quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
At this point I would not hunt with Greg until I knew more about what actually happened, but I would not hunt with Karl regardless of what happened. Not because he reported a possible violation, which I believe is the correct action to take, but rather because he reported it and then saw fit to gloat about it to prospective clients before anything was proven and apparently use the emails as his marketing material.

Sir, please allow me to correct you. Karl NEVER gloted nor did he use this info as a marketing tool. He was genuinely pissed off that Pennicott was hunting an area for which Karl has the rights. I think anyone put in that position would feel the exact same way. What would you have him do when someone poached his area? Say nothing?

A group of us had a discussion of the matter. We were all sent the e mails for our own information. Again, he had no ulterior motives. None of these e mails would ever have been made public were it not for this thread which neither myself nor Karl started.

If nothing else, I have concluded that I would personally never hunt with Pennicott. We (all hunters) place a lot of trust in these outfitters. They can get us in trouble quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
At this point I would not hunt with Greg until I knew more about what actually happened, but I would not hunt with Karl regardless of what happened. Not because he reported a possible violation, which I believe is the correct action to take, but rather because he reported it and then saw fit to gloat about it to prospective clients before anything was proven and apparently use the emails as his marketing material.

Sir, please allow me to correct you. Karl NEVER gloted nor did he use this info as a marketing tool. He was genuinely pissed off that Pennicott was hunting an area for which Karl has the rights. I think anyone put in that position would feel the exact same way. What would you have him do when someone poached his area? Say nothing?

A group of us had a discussion of the matter. We were all sent the e mails for our own information. Again, he had no ulterior motives. None of these e mails would ever have been made public were it not for this thread which neither myself nor Karl started.

If nothing else, I have concluded that I would personally never hunt with Pennicott. We (all hunters) place a lot of trust in these outfitters. They can get us in trouble quickly.

Karl has every right to stop anyone hunting on HIS concession.

Anyone doing so without his permission is nothing but a poacher.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Trax

I am pretty sure you need a permit to enter Arhnemland so everybody who enters should be
on the permit.

BUt who the hell really always knows where people can end up venturing/misadventuring [legally or illegally]
if they privately travel by means of a couple of choppers in a remote area?

legitimate general entry permits alone[for Arnhem Land] are not proof of any specific illegal activity,
or where it may have specifically taken place.

People in the travel party are the ones who can strongly verify who was or was not there,
as can the Pilots, who can also accurately verify where they landed,e.g; Muran clan land.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Sir, please allow me to correct you. Karl NEVER gloted nor did he use this info as a marketing tool. He was genuinely pissed off that Pennicott was hunting an area for which Karl has the rights. I think anyone put in that position would feel the exact same way. What would you have him do when someone poached his area? Say nothing?

Boddington idolisers feel that their desire to protect him from any possible tarnish of his reputation [by association]
somehow takes precedence to a legitimate hunting concession holders attempts to look after his own legal & rightful interests,
that appear to have been infringed upon by another guide.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

In approximately 2009 the commercial operators contracts (PDAHS and Brenton Hurt) in the park expired and new contracts went out for tender. In 2010 no hunting was conducted in the park. After the tender applications were awarded he park was split into 3 concessions, which corresponded to the three traditional clan groups in the park.

One area was one by the owners of seven sprit bay resorts this is the area that Matt graham uses. One area to Benton hurt that never used it for commercial hunting

The 3rd was adjoined the park boundary was awarded to Solomon Cooper who has until this point has not executed the agreement, I was at one point partners with Solomon but never executed the contract. He then became partners with Greg P under the name of Australian Muran Banteng hunting and that contract is still not yet executed at the time this was written.

So who was whose partner when?

Seems (if Karl can be believed) that no one signed a contract, but partnerships changed anyway. And Solomon now likes Greg as a partner more than Karl.

Man, I don't even know what to think of this mishmash of muddled information.

Much less whom it's now okay to criticize and whose ass it's now okay to kiss.

If I ever again express any interest, please remind me never to consider hunting in Australia.

Except with Matt Graham!

This conversation has gone from the ridiculous to the absurd. Clients have to put a little faith into the concept that the professional they are hunting with is acting legally. I do not idolize Mr. Boddington or anyone else, but to keep accusing him or anyone else, other than the outfitter involved, of illegal activities without any actual proof is not accomplishing anything, other than the suggested attempts to discredit Mr. Boddington in the eyes of the hunting public.

This discussion is giving all hunters a black eye.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

If nothing else, I have concluded that I would personally never hunt with Pennicott. We (all hunters) place a lot of trust in these outfitters. They can get us in trouble quickly.

This is a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Regarding the frocking incident, that is old news. The only reason that came up was, again, someone in a post raised the issue of Craig's military rank. The facts of the incident are well known and have been well reported. But for some to suggest that it was trivial or based on a technicality is being dismissive of something more serious.

Boddington was acting on the direction of his commanding officer. After a lengthy official investigation he was not punished. I think it is fair to call his part in the incident was trivial.

Wonder if those involved considered the incident trivial . . . I think probably not.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
This conversation has gone from the ridiculous to the absurd. Clients have to put a little faith into the concept that the professional they are hunting with is acting legally. I do not idolize Mr. Boddington or anyone else, but to keep accusing him or anyone else, other than the outfitter involved, of illegal activities without any actual proof is not accomplishing anything, other than the suggested attempts to discredit Mr. Boddington in the eyes of the hunting public.

This discussion is giving all hunters a black eye.

May be we should look at the positive side to this.

Sending a message to all crooked outfitters and PHs - IF any illegal activity was involved here - that we as hunters are not going to keep quiet about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

Boddington idolisers feel that their desire to protect him from any possible tarnish of his reputation [by association]
somehow takes precedence to a legitimate hunting concession holders attempts to look after his own legal & rightful interests,
that appear to have been infringed upon by another guide.

Trax I certainly can't speak for anyone except myself, but even though I do not believe Craig did anything illegal at least knowingly. That fact doesn't mean I'm an IDOLISER and certainly doesn't mean I would cover for him or anyone else if I knew they had knowingly participated in an illegal hunt. I would turn him in myself! So my fine friend you need to narrow that paint brush you paint with so it doesn't include me. I'm in my 77th year of life and have been hunting on my own since the age of six years on my grandfather's Texas hill country ranch, and have never knowingly broken a game law in my life. It may just be a Texas thing, but I don't like poachers and trespassers even less. Sir I worship no mortal man, but I do respect people I believe to be honorable! That includes Craig Boddington!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

Boddington idolisers feel that their desire to protect him from any possible tarnish of his reputation [by association]
somehow takes precedence to a legitimate hunting concession holders attempts to look after his own legal & rightful interests,
that appear to have been infringed upon by another guide.

Trax I certainly can't speak for anyone except myself, but even though I do not believe Craig did anything illegal at least knowingly. That fact doesn't mean I'm an IDOLISER and certainly doesn't mean I would cover for him or anyone else if I knew they had knowingly participated in an illegal hunt. I would turn him in myself! So my fine friend you need to narrow that paint brush you paint with so it doesn't include me. I'm in my 77th year of life and have been hunting on my own since the age of six years on my grandfather's Texas hill country ranch, and have never knowingly broken a game law in my life. It may just be a Texas thing, but I don't like poachers and trespassers even less. Sir I worship no mortal man, but I do respect people I believe to be honorable! That includes Craig Boddington!

Mac,

I don't think people like you and me are included in the "idolizer" lot

I have never idolized anyone in my life, and I am not about to start either.

As I mentioned previously, Boddington was not the one who was hunting.

So this has absolutely nothing to do with him.

And taking my own experience in hunting, where I put all my trust in my PH. In many concessions that I have hunted several times, I know here the boundaries are.

On other concessions, I have not the foggiest idea where the boundaries are until I am told of them.

Hence so many on this discussion putting the blame on the PH, rather than the client.

quote:

May be we should look at the positive side to this.Sending a message to all crooked outfitters and PHs - IF any illegal activity was involved here - that we as hunters are not going to keep quiet about it.

That thought I can agree with and support. The continuing insinuations that Boddington was involved in some manner, other than just being there possibly, is what I feel needs to be eased up on. From what I have read in this discussion, Boddington has not been pronounced guilty except by a few people that I believe are more interested in discrediting the man than finding out who is actually guilty of what. JMO.

7 pages of pure horse shit.. this is amazing you lot are worse than a bunch of old women who have nothing better to do than spread gossip and total bull shit.

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
7 pages of pure horse shit.. this is amazing you lot are worse than a bunch of old women who have nothing better to do than spread gossip and total bull shit.

Howard Johnson is Right!

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
7 pages of pure horse shit.. this is amazing you lot are worse than a bunch of old women who have nothing better to do than spread gossip and total bull shit.

I predict 12 pages at least.

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
7 pages of pure horse shit..

...on a thread all initiated by Craig Boddington himself titled 'BODDINGTON ON ILLEGAL HUNTING'

quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
Last August I hunted with Greg Pennicott, a good outfitter who has been in business a long time. I don't claim to know all the nuances of Australia's rules with their introduced animals, but I do have a good sense of geography, and I am firmly and completely confident that the hunt was absolutely legal in the area where it was conducted.

If I was truelly so firmly and completely confident that the Pennicott run hunt in August, [not even relating to Banteng],
was absolutely legal, then I would have found no need to intentionally postpone the shipment of Buffalo trophies.
That fact that CB did postpone even the Buffalo trophies, indicates to me that he began to doubt that Pennicott run hunts,
are as 100% legal as claimed.
IF past clients genuinely begin to entertain the notion that there is a risk/possibility that another unrelated hunt run by Pennicott
could also have been illegal,
then indeed,the intelligent thing to do,would be to postpone shipment of ones trophies, till all things are properly and legally clarified.
Such [over precautionary?] decisions by a client indicate to me a new found lack of faith in the integrity of the PH/guide involved.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Words dont really mean much.
ONe either has valid written[contract?]permission from the Muran clan,
or permission from the exclusive clan approved permit to hunt holder,.. or you don't.

Trax

I'm not trying to justify anything, just pointing out how murky this has got.

Not taking sides, I know how things up there
are with the NLC and T/O's (Traditional Owners).


Also, you said "Words dont really mean much. ONe either has valid written[contract?]permission from the Muran clan, or permission
from the exclusive clan approved permit to hunt holder,.. or you don't."

which goes against what Karl said in that he had a contract.

So IF someone did give Greg P permission, well, .................

You know how things work up there Nigel.... Then you will also know that a spoken agreement is not what the NLC recognise.... And I'm sure all reputable outfitters are aware of that.

Sad post really, for CB. NLC, TO's and outfitters need to get their shit together.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark R:
You know how things work up there Nigel.... Then you will also know that a spoken agreement is not what the NLC recognise.... And I'm sure all reputable outfitters are aware of that.

Sad post really, for CB. NLC, TO's and outfitters need to get their shit together.

Yes, very much so. Also agree with your last statement.

I also have seen a PH built up over the hard years a base and an area with an agreement and then in one fell swoop, that's it, situation changed, he's out as is a much longer standing fisherman outfit.

Why hasn't this thread been moved to the Aussie fourm? See nothing concerning Africa to warrant it being here.



Larry Sellers

Karl's permit

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
At this point I would not hunt with Greg until I knew more about what actually happened, but I would not hunt with Karl regardless of what happened. Not because he reported a possible violation, which I believe is the correct action to take, but rather because he reported it and then saw fit to gloat about it to prospective clients before anything was proven and apparently use the emails as his marketing material.

Sir, please allow me to correct you. Karl NEVER gloted nor did he use this info as a marketing tool. He was genuinely pissed off that Pennicott was hunting an area for which Karl has the rights. I think anyone put in that position would feel the exact same way. What would you have him do when someone poached his area? Say nothing?

A group of us had a discussion of the matter. We were all sent the e mails for our own information. Again, he had no ulterior motives. None of these e mails would ever have been made public were it not for this thread which neither myself nor Karl started.

If nothing else, I have concluded that I would personally never hunt with Pennicott. We (all hunters) place a lot of trust in these outfitters. They can get us in trouble quickly.

Karl has every right to stop anyone hunting on HIS concession.

Anyone doing so without his permission is nothing but a poacher.

Saeed and Larry,

I agree with what Saeed posted 100% which is why i stated in my post that I believed reporting the suspicion was the correct thing to do.

Larry, I have always followed your posts and appreciate the information you provide, but I do not share your views on this issue. It does not appear to me that it is proven that Pennicott is hunting his area, and that Karl is smearing a lot of people before anything is proven. If everything is proven, I will damn sure condemn Pennicott as a worthless poacher as well as anyone who knowingly participated with him, but I have yet to see any proof in anything you have posted.

I stand by my statement that regardless of how this turns out, I would never hunt with Karl because of the way this has been handled: a lot of useless drama and unproven accusations. Judging from his actions our personalities would not be a good fit.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
At this point I would not hunt with Greg until I knew more about what actually happened, but I would not hunt with Karl regardless of what happened. Not because he reported a possible violation, which I believe is the correct action to take, but rather because he reported it and then saw fit to gloat about it to prospective clients before anything was proven and apparently use the emails as his marketing material.

Sir, please allow me to correct you. Karl NEVER gloted nor did he use this info as a marketing tool. He was genuinely pissed off that Pennicott was hunting an area for which Karl has the rights. I think anyone put in that position would feel the exact same way. What would you have him do when someone poached his area? Say nothing?

A group of us had a discussion of the matter. We were all sent the e mails for our own information. Again, he had no ulterior motives. None of these e mails would ever have been made public were it not for this thread which neither myself nor Karl started.

If nothing else, I have concluded that I would personally never hunt with Pennicott. We (all hunters) place a lot of trust in these outfitters. They can get us in trouble quickly.

Karl has every right to stop anyone hunting on HIS concession.

Anyone doing so without his permission is nothing but a poacher.

Saeed and Larry,

I agree with what Saeed posted 100% which is why i stated in my post that I believed reporting the suspicion was the correct thing to do.

Larry, I have always followed your posts and appreciate the information you provide, but I do not share your views on this issue. It does not appear to me that it is proven that Pennicott is hunting his area, and that Karl is smearing a lot of people before anything is proven. If everything is proven, I will damn sure condemn Pennicott as a worthless poacher as well as anyone who knowingly participated with him, but I have yet to see any proof in anything you have posted.

I stand by my statement that regardless of how this turns out, I would never hunt with Karl because of the way this has been handled: a lot of useless drama and unproven accusations. Judging from his actions our personalities would not be a good fit.

.

Sir, that is your right and I respect your opinion. Another docuement will be posted, probably tomorrow that might change your mind.

I would like to add that Karl had exactly ZERO to do with my posting this information. None zero.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
At this point I would not hunt with Greg until I knew more about what actually happened, but I would not hunt with Karl regardless of what happened. Not because he reported a possible violation, which I believe is the correct action to take, but rather because he reported it and then saw fit to gloat about it to prospective clients before anything was proven and apparently use the emails as his marketing material.

Sir, please allow me to correct you. Karl NEVER gloted nor did he use this info as a marketing tool. He was genuinely pissed off that Pennicott was hunting an area for which Karl has the rights. I think anyone put in that position would feel the exact same way. What would you have him do when someone poached his area? Say nothing?

A group of us had a discussion of the matter. We were all sent the e mails for our own information. Again, he had no ulterior motives. None of these e mails would ever have been made public were it not for this thread which neither myself nor Karl started.

If nothing else, I have concluded that I would personally never hunt with Pennicott. We (all hunters) place a lot of trust in these outfitters. They can get us in trouble quickly.

Karl has every right to stop anyone hunting on HIS concession.

Anyone doing so without his permission is nothing but a poacher.

Saeed and Larry,

I agree with what Saeed posted 100% which is why i stated in my post that I believed reporting the suspicion was the correct thing to do.

Larry, I have always followed your posts and appreciate the information you provide, but I do not share your views on this issue. It does not appear to me that it is proven that Pennicott is hunting his area, and that Karl is smearing a lot of people before anything is proven. If everything is proven, I will damn sure condemn Pennicott as a worthless poacher as well as anyone who knowingly participated with him, but I have yet to see any proof in anything you have posted.

I stand by my statement that regardless of how this turns out, I would never hunt with Karl because of the way this has been handled: a lot of useless drama and unproven accusations. Judging from his actions our personalities would not be a good fit.

Very good post Lhook, I have read the emails and they prove nothing. Just a bunch of accusations and no proof of anything.

One other thing I keep seeing is that Larry keeps saying he did not start this thread but felt he needed to post these emails. Well Larry you did make the accusations in the other thread and kept bringing it up. So, Craig had every right to address the accusations.

So right now I see this just showing a bunch of accusations with no proof. Which without any proof just leads me to believe that we are just dealing with a bunch of jealous old ladies. Provide proof and then I will reaccess my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
If I was truelly so firmly and completely confident that the Pennicott run hunt in August, [not even relating to Banteng],
was absolutely legal, then I would have found no need to intentionally postpone the shipment of Buffalo trophies.
That fact that CB did postpone even the Buffalo trophies, indicates to me that he began to doubt that Pennicott run hunts,
are as 100% legal as claimed.

.............or, more likely Craig simply thought it not prudent to import any trophies till things cleared in this matter with the outfitter.

It doesn't take more than a rumor to cause the federal game people in the USA to confiscate the trophies, and charge the hunter with a lacy act crime.

It makes no difference to the feds if the charges are true or not, as they are basically anti hunting and are just looking for the chance to make problems for any hunter, and especially a well known hunter!

We must remember Boddington has been dealing with the feds for 40 or more years, and is well aware of their take on hunting. It simply doesn't pay to give them a chance to act!

........................................................................

I'm going to hold off buying the shirt he was wearing on that hunt until this all gets sorted out

Same for me but for the socks...

I have hunted in the Northwest territory, I can not specifically tell you who the "traditional owner" was but he was definitely an aboriginal tribal leader. I met him personally, he was basically near Numblawarr. I do not know the section of land, etc... it didn't matter to me at the time, I didn't know there might be any issues. Like I posted earlier,,, I never asked to see the permits in camp, but we definitely had them and needed them to fly into Numbluwarr, I never saw any marked boundaries or territories. I found the hunt on the internet and checked their references which all seemed good. It was before I had met Matt Graham or I would have used him. I never posted a report on here or posted any pictures, Now I am really glad I didn't incase someone was to claim I was on an illegal hunt which I wasn't. I saw tons of water buffalo, boars and some wild Oxen as well as crocs, dingos, and all kinds of birds,, and "SNakes"! Any desire for a return trip has certainly dwindled by all this online sniping. I am done as well.

quote:

We must remember Boddington has been dealing with the feds for 40 or more years, and is well aware of their take on hunting. It simply doesn't pay to give them a chance to act!

They would probably give an arm and a leg to nail Craig - of all the scalps taken, a blonde one would rank as their No.1

I had a wonderful hunt in Australia with Matt Graham and will do it again without a doubt.
This does not put me off the destination at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Why hasn't this thread been moved to the Aussie fourm? See nothing concerning Africa to warrant it being here.



Larry Sellers

Because no one would read it in the Aussie Forum and the shit stir effect would be reduced.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
It doesn't take more than a rumor to cause the federal game people in the USA to confiscate the trophies, and charge the hunter with a lacy act crime.

Considering were are told it was not a Boddington Banteng hunt,
then the hunt would have been booked in another persons name, payed by that other person,and the Banteng trophies to be shipped/exported on behalf of that other person, living in the US.

So how the hell can US Fish & Wildlife charge C.Boddington with a Lacey Act crime???

Why has Boddington personally got involved/made a decision to delay shipment of alleged illegal Banteng trophies,
that he categorically claims he had absolutely nothing to do with in obtaining?

IF one wants to draw suspicion or unwanted attention from [witch-hunt anti-hunting minded] Fed F&W authorities in US,
after accusations have already been made as to ones involvement in an alleged illegal Banteng hunt,
...then thats a pretty good way to do it.

I am more inclined to think that CB became newly fearful[not of US F&W] but of the reasonable possibility,
that any of the Pennicott hunts may have infact been illegal, and that US F&W could this time, have reasonable grounds to charge someone.
so much so he postponed shipment of all Buff & Banteng trophies obtained on the Pennicott run hunts.

Mr. Shores,

The only thing honorable about what appears to me to be a smear campaign is that you used your real name.
You are now indicating that you are only carrying water for some other party in OZ. You seem to be distancing yourself from early allegations while continuing to dig for more dirt.
I have enjoyed many of your comments and insights but this dog ain't hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Parham:
Mr. Shores,

The only thing honorable about what appears to me to be a smear campaign is that you used your real name.
You are now indicating that you are only carrying water for some other party in OZ. You seem to be distancing yourself from early allegations while continuing to dig for more dirt.
I have enjoyed many of your comments and insights but this dog ain't hunting.

IMO this isn't a smear campaign. If Larry wanted to start a smear campaign he would have posted those emails when he first received them. He is merely responding to a thread that CB started.

In my opinion if any illegal activities took place the hunters knew nothing about it. Hunters rely on their guides and outfitters to keep them within the areas they are allowed to hunt. I have a neighboring in Outfitter that has been caught trespassing more than once and the hunters didn't have a clue. I don't blame them, I blame the asshole they booked with.

I also think its damn smart that CB delayed shipment. Delaying the shipment isn't an admission of guilt, they are just covering their ass in the event their outfitter took them to an area they were not supposed to be. I would do the same thing! The feds can be real cock suckers and they would LOVE to hammer a "name"

We see "grey area" to downright illegal hunts peddled here on AR all the time. The hunters don't know whats legit and whats not a lot of the time and its up to us to police our own. Some people take offense to it and others appreciate it.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
IMO this isn't a smear campaign. If Larry wanted to start a smear campaign he would have posted those emails when he first received them. He is merely responding to a thread that CB started.

Boddington is permitted to use AR to help vindicate himself, but that should not restrict others from posting more telling details,
regarding the thread subject that Boddington himself initiated.
Without Larryshores 'privi information' posts, we would be so much more in the dark about the people & matters surrounding the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
IMO this isn't a smear campaign. If Larry wanted to start a smear campaign he would have posted those emails when he first received them. He is merely responding to a thread that CB started.

But CB would not have started this thread had it not been for the accusations in the other thread that folks seem to have forgotten about.

quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Parham:
Mr. Shores,

The only thing honorable about what appears to me to be a smear campaign is that you used your real name.
You are now indicating that you are only carrying water for some other party in OZ. You seem to be distancing yourself from early allegations while continuing to dig for more dirt.
I have enjoyed many of your comments and insights but this dog ain't hunting.

You can call it what you want that is your opinon. That is fine. I think you are ignoring a lot of facts. For example:


1- I made a donation related to the Punki incident. If I had an issue with CB, why would I do that?
2- When some were bashing CB on the Punki incident, I did not join in and I made negative comments about those making the comments. Go search the thread if you like.
3- I have no idea who started the thread about the website. It certainly wasn't me.
4- I did make the comment about an alledged illegal hunt in the rock bottom thread. The thought was that if this was being pursued, it would be emormously expensive. At that point, I had no idea if it was being pursued or not.
5- I said repeatedly in the rock bottom thread that I did not think that CB knew that he may have been in the wrong place. If you don't believe me, go take a look.
6- I did not start the illegal hunt thread.
7- All I did was copy e mails that I had for months. If I was trying to smear him, why didn't I use them earlier? I heard about this incident in January, 4 months ago. I would have never made those public were it not for this thread.
8- I responded solely because of the long line of people that came to conclusions with no facts. That is the one and only reason I posted. This was not some internet fiction. Authorities did investigate. CB admits that. I was very much annoyed with the long line of ass kissers here.
9- If anyone takes time to read those e mails, it is pretty clear that the target was Pennicott. The e mails even discussed getting CB as a witness. If they were an attempt to smear CB, why would they comtemplate contacting him as a witness?
10- Karl in his e mail to me clearly stated that he did not have a problem with CB. His problem was with Pennicott.
11- Based upon the documentation that I have seen, some of which has not been made public, I believe that Karl has the rights to the area. In my book, that makes Pennicott a poacher. If this were your business, what would you do? Just accept the poaching or do something about it? Karl is 100% within his rights to attempt to stop poaching in his area. Any reasonable person would. Then again, many here are not reasonable.
12- I am not conducting a campaign on Karl's behalf. I did post the explanation (which I asked for ) because Karl is not a member.

If you want to believe that is a smear campaign, that is up to you. You are entitled to your opinion. However, if one will objectively read this entire thread carefully, it is virtually impossible to come that that conclusion. I realize that no matter what, some will not interpret this correctly. That is fine but is also the basic reason that I decided to come forward.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
9- If anyone takes time to read those e mails, it is pretty clear that the target was Pennicott. The e mails even discussed getting CB as a witness.
If they were an attempt to smear CB, why would they comtemplate contacting him as a witness?

a logical deductive reasoning approach based question , but I doubt you will get a rational sane answer from paranoid idol-worshipers.

paranoia (def.) - systematized delusions of persecution.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Considering were are told it was not a Boddington Banteng hunt, then the hunt would have been booked in another persons name, payed by that other person,and the Banteng trophies to be shipped/exported on behalf of that other person, living in the US.

So how the hell can US Fish & Wildlife charge C.Boddington with a Lacey Act crime???

Why has Boddington personally got involved/made a decision to delay shipment of alleged illegal Banteng trophies, that he categorically claims he had absolutely nothing to do with in obtaining?

IF one wants to draw suspicion or unwanted attention from [witch-hunt anti-hunting minded] Fed F&W authorities in US, after accusations have already been made as to ones involvement in an alleged illegal Banteng hunt,
...then thats a pretty good way to do it.

I am more inclined to think that CB became newly fearful[not of US F&W] but of the reasonable possibility, that any of the Pennicott hunts may have infact been illegal, and that US F&W could this time, have reasonable grounds to charge someone.
so much so he postponed shipment of all Buff & Banteng trophies obtained on the Pennicott run hunts.

MRS BODDINGTON is the person who hunted a Banteng

Larry, for whatever reason it seems that most folks had their minds made up from the outset and any information or opinion that was not in keeping with those initial views is going to either be dismissed or attacked.

Larry, for whatever reason it seems that most folks had their minds made up from the outset and any information or opinion that was not in keeping with those initial views is going to either be dismissed or attacked.

Another good reason to see where all the facts lead.

Only then people can make up their minds what to think.