The Mark Sullivan in the video's and the real Mark Sullivan are two different people. He is selling video's on the screen. He is no different than any other salesman. In person he is kind, fun, considerate and entertaining. He will always be intense.

I will probably never attend another SCI Convention.

....JMHO ...Tom

quote:

What is your opinion of United States Outfitters? I noticed you didn't comment on that. Personally, I find them to be totally unethical, unless of course, you believe those with the biggest fist of dollars should get tags. Again, I am referring to their lawsuit a few years ago against our state.

\



This thread has gone all over the place, and I apologize for helping bend it. To answer AnotherAZwriter, I can only say I have no problem with USO, and might consider using it to apply for my hunting permits if I still were doing a lot of hunting out of state.

However, I do have problems with the thinking behind the USO lawsuit against Arizona’s permit-distribution system a few years back, and not for the reason you stated. Yes, it could have led to all Western states raising their non-resident tag fees so that only the very wealthy could afford to hunt in other states. However, I saw it as a state’s rights issue.

USO claimed that all Americans have equal rights to hunting permits in Arizona because most of our hunting takes place on federal land. I know a great many people share that belief, especially those who from states with little public lands.

Fortunately, for those of us who believe that wildlife management is best done at the state level, and that land ownership should not be a factor in determining ownership of wildlife in America, USO lost its lawsuit.

If it had won, I fear that it would not have been long before Congress and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have been setting seasons, bag limits and hunting rules all across the West.

Bill Quimby.

Thanks for the answer Bill. But I don't know why you would support USO when there are others out there who do the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Thanks for the answer Bill. But I don't know why you would support USO when there are others out there who do the same thing.

I didn't and never will support the USO position in that lawsuit. That would not keep me from considering it -- among other similar businesses -- if I ever decided to use a permit-application service.

Bill Quimby

I am sure you are all aware that such suits will be more difficult as a law was signed by Bush in 2005 or 2006 that mandates states set such rules.

Steve:

I think you are talking about the executive order that George W. Bush issued late in his last term. It ordered all federal wildlife and land management agencies to consider the effect on anglers and hunters and bring them into the mix when making decisions.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it was totally ignored. With our new president and the agendas of his advisors, the chances of that order surviving are nil.

Wow. This thread certainly has evolved into something vastly different from what started it!

Bill Quimby

All this, and to the best of our collective knowledge; Mark Sullivan still will NOT be at SCI Reno.

Happy New Year...

Rich

Yikes!

I am really glad I cam back to this thread. I would have bet my Pebble Beach U.S. Open hat that one could never, ever find thouightful poetry discussion in a Mark Sullivan thread (by the way, Poe's The Raven should have been mentioned).

And one last by the way...may I please, and with due deference, repeat my earlier request: Will someone point me to a thread with postings from people who have ACTUALLY HUNTED with Mr. Sullivan?

quote:

Poe's The Raven should have been mentioned.

I'll just respond and let you read my signature line!

But he was American! Eskimo Nell (and Dead Eye Dick) were British!!! Having said that, perhaps we can take a hint from Poe about Mark Sullivan threads....
"quoth the Raven, NEVERMORE"!!!!!!!!
Steve your "Vagabond" reminded of another we learned in grammar school, Lo those many years ago:

"I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull's way and the whale's way, where the wind's like a whetted knife;
And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover,
And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick's over."
John Masefield.
BTW, for the peasants among us, the term "trick" refers to a watch, not what you think it is!!!
Happy New Year to All!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
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?

I too am a life member and see an action of this nature detrimental to SCi if indeed Mr Sullivan has not recieved an explaination for the SCi's actions he deserves one in full, though surely not timely fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
All this, and to the best of our collective knowledge; Mark Sullivan still will NOT be at SCI Reno.

Happy New Year...

Rich

It reminds me a bit of the old SNL sketches wherein the news anchor (typically Dan Achroid) would periodically remind everyone that Generalisimo Fransico Franco was still dead.

Cheers.

Wow! 7 pages complete with it's own poetry session and an AR first - nobody got totally out of control! Special thanks to "Shakari" and Gayne for the "crearive" relief!

After reading through this thread yet again I have come to this conclusion:

1) MS is for the most part is somewhat respected by the members of this forum (No Saeed, I did not include you in that assessment!).

2) SCI has a very stringent set of "Overly PC" rules that on any given day could entrap most anybody.

3)Nobody from SCI bothered to speak up on this forum as to the facts! WE all know they are by now well aware of this forum and more specifically of this particular thread!

4)This forum has a very dedicated "core" group that has matured over the years, thus this thread's somewhat civil tone. Well done IMHO.

And finally: Mark Sullivan appears to be "exiled" from SCI for the forseeable future. It will be very interesting to see how this might affect his safari bookings. And...that will ultimately determine just how important attending the SCI show as an exhibitor really is these days.

If Mark is as quick on his feet with marketing as he is with his DR this might be the biggest boost to his business yet!

Stay tuned!

JW

I guess one reason MS got banned whereas some other companies do not, could possibly be that he doesn't have such a good lawyer as some other companies.

See here:

Debate also swirls around what many industry sources call the most controversial operator in Zimbabwe: Out of Africa Safaris. Founded by four former South African policemen and based in both South Africa and Overland Park, Kan., the company has done a brisk business taking a heavily American clientele to hunt on several ranches that, according to industry watchdogs in Zimbabwe, were seized by Zanu PF activists and independence war veterans. Critics, including the Zimbabwean Association of Tourism and Safari Operators, say that the group uses poorly trained hunting guides who, among other violations, sometimes endanger the lives of their clients and overhunt species in violation of the Zimbabwean government's hunting rules.

Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Authority banned Out of Africa last year from operating in the country. "This is an unscrupulous organization that doesn’t respect the environment and pursues unsustainable quotas," says David Coltart, the opposition leader. Conservationist Johnny Rodrigues calls the company the most "flagrant violator" of hunting regulations in Zimbabwe. Dawie Groenewald, one of the founding partners of Out of Africa, denies that his company has done anything ethically wrong and says that he has been slandered by white Zimbabwean hunters. "The white Zimbabweans hunting in Zim don't want anyone else coming in there to hunt - they hate South Africans coming to hunt in their kingdom," he told Newsweek. Out of Africa's attorney, Kevin Anderson , says that "these allegations about poaching and other illegal activities have been floating around for several years and they've never been substantiated." Anderson also says that Out of Africa recently decided to stop organizing hunts in Zimbabwe because "it's just become too difficult." Whatever the case, next week in Reno, Out of Africa will set up its usual booth at the SCI convention

Taken from:

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=13576

Now check the President Elect here:

http://www.scifirstforhunters....fficersAndDirectors/

Whether the two people are related, I have absolutely no idea!

No Steve, Mark does have a good lawyer. Years ago we were alerted about an owner of a video store in the Mpumalanga area, who was pirating my hunting DVD's and MS's. In seven days Mark's lawyer put that guy out of business, and there haven't been any incidents of pirating since.

(Maybe it was MS who showed up with a .700 N.E. and told the guy to stop selling bootleg DVD's!)

But yes Mark has a very competent lawyer, who stays busy.

Mate, I think you might have missed my point slightly there......

You might like to read my previous post a bit more carefully.

quote:

activities have been floating around for several years and they've never been substantiated.

Sounds just like the excuse Sullivan supporter's use!

hmmmmmmmmmm, some more of that "where there's smoke, there's fire" stuff. His own videos are enough to convict him in my eyes.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Steve:

I think you are talking about the executive order that George W. Bush issued late in his last term. It ordered all federal wildlife and land management agencies to consider the effect on anglers and hunters and bring them into the mix when making decisions.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it was totally ignored. With our new president and the agendas of his advisors, the chances of that order surviving are nil.

Wow. This thread certainly has evolved into something vastly different from what started it!

Bill Quimby

I covered the USO debacle extensively in my column. So to clear up some confusing comments, here are a few of the facts.

1. USO initialy LOST the suit in the AZ courts.

2. USO appealed to the 9th Circuit Court in the land of fruits and nuts to the west of us, where USO then prevailed. The court cited the ICC as the reason because USO claimed it was selling the antlers to its clients, not the hunt itself. IOW, they were selling a tangible product across state lines.

2B. Scotus declined to hear AZ's appeal.

3. When #2 resulted, the AZ G&F dept. was forced to issue hundreds of permits to NRs who had first been denied under the 10% cap. Jim Zumbo was one of them, but instead of hunting, he ate the primo elk permit and severed any ties to USO.

4. USO then initiated similar suits in other states. One just happened to be Nevada.

5. As a result, Democrat Harry Reid and a couple other senators introduced bill S339 in Congress in 2005 that basically removed the ICC from the equation and said that each state has the last say on how its game is managed.

The following became law as part of Public Law No: 109-13.
:

Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 339 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

(See this link http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.339: )



History behind the legislation:

Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce by Article I of the Constitution. This power to regulate has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to also give Congress the power to regulate activities which negatively impact interstate commerce, commonly referred to as the “negative” or “dormant Commerce Clause.”

The Court has cited the dormant Commerce Clause when denying the states the power to unjustifiably discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. If a state regulation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then the subject matter of the state regulation, which could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, becomes subject to the dormant Commerce Clause.

Congress does have the power to specifically exempt a state regulated activity from the dormant Commerce Clause. In 1890, when the Supreme Court decided that the regulation of alcoholic beverages lay beyond the reach of the states, Congress promptly overrode that decision with the Webb-Kenyon Act. Thereafter, the Court upheld Congress’ authority to commit the regulation of liquor imports to state authority.

Motivation for legislation:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a state recreational hunting regulation substantially affects interstate commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies and ruled that state laws that distinguish between state residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.

The Ninth Circuit ruling has spawned litigation in other states, and several pending lawsuits threaten each state’s wildlife regulatory authority.

What the Bill Would Do:

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.
Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

******

This is the final wording passed by both houses of Congress and signed by Bush:

RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT HUNTING AND FISHING REGULATIONS

SEC. 6036. STATE REGULATION OF RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT HUNTING AND FISHING. (a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.

(b) Declaration of Policy and Construction of Congressional Silence-

(1) IN GENERAL- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.

(2) CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

(c) Limitations- Nothing in this section shall be construed--

(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;

(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or

(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

(d) State Defined- For purposes of this section, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
******

6. As a result of the above, the 10% cap in AZ was reinstated and the lawsuits in other states were dismissed.

There, maybe that will make the USO "unethical" affair a bit clearer. Oh, and Mark Sullivan wasn't involved in any way.

P.S. Ellen & I will celebrate 49 years together next Oct.

It would be interesting to see the SCI letter Sullivan received. Were it posted that might shed some light.

My thinking is that the last thing SCI wants to do is take action as it may not be good for business. There is always a back splatter and would think the SCI people are well aware. Why would they take that financial risk? After all it is about memberships,attendance,donations, auctions and fees.

I have no dog in this issue and just wonder from a business, risk / reward view... why?

There seem to be some nuts and bolts missing and with out them ... we do not know the ... "the rest of the story".

Thanks, Tony, and let me be the first to say congratulations on your upcoming 50th.

Bill Quimby

I am curious as to how we really know Mark hasn't received notice of why he is being excluded. Seems to me that a guy who likes to call the bluff of a wounded DG animal as much as he does, might also like to call the bluff of an organization like SCI.

I think Mark deserves a reason as to why he isn't allowed to be there. I also believe he more or less knows the reason but is playing semantics to push an issue.

Not a member of SCI but wondering if their being quiet has to do with wanting to take the high road or not expend the resources to fight something that they feel is beneath them or not up for discussion.

AFAIK - they have no legal mandate to include Mark or to explain to him *publicly* what their reasons are.

If you don't have to spend the $$ - why do it?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

activities have been floating around for several years and they've never been substantiated.

Sounds just like the excuse Sullivan supporter's use!

Saeed,
This is your form to do with as you wish, but that doen't change the man that Mark Sullivan is. You may not like his style of hunting, but it is his style. I like long range hunters more than the guys with a 30-30 for elk and taking 100 yard shots off hand, the long range hunters are more ethical, IMO. Mark is Mark, you had better walk a mile in his shoes before you make too many judgements. Mark is an honest man and hides nothing.....Tom

quote:

Mark is Mark, you had better walk a mile in his shoes before you make too many judgements. Mark is an honest man and hides nothing.....Tom

Oh boy! We got to hero worshiphip now have we?

I really couldn't careless what sort of a man he is. I never met him.

But from his videos, he makes himself into an utter idiot, who stands for a method of hunting I find deplorable.

Jeff Wemmer:

"4)This forum has a very dedicated "core" group that has matured over the years, thus this thread's somewhat civil tone. Well done IMHO."

Loonie:

"I think Mark deserves a reason as to why he isn't allowed to be there. I also believe he more or less knows the reason but is playing semantics to push an issue."

+1
I think both those quotes about sum up my thoughts on this issue and this thread.

Brett

quote:

This forum has a very dedicated "core" group that has matured over the years, thus this thread's somewhat civil tone. Well done IMHO."

Yes, despite being over a full moon...and the holidays!

I also think this has been different than typical MS threads as now MS is the “victim”, with big-bad-SCI the bully. And who does not root for the little guy. Quite interesting actually.

This may be a harbinger of things to come, when SCI moves their show to Dallas. I am not an inner-anything in either organization, but this makes me want to stand with DSC. All of this bullying (real or perceived) could really backfire on SCI.

Why don’t you friends of MS out there tell him to join AR? Seriously.

I have nothing to add to your important dicussion regarding this Sullivan guy, but I can give you this picture borrowed from a norwegian hunting forum:

From me to you all. A picture of Toronto Tower:

Odin: Will you stop posting photos of Brett's secretary on the Internet please?

Odin,

no way that pic is genuine, it must have been photoshopped....... the Toronto Tower is nowhere near as tall as that!

I might have matured over the years but I'm not sure my sense of humour has!

How can we leap to the assumption that SCI hasn't provided MS with a clear explanation of why he is out? All we have is MS's spin of the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill C:

quote:

This forum has a very dedicated "core" group that has matured over the years, thus this thread's somewhat civil tone. Well done IMHO."

Yes, despite being over a full moon...and the holidays!

I also think this has been different than typical MS threads as now MS is the “victim”, with big-bad-SCI the bully. And who does not root for the little guy. Quite interesting actually.

This may be a harbinger of things to come, when SCI moves their show to Dallas. I am not an inner-anything in either organization, but this makes me want to stand with DSC. All of this bullying (real or perceived) could really backfire on SCI.

Why don’t you friends of MS out there tell him to join AR? Seriously.

I don't think you will see the show at Dallas...

And a blue moon at that!

quote:

Originally posted by SableTrail:
Odin: Will you stop posting photos of Brett's secretary on the Internet please?

Talk about back problems!!!!!

Brett

quote:

I have nothing to add to your important dicussion regarding this Sullivan guy, but I can give you this picture borrowed from a norwegian hunting forum:

From me to you all. A picture of Toronto Tower:

Dang! How in the hell did she get past the Texas state line! Besides our penchant for raising grotesque genetic averations of White Tailed Deer behind high fences (me not included on that one BTW)

We also have a "severe" affliction for all things large, er, ugh, HUGE! We actually have a statewide "Big boobies" leaving the state alert system - How she got through we may never know! - This is a case of a true systemic failure and the Democrats ain't even running the place (yet) Looking forward to Texas installing those full-body scanners!

Who will volunteer to go up there to Canada and bring her back home?

(Just trying to to keep it light fellas)

Another one of Tiger Wood's conquests?

I do not think Tigger could afford that at the present time.

Rich

I am a structural engineer.....and for the life of me can't figure out how to support them cantilevers!!...on the tower I mean.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

I don't know how a MS post got turned into one on the back problems of that large breasted woman but oh well...

Oh and if y'all are as bored as I am click this link to get my numbers over at Outdoor Life up.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blo...0/01/searching-quint

That chick had big breasts. Ha! Love it

On Mark Sullivan to each his own
But disturbing this thread has grown
Bawdy rhymes and tits
State law and personal ethics
Make confusion when together are thrown

And Odin...
More unbelievable than your 8 legged steed