my opinion.

I would like to get a lot more than 50.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Finally, how do you all feel about non SCI members signing? My feeling is the more the merrier. However, I feel that an SCI member signature will carry more weight than a non SCI member signature.

Larry, I would be happy to sign . . . and to work on gathering some signatures.

Regarding the foregoing, I think having non-members sign is fine and in many cases would be appropriate. My guess is that there are a number of folks that are either former members of SCI or folks that refuse to join SCI over just these sorts of issue, e.g., Out of Africa, BWW. So from that perspective these are definitely people that SCI should not ignore.

I'd also be happy to sign IF (note the big IF) the issue had been properly investigated by a suitably qualified person here first to ensure there's not more to the issue than has been publicised.

For example, if there was no contract or the cancellation etc didn't breach the contract then that might give me cause to reconsider.

Former member, would be happy to sign.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
I'd also be happy to sign IF (note the big IF) the issue had been properly investigated by a suitably qualified person here first to ensure there's not more to the issue than has been publicised.

For example, if there was no contract or the cancellation etc didn't breach the contract then that might give me cause to reconsider.

+1 i am a life member

Yep seems like a lot of folks have a case of butt against BWW because one other has a case of butt against BWW.

I'll sign it.

I'll sign the petition also

I am going to e mail the family and seek information. If they provide it, I will prepared the complaint, the petition and put the info package together.

The e mail has been sent.

Thanks Larry.

I am a Life Member and will be happy to sign your petition.

I am a life member and will sign.

I'm in.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Count me in as we'll.

Don't know if it makes a difference or not, but I am a life member of SCI and as indicated above, I will sign the petition.

I will happily put the package together, pay the fee and deliver it. However, the family must first approve it AND provide me documents. I have sent an e mail this morning.

I have no reply as yet.

I could choose to not deal with them at all if the wankers at SCI or DSC hadn't provided them my contact information. As is, I get all-to-regular emails and phone calls despite my request to remove me from their contact list.

Former member; I will sign.

quote:

Originally posted by Acer:
I could choose to not deal with them at all if the wankers at SCI or DSC hadn't provided them my contact information. As is, I get all-to-regular emails and phone calls despite my request to remove me from their contact list.

You sure someone didnt hit your pass barcode at an SCI convenntion. A third party may have sold it to BWW? I doubt SCI or DSC woulld sell it - or else we would all get bombarded by every second peddlar.

The family has yet to respond to my e mail. Their approval and cooperation are absolutely necessary to proceed.