This was off Mark Sullivans web site(nitro express safaris). This is a total shame what is happening to Mark Sullivan,this is what happens to someone when people assume and slander someone,with no evidence,Good luck to you Mark.



S C I - 2 0 1 0

U P D A T E
as of June 25, 2010


A Personal Letter

To all of my loyal Customers, Hunting Clients and Friends

I purposely have not updated anyone to my SCI situation believing, if not hoping, that SCI would finally come to their senses and invite me back. Sadly, this has not been the case. For reasons known only to the Executive Board they continue to "black ball" me. Here are the facts as I know them. You can judge for yourself.

In early December of last year, after my return home from Tanzania, I called Larry Rudolph, President of SCI on his cell phone. If nothing else I felt I was entitled to an explanation. After several unsuccessful attempts to reach Larry I began to wonder if I would ever speak to him. I did not leave voice mails. I believed he would not return my call if he knew it was me who was calling. Eventually, Larry called back. He did not know he was calling "me." The moment he called I confirmed I was indeed speaking to Larry Rudolph, President of Safari Club and then I identified myself as, "Mark Sullivan, Professional Hunter—the guy you kicked out of SCI." Larry corrected me by saying I wasn`t "kicked out of SCI but merely not invited to participate as an exhibitor to the Convention." While technically this is a true statement, it was sour grapes nonetheless. I asked him, "Why?"

For the next twenty minutes he would not tell me nor would he explain SCI`s position. Throughout the conversation Larry was very professional and polite. I cannot and will not say otherwise. At the same time, he would not or could not explain why? What Larry did say is, "at the next Executive Board meeting in February, he would walk shoulder to shoulder with me, friend to friend in front of the board, and support me 100% to get me back into SCI." I responded by thanking him. I affirmed I would be happy to attend. Then Larry mentioned that "It`s the videos that are the problem" and asked, "Would I still be willing to exhibit if I couldn`t show my movies?" I responded immediately by saying "yes." I told Larry I would exhibit anyway SCI wanted, with or without my movies, just so long as I was included. With that Larry was positive there would not be a problem. I confirmed again that I would agree to anything SCI wanted or demanded. The call ended with Larry saying he would get back to me in plenty of time for the meeting in February.



Enlarge Image



The days and months passed without a word. Not a call, not even an email. Zip, nada, nothing. I decided to attend on my own. After all, my good "shoulder to shoulder" friend Larry Rudolph would be there. On February 18 I flew from my home in Alabama to Phoenix, Arizona. The next morning I took an early flight to Las Vegas and at exactly 8:35 am I walked through the doors of the Executive Board meeting room at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and stood quietly in the room. I did not cause a disturbance. I simply waited for someone to address me. That person was none other than Larry Rudolph. He immediately escorted me out of the room and into the hallway and asked, "What are you doing here?"

I told him, "I wanted back in like we spoke about, that at the least I wanted someone to tell me why the Executive Board kicked me out. Why after 33 years am I being treated like this and, oh, by the way, since I have not committed one game violation, have not been accused of any wrong-doing whatsoever, have not had any ethical violations brought against me by anyone, on what grounds does the Executive Board have to kick me out?" I went on to say, "Larry, if I have done one thing wrong, if you can tell me one thing I have done to offend anyone, anytime, anywhere, I will turn around and leave this place and never bother you or SCI again." Larry looked at me and said nothing. He knew I was right.

Larry then said he would call me before the end of the day to tell me if the Board would agree to see me and when. I asked if he had my cell number and he said no. I then opened my wallet and gave him a business card. I thanked him for his time and understanding and confirmed I would wait for his call and be ready at the drop of a hat. Larry turned and walked back into the room.







I was not convinced Larry would call me. I felt it was just an easy way for him to get rid of me. Call me "old fashioned" but Larry`s suggestion to call me when he didn`t have my phone number did not pass the smell test. I decided to sit in the hallway just outside the meeting room and wait. The meeting rooms at the Mandalay Bay are down a long flight of stairs below ground level. The hallways are wide and vast. The ceilings are so tall they could accommodate three giraffes mounted one on top of the other without worry about touching the paint. The bathrooms, I noticed, were down the hallway 40 paces. I sat and waited where anyone who needed to make the trip would conveniently see me. It wasn`t exactly leopard hunting, lying in wait, but it was close to it. I would sit all day if I had to.

The first one to exit the meeting room and make it to the men`s room was someone I knew, a past president of SCI. I walked over to say hi. His greeting was cold. Not because of me, I assure you. He did not want to talk. I asked for his help, but he said he had no influence and could do nothing. I reminded him that he helped me before when SCI had done the same thing to me five years earlier. He shrugged his shoulders and left. Ironically, it was this same man who had given me Larry`s private cell phone number and suggested that I call, using his name if need be.



Enlarge Image



Next to come out was another past SCI president and someone I knew. I went to greet him. Once again, I was met with the same resistance. He told me he was only there to make a presentation, then leave. He understood my situation, but was not willing to help. He wanted no part of me or my problem. He left.

At 12:30 pm the meeting began to break for lunch. A professional looking woman walked up to me and introduced herself as the attorney for SCI attending the board meeting. She asked me, "Why are you here? Your attorney has been contacted weeks ago and knows everything. You should talk to him." I asked for clarification, more specifically, who it was who contacted my attorney, his name and phone number. She wrote it down for me. I told her that I was certain no such contact had been made with my attorney. She suggested that I call him and she would check with the Board and get back to me after lunch with further information. I called my attorney and gave him the details of my conversation. He said he had never been contacted but would call the attorney and get back to me.

Just as I ended the call, a man who I will not identify, walked past me and nodded as if he wanted to talk. I moved to greet him. He said we couldn`t talk here but to follow him in two minutes up the stairs and not let anyone see me. I did as asked.

I found him waiting for me partially hidden from view behind a large column. He told me everyone in the board room was instructed not to talk to me. That if anyone did, they would be asked to leave. They may even be removed from office for the offense. He told me he knew my entire story, but that he could not divulge any of it to me. It was privileged information. He did say it was all political. I had enemies within the Executive Committee that wanted me out of SCI and that was that. Even though they had never hunted with me, even though they had never spoken with me, or had ever had contact with me, they wanted me out of SCI permanently. It was no more complicated than that. He said there was nothing he could do. It was out of his hands. I thanked him for the information and we parted company.

I returned to my seat in the hallway. My attorney then called to report he had spoken with the SCI attorney in Tucson, Arizona. Despite what SCI had just told me, the attorney in Tucson had not called my attorney nor had he ever heard of my attorney and had no idea what his call to him was about. In effect, what I was told by SCI`s attorney in Las Vegas was an outright lie. Her representation to me that my attorney knew everything was not true. No such call had ever been made.

Prepared with this latest information I anxiously awaited her return. In due course, she arrived. I told her what I knew. She could not believe what I was saying. She was sure this had been handled weeks before because of what she had been told by the Executive Committee. The expression on her face told me she was sympathetic to my situation. She then told me that she had just been directed by the Board to tell me from this moment on I was "officially" banned from ever being an exhibitor. That the Board`s decision was final, they will not hear your case, will not let you appeal. With that she turned to leave when I asked her for a moment of her time.

I could tell she was upset with being lied to by the Board. I explained in detail my side of things, both conversations with Larry Rudolph, and all that had occurred. I asked if nothing else, could I get an official explanation from SCI. She promised she would have her partner in the Tucson law firm, who was closer to the problem than she, call my attorney within two weeks with a formal declaration of my expulsion. To date, I have yet to hear a word. That was over four months ago.

An interesting side note to all of this. Larry Rudolph`s main concern in our December phone conversation were the movies; "it`s the videos!" Once I agreed not to show them as a condition to exhibiting at the Convention, all was good. Or so I thought. Yet at the 2010 Convention with me gone, my movies were openly on sale on the convention floor with a hi-lite tape showing buffalo and hippo charges, one after the other, and large poster size signs of my most famous movies in plain view. If SCI`s contention were the movies, why then were they allowed to be shown and sold? The hypocrisy is astonishing.

I am not one to make waves. I go about my business quietly yet professionally. This year, for instance, I have more safaris and clients than I have had in 20 years. Although SCI has decided to ban me as an exhibitor, the world`s hunting public endorses me all the more. I have always loved SCI and always will. I welcome the day I should be invited back.

Remember, shoot straight and let them come close. That`s what I do.

Thank you very much and have a great day.

With Best Regards,

Mark Sullivan

Professional Hunter

Doesn't exactly give you a warm fuzzy feeling for SCI does it? Whether you like MS or not, this does not seem to be the way to handle such a long time supporter/member.

From what little I know about the animal cruelty video issue that went before the Supreme Court, perhaps the videos were an issue. They are a little graphic clearly showing animals suffering. That is pure speculation on my part though.

This has all the ingredients and key words to make this thread an AR bitchfest of epic proportions.

SCI is in the wrong here, no matter if you like MS personally, his methods of hunting, or his videos.. the way SCI is handling this is childish at best.

All the best, Mark.

Larry, glad to see that you are back. How was Argentina?

My thought on this is that we are reading purely a Mark Sullivan side of the issue. I am sure there is another side. While I am not always in agreement with SCI I still as you fundamentally support them. I think they should be more agressive at driving the hunting community towards ethical hunting, standards, etc. than they are. Look how long it took to get a position on OOA which we know was the worst. Mark might do a lot of good things and be a good hunter but he still dramatizes the anguish of the wounded animal when it could be much simpler and more humane. This is to me done just to sell Videos and build up his ego. i have not bought a Mark Sullivan video in 5 years and will not buy one again. Simply, I think he deserves the punishment but also deserves to know why and we all need a way to "get out of jail through good behavior" so let him know what it is.

Just my thoughts,

larry

Personally, I beleive every word to be true. Mark called me the day after this happened in Las Vegas and recounted it as written above, verbatem. I have found stories over time change, if they are embellished.

I know Mark is a hot topic around here. Given a chance he would be liked and respected by most if not all posters.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
Larry, glad to see that you are back. How was Argentina?

My thought on this is that we are reading purely a Mark Sullivan side of the issue. I am sure there is another side. While I am not always in agreement with SCI I still as you fundamentally support them. I think they should be more agressive at driving the hunting community towards ethical hunting, standards, etc. than they are. Look how long it took to get a position on OOA which we know was the worst. Mark might do a lot of good things and be a good hunter but he still dramatizes the anguish of the wounded animal when it could be much simpler and more humane. This is to me done just to sell Videos and build up his ego. i have not bought a Mark Sullivan video in 5 years and will not buy one again. Simply, I think he deserves the punishment but also deserves to know why and we all need a way to "get out of jail through good behavior" so let him know what it is.

Just my thoughts,

larry

Yet another debate of ethics amongst people who kill for pleasure? How many guys wait for a buffalo to "stiffen up a bit" before following up.

Mark may be on one side of the pendulum, but he is in fact one of our peers and just like Andrew Baldry and his writings about his distaste for the sporting use of dogs. They are all opinions, emotions and feelings.....but they need not split a family.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Doesn't exactly give you a warm fuzzy feeling for SCI does it? Whether you like MS or not, this does not seem to be the way to handle such a long time supporter/member.

Some time back someone poster a few quotes from one of his books. MS was recounting how he and his wife "roared like lions" as they watched some famous hunting personality(CB?) shoot a double while wearing a "recoil bra".

He sounded like a horse's backside.

I'm amazed at how different his tone is when he wants something.

Gotta say, I agree with Nganga on this one. To know Mark a bit personally, is to know a totally different person than the one portrayed in his videos. Honestly, I don't agree with everything he does, and I would not do it like that myself. But, I do think the man deserves better than this. He makes a great argument about his videos at SCI however. I believe its "Outdoor Visions" that is showing and selling them, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
Larry, glad to see that you are back. How was Argentina?

My thought on this is that we are reading purely a Mark Sullivan side of the issue. I am sure there is another side. While I am not always in agreement with SCI I still as you fundamentally support them. I think they should be more agressive at driving the hunting community towards ethical hunting, standards, etc. than they are. Look how long it took to get a position on OOA which we know was the worst. Mark might do a lot of good things and be a good hunter but he still dramatizes the anguish of the wounded animal when it could be much simpler and more humane. This is to me done just to sell Videos and build up his ego. i have not bought a Mark Sullivan video in 5 years and will not buy one again. Simply, I think he deserves the punishment but also deserves to know why and we all need a way to "get out of jail through good behavior" so let him know what it is.

Just my thoughts,

larry

Yet another debate of ethics amongst people who kill for pleasure? How many guys wait for a buffalo to "stiffen up a bit" before following up.

Mark may be on one side of the pendulum, but he is in fact one of our peers and just like Andrew Baldry and his writings about his distaste for the sporting use of dogs. They are all opinions, emotions and feelings.....but they need not split a family.

Steve

Good point Steve, We have debated Mark S. and his style or proported style of hunting before, so I wont go into that. I do believe he deserves his day in court.

I think this is why the Dallas Safari club is growing so fast. When you have leadership that does not answer to it membership, membership declines.

Shame on you SCI!

So according to all you expert hunters, should a guy get kicked out of sci if he wounds any animal and is not recovered? When a wounded animal is not recovered is not the animal suffering? So what is the difference between MS and the thousands of hunters who wound animals? I am lost.

If you have seen one MS gory video you have seen them all. I think it is demeaning to the animals in those videos.
I find them distasteful, as I did the first one I saw a snippet of at SHOT Show in 1995.
I very much prefer to do all my own game shooting.

He appears, in video, as someone who provokes charges so he can "assist" the client.

He is also, to the best of my knowledge the only PH who requires clients to sign a non-disclosure form.
There's likely a good reason for that.

that's just me, what I see and what I hear.

Rich
DRSS

I stopped my SCI membership 5 years ago and have never looked back. Not because of Mark Sullivan, I know nothing of his plight nor care other than to see him dealt with squarely as I would wish to be if I were in his shoes.
Inner Circle bull shit an all that rubbish turned me off.

quote:

Originally posted by capebuf:
Just as I ended the call, a man who I will not identify, walked past me and nodded as if he wanted to talk. I moved to greet him. He said we couldn`t talk here but to follow him in two minutes up the stairs and not let anyone see me. I did as asked.

I found him waiting for me partially hidden from view behind a large column. He told me everyone in the board room was instructed not to talk to me. That if anyone did, they would be asked to leave. They may even be removed from office for the offense. He told me he knew my entire story, but that he could not divulge any of it to me. It was privileged information. He did say it was all political. I had enemies within the Executive Committee that wanted me out of SCI and that was that. Even though they had never hunted with me, even though they had never spoken with me, or had ever had contact with me, they wanted me out of SCI permanently. It was no more complicated than that. He said there was nothing he could do. It was out of his hands. I thanked him for the information and we parted company.


I welcome the day I should be invited back.

This doesn't past the smell test either mate. MS, it seems you must rely on the SCI conventions for a large part of your business.

After being treated the way you claim, I'd be moving on if I was you.

There is always DSC and the African Sporting Gazette shows.

If after decades of SCI involvement you don't have a large support base then I'll say again, move on.

If Mark has given us a true account of what happened it is just another display of the arrogance in SCI that has turned me off on them.

465H&H

I have never wanted to hunt with MS. I have met him and stated my concern over his videos.

However, it appears that SCI has violated their own policy and procedure in how they have handled the rejection of MS and I do not understand why this is the case. According to my understanding of the SCI rules, he should have been informed of any charges against him and offered the opportunity to appear before the ethics committee to answer the charges. Any decision to expel him should not have occurred until after this process had taken place. The decision to suspend or expel him should then have been published in Safari Times.

None of the above has happened in this case, and as I've already stated, I don't understand why and wonder under what procedures, if any, authorized the treatment of Mark in such a manner. I expressed my concern over this issue to an SCI regional director at the convention and he had no answer and claimed that no information had been disseminated to SCI staff on the MS issue. Very strange indeed.

I have asked this question before.....Who is the senior official in the Republican or Democrat party who is so influential in SCI? I know that Bush Sr & Cheney were members and I presume many others are as well.

This whole subjects stinks of the highest level of bully politics & not a hunting / sporting club. I am sure it also involves some big money & probably another outfitter / PH competing with MS at the same top end of the market. I have a funny feeling the OOA crowd might know a lot about this as they have great influence in the SCI board and even some share holders I gather.

There are three sides to every story; yours, mine, and the truth. From what I've read on AR, seen with my own eyes, heard through friends, and learned the hard way I'm guessing Mark is probably the closest to the truth in all this. Agree with his video persona or not (and I’m sure it’s just a persona) the way he recounts being treated is not the way anyone should be treated.
If anything else can we all agree on that before we go off on random side topics about, well, whatever you call the rabbit chasing that often appears on these forums.

By the way, I’m drinking a Land Shark beer. It was on sale at my local grocery store. It has a good, clean taste…what the hell? See what happens on these forums! I just succumbed the AR topic sidestep fever.

Speaking of fever, one time when I had the flu…

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Gotta say, I agree with Nganga on this one. To know Mark a bit personally, is to know a totally different person than the one portrayed in his videos. Honestly, I don't agree with everything he does, and I would not do it like that myself. But, I do think the man deserves better than this. He makes a great argument about his videos at SCI however. I believe its "Outdoor Visions" that is showing and selling them, as well.

+1

I find his videos a rather ridiculous and disingenuous reason for his expultion. Especially when you consider the fact that they were displayed at several booths. My understanding is that if SCI doesn't name a reason and just refuses to allow him Mark has no grounds for litigation. As to the idea that the animal cruelty issue had something to do with it I don't know. I doubt it had anything to do with it THEN. NOW it has absolutely NOTHING to do with it as the supreme court rejected the New Jersey law as unconstitutional due to it's vagueness and wide spread application. Regardless of what you think about Mark's videos I think we should all agree that anyone who has been such an outspoken supporter of conservation and a financial supporter of SCI deserves better!!! At least that's what I think.

Brett

idahosharpshooter quote "He is also, to the best of my knowledge the only PH who requires clients to sign a non-disclosure form.
There's likely a good reason for that".Hear is one good example of assumtion and BS,Mark doesnt do anything of the such...........

in a vaccum, it sounds like a rawdeal. I don't care for how MS hunts, though he should be treated fairly and even handedly - those who consider him an enemy or are personally involvd at that level should excuse themselves and allow him to be heard. allowed to confront accusors ad witnesses .. just the american way.

sci is a club, plain and simple.. and a public club, as there's no vetting to get in ... banning him and IF the misdirection is true, is just crap.

The non-disclosure form issue is troubling. Idaho, how certain of that are you?

That issue aside, unless Mr. Sukllivan is simply making up facts out of the whole cloth, the only word that comes to mind descriptive of SCI's behavior is "chickenshit."

AR is not, I don't think, a forum generally populated by bumpkins and long-term welfare recepients. Contempt for SCI's conduct, at least on this thread, is almost unanimous. I will be very interested to see if any official SCI muckety-muck posts on this. Any side bets on that?

I guess SCI cannot come out now and say they are kicking him out due to his videos after allowing him to air them all these years! Whatever MS's videos and ethics are about that's not the issue here. The issue is why can't SCI come straight and give him a reason and say you are banned because of XYZ.

I don't like The way Sullivan hunts... nor do I like shooting moose out of a helecopter in Russia and the putting those trophies in a record book, nor would I ever consider having a person convicted of federal game violations on the EC of a large hunting organization.
Call me crazy that way.
The latter two are apparently not a problem in the current SCI.

I think MS should be given an answer either way... you suck and we hate you or your hunting meathods are offensive and we reserve the right to be hypocrites

I dont like MS nor the way he hunts. Never have never will. That said he got screwed. My big problem with SCI and the so called ethics committee is all this secrecy BS! Everyone and I mean everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and due process. The committee makes the excuse that it protects those who are unjustly accused. Bullshit! To all of you jaspers on the committee get your heads out of your asses and do the right thing here and in the future. IMO every case should be public and if found fualtless or guillty so stated. The only thing all this secrecy does is prevent everyone from knowing the truth good or bad. It more than likely protects those at the top who are guillty of wildlife law infractions or want to use their political influence to settle scores. I think it is time the membership pushed for the bylaws to be changed and this issue addressed.

I have talked to two people who have hunted with Mark Sullivan, both in the late 1990's. Both said they were required to sign a non-disclosure form after they landed in Africa. Before MS would leave hunting camp. He had his attorney there, and that was the deal.

Personally, I would have said "Fine, take me back to the airport and refund my money." If that had not occurred, I would have wallpapered the hunting community with that form. We did not have AR to safeguard us by allowing an injured party to air their grievances in those days. What would a client have done then?

There have been two posters who doubted this. Neither, however, said that they had hunted with him or even knew anyone who had. I am asking anyone who actually paid to hunt with him if they were asked to do so. Of course, if the non-disclosure contract does not allow that either, how will we know?

Others here have also stated that MS is a much different person than the one you see in videos. So, is he schizophrenic, or some actor; playing a part and putting on a show for $$ and ego? Better yet, which MS is the real one? Many of you have met me at the Hoot-n-Shoot in Houston or at SCI. See any difference? Same ___________ (fill in the blank to suit).

Either way, how do you know which MS you get on any given day?

Whatever, he's like a baseball that Albert Pujols hits solidly. He's gone and he ain't coming back to the game...

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Others here have also stated that MS is a much different person than the one you see in videos. So, is he schizophrenic, or some actor; playing a part and putting on a show for $$ and ego? Better yet, which MS is the real one? Many of you have met me at the Hoot-n-Shoot in Houston or at SCI. See any difference? Same ___________ (fill in the blank to suit).

Rich,
So are you schizophrenic in "real life" as well or just here on AR?

for the SCI executive committee to make any kind of ethics objection about anyone is simply astounding, when you consider that past President Mike Simpson and multiple record book entrant Dan Duncan admitted to shooting moose and sheep from a helicopter in Russia. their excuse of course was that since a Russian game dept. official was with them and said it was OK- THEN, WELL HELL, IT MUST HAVE BEEN OK!!!! there is legal and then there is ethical. SCI never did a damn thing about something that is a gross breach of their own written code of ethics.

I believe he may infact make clients sign something in the even that video taken on their hunt is used in a movie they release all rights to it. I don't think it has to do with anything else other than his movies. Never the less even if I don't agree with everything he does I can't help, but admiring the man to some degree. I've read both his books. The second is a little preachy, but the first is excellent. I think one gains a much better understanding of Sullivan after reading his books. Any man who has such a passion for fair chase hunting in wilderness areas with English double rifles is OK in my book!!!!!!!!!!

Brett

Dealing with few people who have also hunted with MS, I contacted a couple and asked about the non disclosure form. Both replied that the only form they signed was regarding video footage shot on their hunts. This basically stated that the footage could not be SOLD to other commercial entities for profitable purposes. Basically my understanding is that it is simply a copyright agreement.

Would be happy to hear from anyone who has any other info.

I do beleive that every person has the right to object to any form of exclusion, especially when they are not given a reason for that exclusion.

I would think that there must be some form of disciplinary committee which forms part of the executive and that in order for a MEMBER to be banned or forcibly excluded, then some form of proceedure would have to have been followed.

I would be very interested to hear from anyone with a legal backround whether this is an infringement of either MS personal rights, or in fact of SCIs own regulations governing membership..........or perhaps they are just so big they dont care

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
I would be very interested to hear from anyone with a legal backround whether this is an infringement of either MS personal rights, or in fact of SCIs own regulations governing membership..........or perhaps they are just so big they dont care

I believe that's exactly the point. SCI is a private club. If they say keep out they are fine. But if they give him a reason they give him legal fodder. Hence the silence.

Brett

Thanks Brett

As a Club, do the members of said club not have any recourse to a ban or exclusion, and furthermore, does the Club executive not have to follow a laid down proceedure.

If they dont,then surely they can exclude anyone, on any grounds, at any time , irrespective of wrong doing or not. Does payment of a Club membership not entitle Members to some form of protection/explanation(assuming that MS is in fact a current paid up member)

Maybe "someone's" inner circle buff isn't being counted because Mark shot it...

Maybe OOA is planning to rename itself and relocate to Tanzania (Nitrous Oxide Safaris)...

There obviously isn't a defensible reason why he was kicked out. Either someone just doesn't like him or it would have repercussions for people in that board room. Never met the man but would never book with him.

Go to his website and read what he wrote about his brown bear hunt. I believe many will find another side of him that you did not believe existed.

A lot of people bitch and moan about SCI for what I think are ridiculous reasons. Some can't or won't comprehend the required methods of financial reporting. Some can't or won't comprehend the lack of visibility and importance of lobbying efforts. However, this type of thing and the OOA fiasco should really bother us all. Personally,I am also PO'ed with them for failing to respond to an e mail about OOA.

I hope SCI is forced to tell their story one day.

quote:

This was off Mark Sullivans web site(nitro express safaris). This is a total shame what is happening to Mark Sullivan,this is what happens to someone when people assume and slander someone,with no evidence,Good luck to you Mark.

My full support to Mark Sullivan, I really enjoy hunting with their DVD dangerous. I hope everything is clarified and justice.

Sincerely,

Oscar

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I have talked to two people who have hunted with Mark Sullivan, both in the late 1990's. Both said they were required to sign a non-disclosure form after they landed in Africa. Before MS would leave hunting camp. He had his attorney there, and that was the deal.

Personally, I would have said "Fine, take me back to the airport and refund my money." If that had not occurred, I would have wallpapered the hunting community with that form. We did not have AR to safeguard us by allowing an injured party to air their grievances in those days. What would a client have done then?

There have been two posters who doubted this. Neither, however, said that they had hunted with him or even knew anyone who had. I am asking anyone who actually paid to hunt with him if they were asked to do so. Of course, if the non-disclosure contract does not allow that either, how will we know?

Others here have also stated that MS is a much different person than the one you see in videos. So, is he schizophrenic, or some actor; playing a part and putting on a show for $$ and ego? Better yet, which MS is the real one? Many of you have met me at the Hoot-n-Shoot in Houston or at SCI. See any difference? Same ___________ (fill in the blank to suit).

Either way, how do you know which MS you get on any given day?

Whatever, he's like a baseball that Albert Pujols hits solidly. He's gone and he ain't coming back to the game...

Rich
DRSS

rich, no offense -- this rant has nothing to do with SCI not giving him, from the ETHICS committee, a fair shake .. don't care if you LIKE him, the question is, did MS get a fair shake by the ETHICS/Exec committee or was he repeatedly lied to?

Using the "FIND" function on this forum for Mark Sullivan I find 760 matches on 38 pages.

WHY THE ASTONISHMENT AT WHAT SCI HAS DONE?

The man has been villified & found guilty by the court of AR trial members. The SCI body (judge) has passed sentence & now the JURY DOESN'T LIKE THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS.

Idaho, Mark Sullivan doesnt make his clients sign any non-disclosure form,also Mark is the same in-person as in his videos,this is how rumours and assumptions spread with no evidence what-so-ever,I will give you an example of someone on this site that started a rumour that Mark Suillvan charges his clients an extra $50k to have a buffalo charge so the client can shoot it,when i heard that i almost fell off my chair with laughter,that is pure slander,anyway i have had many conversations with mark and i know what he is like,i dont need to say anymore,Mark has done alot for the hunting world,thats a fact.........

Sorry if I missed something in the previous posts but it seems the gist of this entire thread is that SCI has not told MS what he has done wrong. MS does have detractors just as every single one of us on AR do. The point is that most people who post on AR have the courage to say what the feel and voice their opinions. If MS has crossed a line, then SCI should at least advise the man of the charges. If found guilty of the charges so be it. But silence in the face of questions is not justifiable.

Please read the post by MS and try to respond accordingly. The SCI Ethics Committee has nothing to do with this, there was no ethics violation or censure by the Ethics committee. You folks have your committees mixed up. It's the Executive Board, Executive committee if you will that is involved with the MS explusion.

Maybe this is why we always hear the negative crap from non members? They don't have a clue to how the organization is even set up!!

MS is getting a raw deal in my opinion and I in no way agree with what is going on with this. Whether you like or dislike MS and the way he does things, the way the Executive Board is handling this is making SCI look real bad!! I'll put my 2 cents worth in to SCI, that's all I have, and hope someone there is smart enough to see this is not the way to conduct business?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Perhaps it is not SCI's direct interpretation of MS's business practices. They may see him as being a liability from outside influences such as PETA, etc. who see him as a villan of sorts (their opinion)
They may be just trying to avoid the perception of association, warranted or not (Risk analysis).