WARNING about Northwoods Adventures

21 December 2014, 20:50

quote:
Originally posted by Frostbit:
quote:
Originally posted by surestrike:
quote:
I'm certainly not questioning the veracity of the info, but rubber hoses and basements with floor drains seem a bit hysterical.

I thought that rubber hose and basement comment would be pretty obvious that it was tongue in cheek but for all of you lawyers out there. I should have included with that comment a....

Did your lawyer tell you to post that?

Yes

and it only cost me $400 to get that advice.

21 December 2014, 21:39

KPete

quote:
Originally posted by larryshores:
At the risk of being labeled an SCI backer no matter what(which I am not), I can see why they charge the $500 fee. If they didn't can you imagine some of the complaints?

How about things like:

1- We had flat tires.
2- The buff wasn't 40 it was only 39 7/8's.
3- They didn't have the bottled water I like.
4- The sheep hunt was too hard.

And on and on and on

I've given up on SCI over the diminishing value of membership, coupled with their lack of transparency. For a member-dedicated non-profit organization, they are remarkably secretive. That said, Larry is right. Absent some financial stake in the investigative process, you would have SCI doing little other than looking into every minor upset and allegation hunters may have with their outfitter. ("I bitterly remember one morning Buzz Charlton failed to offer me a cup of coffee and I'm still fuming ...")

My suggestion? The right way for SCI to handle this would be to require a $500 payment to open an investigation with that money placed in escrow. By rule, investigations would be limited to matters that have a value of $500 or more in order to focus on other than penny-ante bullshit.

If SCI's investigation yields corroboration of the charges and the operator is found to have acted improperly, then the money would be refunded to the member. The offending operator should then be fined $500 by SCI and required to effect resolution within 90-days; resolution and payment would be required under pain of expulsion. If the charges are not substantiated or are proven false, the member's money would be kept by SCI to cover expenses.

With skin in the game, you would keep most of the malcontents from filing frivolous complaints. And with a resolution process that carried the threat of losing membership in SCI and access to the convention, operators would be incentivized to treat their clients honestly and forthrightly.

21 December 2014, 22:09

twoseventy

Once more, a cogent thoughtful response from KPete. Shame SCI does not have the same characteristics.

...I say that hunters go into Paradise when they die, and live in this world more joyfully than any other men.
-Edward, duke of York

". . . when a man has shot an elephant his life is full." ~John Alfred Jordan

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero - 55 BC

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

Cogito ergo venor- KPete

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
― Adam Smith - “Wealth of Nations”

21 December 2014, 22:26

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by 470EDDY:
$500 to SCI is the standard fee to a Member wishing to place a complaint before the "Ethics Committee"...for full review, before that "Board" and attempt to resolve the applicant's complaint....hunts, and all!!...
Cheers,

SCI has an ETHICS COMMITTEE????

Don't make me laugh!!

SCI does not even KNOW what ETHICS means!

21 December 2014, 23:17

Highlander7

quote:
Originally posted by KPete:
quote:
Originally posted by larryshores:
At the risk of being labeled an SCI backer no matter what(which I am not), I can see why they charge the $500 fee. If they didn't can you imagine some of the complaints?

How about things like:

1- We had flat tires.
2- The buff wasn't 40 it was only 39 7/8's.
3- They didn't have the bottled water I like.
4- The sheep hunt was too hard.

And on and on and on

I've given up on SCI over the diminishing value of membership, coupled with their lack of transparency. For a member-dedicated non-profit organization, they are remarkably secretive. That said, Larry is right. Absent some financial stake in the investigative process, you would have SCI doing little other than looking into every minor upset and allegation hunters may have with their outfitter. ("I bitterly remember one morning Buzz Charlton failed to offer me a cup of coffee and I'm still fuming ...")

My suggestion? The right way for SCI to handle this would be to require a $500 payment to open an investigation with that money placed in escrow. By rule, investigations would be limited to matters that have a value of $500 or more in order to focus on other than penny-ante bullshit.

If SCI's investigation yields corroboration of the charges and the operator is found to have acted improperly, then the money would be refunded to the member. The offending operator should then be fined $500 by SCI and required to effect resolution within 90-days; resolution and payment would be required under pain of expulsion. If the charges are not substantiated or proven false, the member's money would be kept by SCI to cover expenses.

With skin in the game, you would keep most of the malcontents from filing frivolous complaints. And with a resolution process that carried the threat of losing membership in SCI and access to the convention, operators would be incentivized to treat their clients honestly and forthrightly.

KPete,

That would have been a awesome answer to my question. Just curious on how and where the $500 goes to and how the process works.

21 December 2014, 23:20

shakari

quote:
Originally posted by 470EDDY:
$500 to SCI is the standard fee to a Member wishing to place a complaint before the "Ethics Committee"...for full review, before that "Board" and attempt to resolve the applicant's complaint....hunts, and all!!...
Cheers,

How much does it cost for a favourable outcome?

Sorry about that......... only joking!

21 December 2014, 23:47

shootaway

I think it was a wrong move for SCI to offer an investigation for a fee.

21 December 2014, 23:58

KPete

quote:
Originally posted by Highlander7:
KPete,

That would have been a awesome answer to my question. Just curious on how and where the $500 goes to and how the process works.

I know nothing about how SCI handles its affairs, but would guess that in order to investigate and handle a claim of this sort they would need to dedicate anywhere from 10 to 20+ manhours per claim – and that's probably on the low-end.

SCI's cost of labor would be associated with: having a professional staff member collect statements and evidence via phone calls, email, and registered mail from the affected parties and witnesses; a staff review of the accumulated allegations and facts; creation of a report of findings and 'recommendations for disposition' for the Ethics Committee; internal communications between committee members and the chairman; administrative actions upon committee determination; and, final communication of disposition to the two parties. This labor calculation doesn't include any follow-up associated with receipt or return of payments; expulsion proceedings; appeals; and, potential legal costs should a resolution case trigger tort action. (If 1-in-100 cases involves attorneys, those costs would have to be applied to all 100 cases in order to calculate the cost-per-case.)

In fairness to SCI, none of this can be handled for free, so someone needs to pay – either a sleazy outfitter or a member bringing false or unsubstantiated charges. However, by applying my recommended process, SCI would receive $500 per case to defray expenses and achieve a return on its investment by providing added value to members (by offering this kind of conflict resolution service), along with burnishing its tarnished brand.

22 December 2014, 00:09

shootaway

SCI could choose who they want to be associated with but I don`t think they should be held responsible for any outfitter foul play.You just cant be responsible for everything anybody does unless it is the organization itself.SCI should have just said sorry I cant help.SCI should just exercise the right to deal with however they feel they want to.If you want to have good people for members then deal with good people.If it is an organization that is sick with money then what do you expect?

22 December 2014, 00:17

Trapper Tom

How does DSC handle these matters?

22 December 2014, 00:35

MJines

quote:
Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
How does DSC handle these matters?

Undoubtedly better.

22 December 2014, 01:14

mboga biga bwana

quote:
SCI does not even KNOW what ETHICS means!

Sadly true

22 December 2014, 02:19

470EDDY

Did Y'all see in the latest issue of Safari Times, the SCI monthly newsletter/paper....4 of the Out of Africa rhino poachers that were indicted for poaching and smuggling countless rhinos (Greenwald sp? was already expelled for Rhino and Leopard cases)....have just now been EXPELLED from SCI??
Yup, in black and white, almost a half page in the December issue!!

Now HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?? And HOW LONG were they Exhibitors at SCI Convention...and their atty President of SCI....?? Maybe 20 years...

KPete is bang on with his comments, very constructive and the way it should be.

Some staff time is used including the WADC Atty squadron, but mostly it is the Committee that is made up of volunteers that are on the Board as result of being a Chapter President, and Executive Committee....those that have been elevated by works and deeds and elected into the higher positions by the Board...not be members.
So it is essentially a Lay Group, generally quality people, with some professionals like attys and CPA's sprinkled into the mix...and staffers.
The fee, I believe is a donation for expenses incurred, however I believe is more of a seriousness test!!

Frankly, the CEO Phil DeLone and the Magazine/Editor should be extremely cautious on the matter of false or fraudulent advertising.

Just one other Question...who is/are the Outfitters that are being used by this fellow...shouldn't they be held just as accountable...or do they know??....Hummmmm

Cheers,

22 December 2014, 02:26

AnotherAZWriter

I cannot IMAGINE charging my customers for looking into a complaint. First of all, we never have them, but if I did, I sure would not charge them. If you are spending that much money digging into complaints, you are taking money from the wrong folks.

As for the tire kicking explanation, that is akin to charging customers for a requesting a proposal - that is just part of doing business.

22 December 2014, 03:04

DCS Member

SCI should handle matters like this in a similar fashion as the State Bar of Texas does with grievances. There should be a detailed complaint form. If a complaint seems legimate, then further investigation is warranted.

22 December 2014, 05:33

Hoot Murray

I got to thinking this afternoon. I do not see where JC500 is a member of SCI. The only hint is that he responded to an advertizement in the SCI Magazine. It is true that all members receive the magazine but that does not mean a reader of the magazine is an SCI Member. I give my magazine to fellows whom I know are not members of SCI. They are just guys that hunt locally. However, one such fellow told me a couple of days ago that he booked a safari in Namibia the last week of April. Did he answer an add in one of the magazines I gave him? Don't know. Did he join SCI? Don't know.

Does SCI charge members the $500.00 or is this a fee for a non member? Again, I don't know but I would like to think that the fee is charged to a non member. I find it totally reprehensible that they would charge a member $500.00 to send a letter to the charged person and ask them for their side of the story. If they choose to not respond or their side of the story does not track, then they can launch an investigation. I would say that a no response to a letter requesting their side of the story would be a guilty as charged plea.

I am a Life Member of SCI. That was done a long time ago. I did not really know much about Dallas Safari Club, but the way I feel now if I had joined DSC first I would not have joined SCI. Being a member of SCI gets you absolutely nothing as an individual member except the Safari Magazine which now has degenerated to a high end shopping catalog. I for one would sincerely like SCI to become more member oriented rather than oriented toward the members bank account. I also a member of DSC.

Enough ranting, how about it JC500, are you in fact a member of SCI?

Tenga cuidado,

Hoot

22 December 2014, 06:41

fujotupu

quote:
I do not see where JC500 is a member of SCI. The only hint is that he responded to an advertizement in the SCI Magazine.
.... Does SCI charge members the $500.00 or is this a fee for a non member?

Quite honestly I do not see what being or not being an $CI member has to do with lodging a complaint regarding an advert which appeared on an official $CI Review.

Is it being suggested that if one is not a registered member, that person is fair game to being screwed by some shady bastard who has used a reputable magazine to advertise and peddle his wares to the unsuspecting reader/client?

Is it fair for $CI to claim an alleged fee just because the plaintiff is not a member (which for the moment is unknown) assuming the service would be FOC for a member, or would it be more logical for $CI to investigate the matter regardless of the complaining party's status at their own expense and save face in the long run?

22 December 2014, 07:56

bwana cecil

quote:
Is it being suggested that if one is not a registered member, that person is fair game to being screwed by some shady bastard who has used a reputable magazine to advertise and peddle his wares to the unsuspecting reader/client?

It is my understanding that SCI & any other like minded organization exist because of it's members & for their benefit.
If I were not a member, why should I think they should come to my aid when I had not bothered to join?
I think it would be a good idea to take any complaint serious, but do not feel they are obligated if the person making the complaint is not a member to pursue & use resources for non-members & at this time we do not know the answer to that question.
JMHO

22 December 2014, 07:59

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by KPete:
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander7:
KPete,

That would have been a awesome answer to my question. Just curious on how and where the $500 goes to and how the process works.

I know nothing about how SCI handles its affairs, but would guess that in order to investigate and handle a claim of this sort they would need to dedicate anywhere from 10 to 20+ manhours per claim – and that's probably on the low-end.

SCI's cost of labor would be associated with: having a professional staff member collect statements and evidence via phone calls, email, and registered mail from the affected parties and witnesses; a staff review of the accumulated allegations and facts; creation of a report of findings and 'recommendations for disposition' for the Ethics Committee; internal communications between committee members and the chairman; administrative actions upon committee determination; and, final communication of disposition to the two parties. This labor calculation doesn't include any follow-up associated with receipt or return of payments; expulsion proceedings; appeals; and, potential legal costs should a resolution case trigger tort action. (If 1-in-100 cases involves attorneys, those costs would have to be applied to all 100 cases in order to calculate the cost-per-case.)

In fairness to SCI, none of this can be handled for free, so someone needs to pay – either a sleazy outfitter or a member bringing false or unsubstantiated charges. However, by applying my recommended process, SCI would receive $500 per case to defray expenses and achieve a return on its investment by providing added value to members (by offering this kind of conflict resolution service), along with burnishing its tarnished brand.

As usual, Kim has a fantastic idea, I am sure would work just great if applied.

But, SCI being who they are, it will never happen.

The point being raised about the person being a non SCI member is beside the point.

He used those crooked outfitters because he saw it in their advert.

22 December 2014, 09:02

470EDDY

One must be a member to attend the Convention....

It goes without saying....one must be a member to receive the services of the ETHICS COMMITTEE!!

If you are NOT a member you are limited to HIRED CEO and Editor of publications for problems like we see here....

22 December 2014, 09:30

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by 470EDDY:
One must be a member to attend the Convention....

It goes without saying....one must be a member to receive the services of the ETHICS COMMITTEE!!

If you are NOT a member you are limited to HIRED CEO and Editor of publications for problems like we see here....

Members are charged $500 too.

22 December 2014, 09:48

470EDDY

Saeed- YES Sir, Members Only pay $500 to file a formal complaint!

22 December 2014, 09:58

MJines

quote:
Originally posted by 470EDDY:
Saeed- YES Sir, Members Only pay $500 to file a formal complaint!

It truly sounds bizarre, members pay $500 to file a complaint against outfitters the organization sells advertising space to in the organization's magazine for members. Amazing when you say it. Sort of says, we want to protect our paying advertisers, but if we have to throw a paying advertiser under the bus we want to make a little money to offset the loss of advertising dollars.

Why wouldn't SCI simply tell members, we will seek an explanation from the outfitter and then let you know what they say. SCI can always refuse to pursue something further on the basis of lack of information, etc. But to demand $500 to simply look into the matter comes across as we could really care less about our members, you are a nuisance.

22 December 2014, 10:11

DCS Member

I'm curious to see what Mr. Evans or Mr. Cheatham might say about the DSC policy. I'm sure it's better, but I also understand their silence, as they don't want to criticize an organization which is supposed to be "first for hunters."

In full disclosure, I've volunteered and support our local SCI Chapter.

22 December 2014, 10:21

AnotherAZWriter

quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by KPete:
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander7:
KPete,

That would have been a awesome answer to my question. Just curious on how and where the $500 goes to and how the process works.

I know nothing about how SCI handles its affairs, but would guess that in order to investigate and handle a claim of this sort they would need to dedicate anywhere from 10 to 20+ manhours per claim – and that's probably on the low-end.

SCI's cost of labor would be associated with: having a professional staff member collect statements and evidence via phone calls, email, and registered mail from the affected parties and witnesses; a staff review of the accumulated allegations and facts; creation of a report of findings and 'recommendations for disposition' for the Ethics Committee; internal communications between committee members and the chairman; administrative actions upon committee determination; and, final communication of disposition to the two parties. This labor calculation doesn't include any follow-up associated with receipt or return of payments; expulsion proceedings; appeals; and, potential legal costs should a resolution case trigger tort action. (If 1-in-100 cases involves attorneys, those costs would have to be applied to all 100 cases in order to calculate the cost-per-case.)

In fairness to SCI, none of this can be handled for free, so someone needs to pay – either a sleazy outfitter or a member bringing false or unsubstantiated charges. However, by applying my recommended process, SCI would receive $500 per case to defray expenses and achieve a return on its investment by providing added value to members (by offering this kind of conflict resolution service), along with burnishing its tarnished brand.

As usual, Kim has a fantastic idea, I am sure would work just great if applied.

But, SCI being who they are, it will never happen.

The point being raised about the person being a non SCI member is beside the point.

He used those crooked outfitters because he saw it in their advert.

I don't find this a fantastic idea at all. No one should have to pay a fee to complain about a service that appears in a magazine designed to serve members. Responding to complaints is a cost of doing business...if it begins to cost too much, you have either a broken business model or you are seeking the wrong kinds of advertisers.

22 December 2014, 11:48

DCS Member

quote:
Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by KPete:
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander7:
KPete,

That would have been a awesome answer to my question. Just curious on how and where the $500 goes to and how the process works.

I know nothing about how SCI handles its affairs, but would guess that in order to investigate and handle a claim of this sort they would need to dedicate anywhere from 10 to 20+ manhours per claim – and that's probably on the low-end.

SCI's cost of labor would be associated with: having a professional staff member collect statements and evidence via phone calls, email, and registered mail from the affected parties and witnesses; a staff review of the accumulated allegations and facts; creation of a report of findings and 'recommendations for disposition' for the Ethics Committee; internal communications between committee members and the chairman; administrative actions upon committee determination; and, final communication of disposition to the two parties. This labor calculation doesn't include any follow-up associated with receipt or return of payments; expulsion proceedings; appeals; and, potential legal costs should a resolution case trigger tort action. (If 1-in-100 cases involves attorneys, those costs would have to be applied to all 100 cases in order to calculate the cost-per-case.)

In fairness to SCI, none of this can be handled for free, so someone needs to pay – either a sleazy outfitter or a member bringing false or unsubstantiated charges. However, by applying my recommended process, SCI would receive $500 per case to defray expenses and achieve a return on its investment by providing added value to members (by offering this kind of conflict resolution service), along with burnishing its tarnished brand.

As usual, Kim has a fantastic idea, I am sure would work just great if applied.

But, SCI being who they are, it will never happen.

The point being raised about the person being a non SCI member is beside the point.

He used those crooked outfitters because he saw it in their advert.

I don't find this a fantastic idea at all. No one should have to pay a fee to complain about a service that appears in a magazine designed to serve members. Responding to complaints is a cost of doing business...if it begins to cost too much, you have either a broken business model or you are seeking the wrong kinds of advertisers.

AAZ,

Agreed. Hunting Reports makes sense as a business, but charging people screwed by advertisers is like shooting first and asking questions later while making money.

You can't know everyone advertising, but DSC has refused after knowing of wrong doing.

22 December 2014, 17:41

Saeed

I said it was a good idea to stop someone with any silly complaint to be bothered with.

Also, the money is only a deposit, and if the complaint is correct, it is returned to him.

22 December 2014, 18:44

shootaway

SCI is not selling the hunt.The outfitter is only a client of SCI.SCI is not responsible for the client.SCI has no business offering services for an investigation.If they screened their clients more carefully they would have less issues.
This is like someone going to Walmart and getting his pocket picked by another client.Walmart could get into trouble should they offer to play the police.What they could do to prevent this is keep a tighter security and watch who they let in.

22 December 2014, 19:29

Larry Sellers

Lots of good posts here with some "actual" good advice. But as usual and not surprising the SCI Bashers are out in force again without any real, firsthand knowledge of this situation. Just sit at the keyboard, flame as usual!! This has gotten to be so predictable by those who inflame, it's not even interesting anymore. Ever notice the "bashers" never have an answer or idea to help the situation.

I believe that falls under the category "if you don't have an answer to the problem, you are a part of the problem" syndrome.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser
Sabatti "trash" Double Shooter

22 December 2014, 19:41

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Lots of good posts here with some "actual" good advice. But as usual and not surprising the SCI Bashers are out in force again without any real, firsthand knowledge of this situation. Just sit at the keyboard, flame as usual!! This has gotten to be so predictable by those who inflame, it's not even interesting anymore. Ever notice the "bashers" never have an answer or idea to help the situation. I believe that falls under the category "if you don't have an answer to the problem, you are a part of the problem" syndrome.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser
Sabatti "trash" Double Shooter

Larry, you are right, we have allowed SCI to get away with this sort of silly actions for years.

No more, we will complain and bring out in the open anything untoward we see them doing.

It is time they face reality.

But, I honestly doubt that we will see any change.

The rot is in far too deep.

Just imagine them starting that silly outfit a little while ago.

Do you honestly think anyone with 5 grains of brains between them can do that and not expect a backlash??

I am so glad they got a real kick up their fat posteriors that made them change their minds!

22 December 2014, 20:13

Bwana338

Who is JC500,

Made a negative post and ran. And it was his 1st post to boot.

We do not have a times or dates to review.

Kind of like:
Where are you located?
When did he first call?
Who did he talk to?
Why did he send a deposit with out a contract?
What are his interest in this?
What is he trying to achieve?
Is he a Outfitter or PH?
Does he operate a business like or close to the one, he is complaining about?
Is this a bash or negative being directed at SCI?
Did he contact his local district attorney?
Was the check mailed in the USPS?
If yes did he visit with their fraud department?
Did he make notes while talking on the phone?
Or did he record the conversation?

The simple posting has many holes, that leaves posters ASSUMING they have the right answers with out asking the proper questions.

I do believe that this is a bogus posting by JC500...

22 December 2014, 20:24

shootaway

quote:
Originally posted by Bwana338:
Who is JC500,

Made a negative post and ran. And it was his 1st post to boot.

We do not have a times or dates to review.

Kind of like:
Where are you located?
When did he first call?
Who did he talk to?
Why did he send a deposit with out a contract?
What are his interest in this?
What is he trying to achieve?
Is he a Outfitter or PH?
Does he operate a business like or close to the one, he is complaining about?
Is this a bash or negative being directed at SCI?
Did he contact his local district attorney?
Was the check mailed in the USPS?
If yes did he visit with their fraud department?
Did he make notes while talking on the phone?
Or did he record the conversation?

The simple posting has many holes, that leaves posters ASSUMING they have the right answers with out asking the proper questions.

I do believe that this is a bogus posting by JC500...

22 December 2014, 20:34

MJines

quote:
Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Lots of good posts here with some "actual" good advice. But as usual and not surprising the SCI Bashers are out in force again without any real, firsthand knowledge of this situation. Just sit at the keyboard, flame as usual!! This has gotten to be so predictable by those who inflame, it's not even interesting anymore. Ever notice the "bashers" never have an answer or idea to help the situation. I believe that falls under the category "if you don't have an answer to the problem, you are a part of the problem" syndrome.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser
Sabatti "trash" Double Shooter

Well I hardly count myself as an "SCI Basher", to the contrary, I have frequently been labeled an SCI cheerleader, apologist, etc., but when SCI does something a person disagrees with are we not supposed to sound off. Two examples immediately come to mind. One was the board brain fart to create an SCI booking agency to compete with the members that operate booking agencies. Another is this notion that members should be charged $500 for SCI to even look into complaints by members against advertisers in SCI publications (here the complaint is not some random complaint about the outfitter, rather it is the member complaining about trying to book the very hunt advertised in the magazine). Both of those strike me as wrong. Both of those strike me as sending a message to members that we really do not care about you, we care about how we can make money. In the former case after enough member outrage was expressed the board abandoned (suspended?) the idea. In the latter case, I cannot understand why SCI would not simply make an inquiry to the outfitter and ask them to provide an explanation then based on that explanation SCI could decide whether to pursue the matter or leave it to the member. But to charge a member $500 to even consider the issue is, to me, simply crass.

22 December 2014, 20:44

Duckear

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeS:

BTW, do not try to access the booking agent's web site; AVAST reports malware is installed on it.

George

Yup.

Just googling the site and AVAST flags it as unsafe on the search page.

22 December 2014, 20:46

shootaway

Perhaps a SCI outfitter rating and review section on their web site would help prevent things like this from happening...just bringing all this out in the open.

22 December 2014, 21:24

Acer

quote:
Who is JC500,

Made a negative post and ran. And it was his 1st post to boot.

We do not have a times or dates to review.

Kind of like:
Where are you located? What difference does that make if it is a valid complaint. I'll take good intel from the Chinese if they have something important to me.
When did he first call?Not germane to the discussion if it is an ongoing issue. It sounds like it has been going on long enough to warrant resolution.
Who did he talk to?I believe the OP said he talked to the listed agent.
Why did he send a deposit with out a contract?It seems that he figured the business was ligitimate since it was listed in a publication from an organization that he trusted. Maybe his trust was misplaced, but that was the standard he chose.
What are his interest in this?What would anybody's interest be. Could be getting his pound of flesh, could be altruistically protecting others in a similar situation.
What is he trying to achieve?See above.
Is he a Outfitter or PH?What difference does it make if what he's saying is true?
Does he operate a business like or close to the one, he is complaining about?See above.
Is this a bash or negative being directed at SCI? What if they are complicit - does it make it any less valuable to folks who might heed a genuine warning?
Did he contact his local district attorney?Why is that anybody's business but the OP's?
Was the check mailed in the USPS? Probably irrelevant to the intent of desseminating information to others who could use the intel.
If yes did he visit with their fraud department?See above.
Did he make notes while talking on the phone?See above.
Or did he record the conversation?See above.

The simple posting has many holes, that leaves posters ASSUMING they have the right answers with out asking the proper questions.

I do believe that this is a bogus posting by JC500...This is the same witch-hunt mentality that keeps folks from posting hunt reports here. Someone trying to help others being castigated by the peanut gallery.

22 December 2014, 21:48

JC500

Thank you everyone for your support and advise. Please be rest assured that I have no motives behind my post except to warn good people against bad people who are out there taking advantage of others. I am 75 years old and not very computer literate so my good friend of over 20 years (Mr. Reddy) and my daughter does the navigating and typing for me. In my post I am in no way promoting my friends business, while slandering another. I am simply advising the hunting community about the experience I encountered. Also, while the loss of money does bother me, it is more so the morality of the situation. For someone my age, and not computer literate, why wouldn't Mr. Strasser include his refund/cancellation policy in his advertisement? Would seem like he was trying to snare folks such as myself by using deceptive practices. Lastly, I have spoken with an attorney and should any of my deposit be returned the proceeds after the attorney's fees will be donated.

22 December 2014, 22:09

JC500

I would also like to advise that I am a life member of SCI...for what that's worth...

22 December 2014, 22:47

larryshores

I believe that JC500 has a valid complaint. I will admit that I did not after Mike's post about photobucket.

Personally, I can see why SCI charges a fee in broad general terms. Perhaps that policy should be different when the complaint is about an advertiser. All the bitching and complaining about it here will not change the policy. None of the bitching and complaining here will solve this issue.

Perhaps we should bombard the agent with e mails, letters or calls.

22 December 2014, 23:15

vvreddy

quote:
Originally posted by Acer:
quote:
Who is JC500,

I do believe that this is a bogus posting by JC500...This is the same witch-hunt mentality that keeps folks from posting hunt reports here. Someone trying to help others being castigated by the peanut gallery.

Never fails to happen does it?

Although much of this discussion has revolved around SCI, the main intent of the posting was to warn other hunters about the agent so they don't have the same experience. Many attempts were made to resolve the matter quietly before JC500 made his post. There were no grounds to withhold the deposit as the contract was not delivered for review and obviously not signed and no terms were otherwise agreed to.

That being said here is my understanding of the fees associated with the SCI grievance process.

$500 to submit a complaint.
If they decide there is enough evidence to proceed with an investigation you get a refund of $250 while they retain $250.
If they determine it is a bogus complaint you forfeit your $500.

I do not recall if the remaining $250 is refunded if the investigation is resolved in favor of the complainant.