For your consideration

SCI Announcement

I think that without having heard or read the other version (SCI) is difficult to assess the situation. But as explained by Mark Sullivan shows that is an unfair decision of the agency and the least you should do is give a coherent explanation to the person concerned (Mark Sullivan). I can not say more on this topic, as I have indicated, we do not know the version of the other party.

Greetings,

Oscar.

PD: I have seen some movies of this Professional Hunter and I have been delighted.

A quote from Mark:

"More importantly, and evidently forgotten or arrogantly overlooked by SCI is the fact that my hunting style, my world-wide sales of thousands of dangerous game movies and my two books have probably done more to reinvigorate safari hunting in Africa than any single individual in the last twenty years."

An interesting self assessment.

Wowww

I don't like his hunting style but after so many years and all the support he said he has given to SCI I think he deserves a "personal" explanation.

As we said down here: "Lo cortés no quita lo valiente...."

L

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo:
Wowww

I don't like his hunting style but after so many years and all the support he said he has given to SCI I think he deserves a "personal" explanation.

As we said down here: "Lo cortés no quita lo valiente...."

L

+1

He won't be missed.

I would also like to see SCI banned any canned hunting outfit and eliminated the
"trophy" standing or consideration of any animal not taken by fair chase, i.e. - behind a high fence. Time to clean up your act SCI!!!!

There has to be a "rest of the story". With the number of Sullivan supporters and SCI supporters on AR this should be a fun post.

quote:

He won't be missed.

I am sure he will be missed by some

I am a Life Member of SCI. I may not agree with Sullivan's hunting style, but I believe that he is definitely owed a full explanation. After all, those that are expelled from SCI are given a full explanation and that is always published in the SCI newspaper for all to read and see. Why should this be any different? Who's next, and for what unexplained reason?

My feeling is that there are other operators that are much more deserving of exclusion fron the SCI convention. As others have said though there are two sides to every controversy.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
I am a Life Member of SCI. I may not agree with his hunting style, but I believe that he is definitely owed a full explanation. After all, those that are expelled from SCI are given a full explanation and that is always published in their newspaper. Why should this be any different?

+1
Makes sense to me. I think it's just good business to lay all your cards out on the table when dealing with a personality like this, that will always attract controversy.
BTW, I find it interesting that he considers himself the driving force in new people hunting Africa the last twenty years. Regardless of hunting style I just can't take that kind of arrogance.

Well, I did book a buff hunt in Tanzania as a direct result of watching a clip from his first video at a SCI show. But, if the stories are true...shame on me.

I met Mark several years ago at the Dallas Show. There were 15 or 20 people standing at his booth trying to talk to him. I was holding my son up so he could see over the crowd. My son was about 6 yrs old at the time. Mark saw my son and came out of the booth and took him to sit on the front table of his booth. Asked him if he was ever going to Africa and lots of other questions. Gave him one of his caps, my son was thrilled to say the least. How many egotistical "hunting personalities" would have done the same thing???
Maybe some of the things said about Mark are true....but who has personal knowledge of such?? Who repeats such things based strictly on hearsay?? I judge a person based on my own observations, not someone else opinion.
My opinion of SCI has gone through the floor!! I have been a member of SCI longer than I care to admit. Unless I hear a logical explaination about this, they can stick it where the sun don't shine!

Right or Wrong, I would think the man deserves a hearing or at least an explanation.

While I may not agree with Mr. Sullivan's hunting style, I disagree even more with fellow hunters being judgmental of other hunters. I really hate to see someone acting as the "hunting police" and deciding what in their mind passes muster and what does not. If some choose to do canned hunts, or hunt high fences, or bow hunt, or hunt feeders, or food plots, etc. . . . that is their perogative. We spend too much time passing judgment on each other when we ought to focus on the factors that unite us. My $0.02.

Sevenmagltd,

There are many possible explanations for that behavior. The two opposite ends of the spectrum are:

1) A down to earth guy who likes kids

2) A guy who knows it is good PR to be nice to kids

I have no opinion on which one it was.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
While I may not agree with Mr. Sullivan's hunting style, I disagree even more with fellow hunters being judgmental of other hunters. I really hate to see someone acting as the "hunting police" and deciding what in their mind passes muster and what does not. If some choose to do canned hunts, or hunt high fences, or bow hunt, or hunt feeders, or food plots, etc. . . . that is their perogative. We spend too much time passing judgment on each other when we ought to focus on the factors that unite us.

I’ll certainly toast this attitude!

quote:

How many egotistical "hunting personalities" would have done the same thing???

you wouldnt be referring to his lordship, his majesty craig boddington, would you??

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I have watched four of Sullivan's videos myself. I wonder if the ban has anything to do with the fact that none of his clients can shoot? You that have one or more, watch them and make a note of how many of his clients can kill a dangerous game animal cleanly with one or two shots.
My personal opinion, is that he seems to end up with clients that wound an animal, and then the camera guys can get he and the client stopping a charge at three or four feet. Every hunt seems to conveniently end up with wounded game charging and having to be dispatched by the great MOS at pissing distance.

I would be embarrassed to be seen as an incompetent buffoon in any of his videos.

JMHO

Rich

byf42,

NO ONE HAS EVER QUESTIONED CRAIG BODDINGTON'S PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL HUNTING ETHICS.

Watch a couple of "old wound em's" videos, as I said, and let me know if a game animal ever got killed cleanly.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by byf42:

quote:

How many egotistical "hunting personalities" would have done the same thing???

you wouldnt be referring to his lordship, his majesty craig boddington, would you??

Was that a joke or are you actually serious with that drivle?

Regarding Mark I'm hardly a fan, but he aught to at least get an explanation.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by sevenmagltd.:
I met Mark several years ago at the Dallas Show. There were 15 or 20 people standing at his booth trying to talk to him. I was holding my son up so he could see over the crowd. My son was about 6 yrs old at the time. Mark saw my son and came out of the booth and took him to sit on the front table of his booth. Asked him if he was ever going to Africa and lots of other questions. Gave him one of his caps, my son was thrilled to say the least. How many egotistical "hunting personalities" would have done the same thing???
Maybe some of the things said about Mark are true....but who has personal knowledge of such?? Who repeats such things based strictly on hearsay?? I judge a person based on my own observations, not someone else opinion.
My opinion of SCI has gone through the floor!! I have been a member of SCI longer than I care to admit. Unless I hear a logical explaination about this, they can stick it where the sun don't shine!

My son was 15 but the story is similar. He acted like a gentleman the entire time we were there....which was nearly an hour. Took photos with us, etc. He seemed like a very nice guy. I have spoken to him on the phone a couple of times also, as well as introduced him to my wife at Dallas in 2008...anyways personable and chatty. I've heard some of the stories about him and I'm not convinced. I have yet to hear of a FIRST PERSON account of him deliberatly wounding animals so he could follow up and elicit a charge. A LOT of his clients are repeaters and speak very highly of him...both in the bush and in camp. One well know Zambian PH even states that he feels Mark is one of the best "cat men" in the business...and this I know first person.
If you don't like his style...that's your choice....but many folks have enjoyed his videos and books....me included. I know I'd hunt with him in a heartbeat...but any Tanz hunt is a bit out of my reach with this economy.
At a bare minimum, SCI should publicly post their side...Mark has.
He's been at this, quite successfully, for a long time. To ban him without a real good reason is bull$hit......and I think SCI is not above pulling "politics" in a situation like this.

There's another $.02 worth.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

I don't care for the reasoning (or lack thereof), but I concur in the result.

. in Mark's response, he states that he has had to stop 4 charges this season. seems like an awfully high number in 1 year if the PH is getting his clients in the best possible position to make a lethal shot on dangerous game. unless as someone said earlier, his clients are just shitty shots. goes back to the question of whether animals are intentionally wounded to get action footage. i defy anyone to name ANY other PH who has had more charges occur and be documented anywhere in Africa. SOMEBODY is doing Something TERRIBLY WRONG to have that many charges occur.

I am sitting here, just waiting for someone who has one of his videos to state that they have seen a client kill an animal cleanly without a charge.

Hello... Anybody?

Rich

quote:

i defy anyone to name ANY other PH who has had more charges occur and be documented anywhere in Africa. SOMEBODY is doing Something TERRIBLY WRONG to have that many charges occur.

jdollar, I had the exact same number of charges in 6 weeks during the 2009 season. None of my hunters where bad shots, neither did I make any mistakes, it was just a period in the middle of my season that I had the misfotune to have so many charges. Since the end of July though, I had none for the rest of the season. It someimes jut hapens like that, although MS has a higher than normal average through the years I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I am sitting here, just waiting for someone who has one of his videos to state that they have seen a client kill an animal cleanly without a charge. Hello... Anybody?

Rich

Yes, several. And there are probably many more that simply are never included in his videos (lacking, one supposes, 'blood-on-the-boots'). However, Sullivan does manage to provoke more than his share of DG charges for the camera, which is simply explained by the fact that in many cases (though not all) neither he nor his clients fire back-up shots as they approach their wounded animal. Watch his videos and you'll see: His client fires - and Sullivan fires almost simultaneously - after which they both begin to track 'their' buffalo.

Now, when a wounded animal is eventually sighted, most of us immediately take additional shots to kill it quickly and humanely. My guess is that most buffalo are killed by follow-on rounds taken at a distance after the first shots are fired. This is where Sullivan is different - he and his client approach the wounded animal until they are close enough to where the buffalo perceives the closing threat and charges - probably around 10-15 meters. They also approach the buff 'face on' and not from behind or from the flank. Mind you, Sullivan is not deliberately wounding anything; it is just that after the initial volley, Sullivan hopes that the wounded buff has the fortitude to up and charge as he approaches. It is then that he fires the ultimately lethal shots that have made him (in)famous.

Granted it's not the way most of us choose to hunt; but then, if SCI is going to be the arbiter of how dangerous game ought to be hunted, that opens up an industrially-sized can of 'ethics' worms. What about canned lion hunting? Or electronic animal calls? Or laser-optics with automated bullet-drop compensators? Is SCI going to legislate these issues for the rest of us? It's their show, of course, but many of us support its existence. A degree of transparency in non-profits is a good thing, and unless this has privacy issues associated with it (e.g., failure to pay fees, etc.), SCI's decision on this ought to be out in the open for all of us to see and discuss.

Maybe it's Sullivan's long and generous history with SCI that has them inclined to keep private the reasons behind his expulsion. Just a thought.

It's unreasonable to me that Sullivan is being cast out for (presumably) being unethical with regard to animals yet there will be several exhibitors who have long histories of being unethical with regard to their clients or whose hunting operations place them on the wrong side of the law.

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
It's unreasonable to me that Sullivan is being cast out for (presumably) being unethical with regard to animals yet there will be several exhibitors who have long histories of being unethical with regard to their clients or whose hunting operations place them on the wrong side of the law.

+1

This absolutely hilarious!

It is a perfect example of the "kettle calling the pot black"!

Neither Mark Sullivan nor the SCI so called "ethics" committe know what the word means.

They only utter that word when it suits their own purposes.

Sullivan should have been kicked out of SCI years ago when his antics became known. SCI turned a blind eye to that, until now when the pressure has become so unbearable they do not want any of his "ethical" hunting methods to rub onto them.

Anyone with an IQ of 10 would have known that no matter how much one hunts, there is NO WAY IN HELL one can get even a small percentage of the charges he gets unless he wounds his animals on purpose to get his footage.

This, to me is the ultimate in unethical hunting as one can get.

Sadly, there are hunters who chose to turn a blind eye to this.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Anyone with an IQ of 10 would have known that no matter how much one hunts, there is NO WAY IN HELL one can get even a small percentage of the charges he gets unless he wounds his animals on purpose to get his footage.

Saeed, I was charged nearly 20K for my last hunt! It seems that every time I go hunting my charges get bigger and bigger. It needs to be STOPPED!

Surestrike,

I would keep quiet if I was you!
$20K is nothing compared to what I was charged for our last hunt in Tanzania!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
... there is NO WAY IN HELL one can get even a small percentage of the charges he gets unless he wounds his animals on purpose to get his footage.

Maybe he gets more charges because he doesn't snipe his buffalo from long range.

I seem to recall that at SCI several years ago there was a big fracas at Sullivan's booth with SCI making him cover up his TV and not showing his footage. It somehow became resolved because later on in the show he was able to show his footage. Does anyone else remember this?

quote:

Sullivan should have been kicked out of SCI years ago when his antics became known. SCI turned a blind eye to that, until now when the pressure has become so unbearable they do not want any of his "ethical" hunting methods to rub onto them.

Anyone with an IQ of 10 would have known that no matter how much one hunts, there is NO WAY IN HELL one can get even a small percentage of the charges he gets unless he wounds his animals on purpose to get his footage.

+1

Seloushunter

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
byf42,

NO ONE HAS EVER QUESTIONED CRAIG BODDINGTON'S PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL HUNTING ETHICS.

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

Rich

I have! The finding? I will be only too pleased to share a hunting camp with this guy!

Mark Sullivan said that he had donated a $ 25k hunt to SCI for 2010! What? Only $ 25K from a former great SCI sponsor? No wonder they kicked him out! It's all about the money!

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

I'll be interested to see if this is an isolated occurrance or whether they'll do the same thing with the companies that have had repeated complaints to the ethics committee made against them that so far have been consistantly ignored.

I'm not a fan of MS's techniques, but as I see it, those dodgy companies are far more deserving of a ban than MS is.

Although it has bugger all to do with this thread......As far as CB is concerned, I'd be more than happy to share a camp or a hunt with him anytime, anywhere. He's an absolute gentleman!

hell How can anyone with any common sense compare Mark Sullivan with Craig Boddington?

I would be more than happy to share a camp with Craig.

On the other hand I would give up hunting rather than share a camp with Sullivan.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone with an IQ of 10 would have known that no matter how much one hunts, there is NO WAY IN HELL one can get even a small percentage of the charges he gets unless he wounds his animals on purpose to get his footage. This, to me is the ultimate in unethical hunting as one can get. Sadly, there are hunters who chose to turn a blind eye to this.

Any effort I might make to persuade you that my IQ is much closer to room temperature will likely fall on deaf ears (I recall in the heat of an argument one colleague telling me that if my IQ ever hit 50 I should sell). But, no matter.

What should matter, however, is that your ad hominem attack doesn't do much to lend much credibility to your point. It would seem that, from this and past posts, the subject of Mark Sullivan drives you to near apoplexy. Just out of curiosity, how many of his movies have you seen? And are you familiar enough with his safari practice that you have any sense as to what percentage of his buffalo hunts do result in a charge?

I have commented extensively on Sullivan in past posts, most being quite negative. But Saeed, with all due respect, you seem to perpetually lead the anti-Sullivan charge with the wild, and quite frankly, libelous charge that he deliberately wounds game to induce a charge. Do you have any evidence to support that allegation? You would think that with his many clients over the years, there would be at least one person who would verify your charge. Or should we just believe you because if we don't we're either moronic or blind?

Absent evidence, then perhaps you might just give consideration to the more likely scenario that I posited a couple of posts ago: That he provokes charges by not firing finishing shots after the first salvo, and by approaching the wounded buffalo in an aggressive fashion (i.e., in its line-of-sight). I believe this would help to ensure a much larger number of charges than if you began to fire finishing shots from 100, 75, or 50 meters. (I'd be interested in the thoughts of some of the PHs out there.)

Now maybe that's all that's necessary to indict Sullivan in the eyes of most AR forum members for unethical behavior. He is, after all, delaying the death of a wounded animal. So, if the imperative is for the hunter to kill his prey with the most urgent dispatch, then what about the practice of some PHs and hunters to allow a wounded animal to 'lay up while' and get 'sick' before following up and putting it out of its misery? Admittedly there is a difference between the two in at least motivation (and in Sullivan's case the animal probably dies a tad sooner); but I wonder if that distinction is sufficient to warrant only Sullivan being booted out of SCI?

Rectified, since I read a post that has opened my eyes and maybe instead of hurting animals to appear in the videos as a hero, what Mr. Sullivan does is close both to ensure death animal, this causes the load. It seems reasonable. What does not seem reasonable to exclude a person from a convention in which it was normal to invite you and not give any explanation. My support for Mr. Sullivan.

Oscar.