quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Im not a fan of Sullivan to say the least. However, I have an equally big problem with SCI not giving hm or anyone else an explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Im not a fan of Sullivan to say the least. However, I have an equally big problem with SCI not giving hm or anyone else an explanation. This crap with the ethics folks being required to keep things confidential is just a lot of BS. I hear all the reasons given for this and am not buying any of it. It dosnt protect anyone to keep things secret and only adds fuel to the fires of speculation. I think that all of these issues should be made transparnt to the membership. Who decided that the "elite few" are the only ones who should know the truth?

6x NFR Qualifier
NFR Champion
Reserve World Champion Bareback Rider
PRCA Million Dollar Club
02' Salt Lake Olympic Qualifier
and an all around good guy!

quote:

This is my opinion:

I don't fucking care if MS is going to be at SCI or not.

quote:

SCI's reasoning is Mark Sullivan was provoking to many charges just for film

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

SCI's reasoning is Mark Sullivan was provoking to many charges just for film

Wow!

How wonderful that SCI has finally realized what everyone knew for donkey's years!

Now SCI should get started on those who enter trophies in their record book that have been captured then shot just for that purpose!

quote:

Originally posted by eurocentric:
But supposedly he has been doing this for 20 years, if so, then why ban him now? why didn't he get banned 20 years ago? Just doesn't make sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

SCI's reasoning is Mark Sullivan was provoking to many charges just for film

Wow!

How wonderful that SCI has finally realized what everyone knew for donkey's years!

Now SCI should get started on those who enter trophies in their record book that have been captured then shot just for that purpose!

quote:

Originally posted by eurocentric:
But supposedly he has been doing this for 20 years, if so, then why ban him now? why didn't he get banned 20 years ago? Just doesn't make sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

SCI's reasoning is Mark Sullivan was provoking to many charges just for film

Wow!

How wonderful that SCI has finally realized what everyone knew for donkey's years!

Now SCI should get started on those who enter trophies in their record book that have been captured then shot just for that purpose!

6x NFR Qualifier
NFR Champion
Reserve World Champion Bareback Rider
PRCA Million Dollar Club
02' Salt Lake Olympic Qualifier
and an all around good guy!

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
ExpressYourself,

Would you be Mark's son? Not starting a fight, but I was there and didn't hear word one good, bad, or indifferent about Mark or his absence.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
ExpressYourself,

Would you be Mark's son? Not starting a fight, but I was there and didn't hear word one good, bad, or indifferent about Mark or his absence.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by John Frederick:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
ExpressYourself,

Would you be Mark's son? Not starting a fight, but I was there and didn't hear word one good, bad, or indifferent about Mark or his absence.

Brett

Brett, not all Sullivan supporters or even those who don't hate with the passion exhibited by some on this forum, are necessarily related to him. I know this may come as a shock, however you will recover, given time.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Tapper2,

your loss, not SCI's.

I spoke with a couple of the SCI board members RE Sullivan's expulsion. More than sixty days prior to the SCI Convention he was given a several page letter detailing the issues that led to their decision. He has opted not, at least to this date, to respond in public.
The primary issue was the unnecessary wounding of animals simply for the video sales, along with numerous complaints of his killing the client's game for them.
Saeed would be pleased, IMHO, to give him all the space here to publish that letter, and make his case.

Feel free, since you are such close friends to ask him for a response, either here or to you for reprint...

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by John Frederick:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
ExpressYourself,

Would you be Mark's son? Not starting a fight, but I was there and didn't hear word one good, bad, or indifferent about Mark or his absence.

Brett

Brett, not all Sullivan supporters or even those who don't hate with the passion exhibited by some on this forum, are necessarily related to him. I know this may come as a shock, however you will recover, given time.

John,

I'm aware. However his son is named Shawn as is this "sirnameless poster".

ExpressYourself,

So as I asked and yes you did exactly dodge my question: Are you Mark's son? Yes or no? Nothing more.

Brett

PS.....No I'm not Mark's son.

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by John Frederick:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
ExpressYourself,

Would you be Mark's son? Not starting a fight, but I was there and didn't hear word one good, bad, or indifferent about Mark or his absence.

Brett

Brett, not all Sullivan supporters or even those who don't hate with the passion exhibited by some on this forum, are necessarily related to him. I know this may come as a shock, however you will recover, given time.

John,

I'm aware. However his son is named Shawn as is this "sirnameless poster".

ExpressYourself,

So as I asked and yes you did exactly dodge my question: Are you Mark's son? Yes or no? Nothing more.

Brett

PS.....No I'm not Mark's son.

Sorry Brett. I thought by explaining I was an author and a publisher that would clear-up that I was not related. I agree, it did appear that I dodged your question. I am not Mark Sullivan's son nor am I related. Sorry for not answering your question directly.

Mark has likely not responded to emails as he has been out of the country the past month. Typically when he returns, he is quite busy as you would imagine. Just an FYI.

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Shawn,

Not to split hairs but I spoke to Mark in person on Jan 10 when he was in Denver. From Denver he said he was going to travel to Nebraska to speak to Cabelas about some kind of arrangement and then go home.

For the record I found Mark very personable and friendly. He made some self deprecating jokes and was easy to talk to. His wife was equally nice and as friendly as could be. I purchased his two books and found them to offer an insight into how/why he hunts the way he does. I don't agree with everything that he wrote but then again he specifically mentions in the books that he isn't seeking approval.

I think that something is missing in the discussions of people like Mark or Peter Capstick; these men are in the entertainment business. We buy their books and videos to share in a sense of adventure. I think Mark is acutely aware of this and that is why he has developed a certain persona.

As for the SCI thing, I asked Mark about it and he didn't elaborate. I respected his feelings and changed the subject. I don't know what happened or why but he is testing out different markets (such as Denver) in the meantime. He had not one bad thing to say about SCI and he appears to be taking the high road on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Shawn,

Not to split hairs but I spoke to Mark in person on Jan 10 when he was in Denver. From Denver he said he was going to travel to Nebraska to speak to Cabelas about some kind of arrangement and then go home.

For the record I found Mark very personable and friendly. He made some self deprecating jokes and was easy to talk to. His wife was equally nice and as friendly as could be. I purchased his two books and found them to offer an insight into how/why he hunts the way he does. I don't agree with everything that he wrote but then again he specifically mentions in the books that he isn't seeking approval.

I think that something is missing in the discussions of people like Mark or Peter Capstick; these men are in the entertainment business. We buy their books and videos to share in a sense of adventure. I think Mark is acutely aware of this and that is why he has developed a certain persona.

As for the SCI thing, I asked Mark about it and he didn't elaborate. I respected his feelings and changed the subject. I don't know what happened or why but he is testing out different markets (such as Denver) in the meantime. He had not one bad thing to say about SCI and he appears to be taking the high road on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by filmit:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Shawn,

Not to split hairs but I spoke to Mark in person on Jan 10 when he was in Denver. From Denver he said he was going to travel to Nebraska to speak to Cabelas about some kind of arrangement and then go home.

For the record I found Mark very personable and friendly. He made some self deprecating jokes and was easy to talk to. His wife was equally nice and as friendly as could be. I purchased his two books and found them to offer an insight into how/why he hunts the way he does. I don't agree with everything that he wrote but then again he specifically mentions in the books that he isn't seeking approval.

I think that something is missing in the discussions of people like Mark or Peter Capstick; these men are in the entertainment business. We buy their books and videos to share in a sense of adventure. I think Mark is acutely aware of this and that is why he has developed a certain persona.

As for the SCI thing, I asked Mark about it and he didn't elaborate. I respected his feelings and changed the subject. I don't know what happened or why but he is testing out different markets (such as Denver) in the meantime. He had not one bad thing to say about SCI and he appears to be taking the high road on the subject.

These men are not in the entertainment business. They are in the hunting industry and whether they like it or not they are ambassadors for hunting. A professional hunter should act as such and should know they are in the publics eye especially when they are marketing their antics for all to see.

Mark Sullivan does nothing to help legitimize hunting. His lack of ethics and respect for his quarry give a lot of ammo to the anti-hunting crowd. He is in it only for the money or else would not wound animals to get the money shot(charge) on video.

I have more respect for Elmer Fudd as a hunter than I do Mark Sullivan.

quote:

Originally posted by ExpressYourself:

quote:

Originally posted by filmit:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Shawn,

Not to split hairs but I spoke to Mark in person on Jan 10 when he was in Denver. From Denver he said he was going to travel to Nebraska to speak to Cabelas about some kind of arrangement and then go home.

For the record I found Mark very personable and friendly. He made some self deprecating jokes and was easy to talk to. His wife was equally nice and as friendly as could be. I purchased his two books and found them to offer an insight into how/why he hunts the way he does. I don't agree with everything that he wrote but then again he specifically mentions in the books that he isn't seeking approval.

I think that something is missing in the discussions of people like Mark or Peter Capstick; these men are in the entertainment business. We buy their books and videos to share in a sense of adventure. I think Mark is acutely aware of this and that is why he has developed a certain persona.

As for the SCI thing, I asked Mark about it and he didn't elaborate. I respected his feelings and changed the subject. I don't know what happened or why but he is testing out different markets (such as Denver) in the meantime. He had not one bad thing to say about SCI and he appears to be taking the high road on the subject.

These men are not in the entertainment business. They are in the hunting industry and whether they like it or not they are ambassadors for hunting. A professional hunter should act as such and should know they are in the publics eye especially when they are marketing their antics for all to see.

Mark Sullivan does nothing to help legitimize hunting. His lack of ethics and respect for his quarry give a lot of ammo to the anti-hunting crowd. He is in it only for the money or else would not wound animals to get the money shot(charge) on video.

I have more respect for Elmer Fudd as a hunter than I do Mark Sullivan.

I guess that's where our opinions diverge slightly. I still respect yours but disagree with aspects of it. Once you make a video, like it or not, you are in the entertainment business. That video may or may not have other value based upon topic and content and the purchaser's needs.

I agree that those who participate in hunting, PH and client, should be aware they are in the public eye. All hunters should work toward improving general perception where possible. That includes those in the industry.

I am not aware of any unethical aspect or occurrences related to Mark Sullivan's hunting. I have frequently heard offerings of unsubstantiated comment from those with no direct knowledge, as seen posted on our forum and elsewhere. I have never heard from anyone who has direct knowledge of Sullivan wounding animals to create a charge.

I know personally that Sullivan holds a high regard for the game he kills and that money is not his motivating factor for hunting.

The footage in Nitro Express Safaris videos is not for the squeamish, but I do not think it is sadistic either. In the videos I have watched, I repeatedly see Sullivan's call for clients to shoot the quarry again repeatedly in an effort to kill the animal being hunted. This is certainly not a call to wound the animal with minimal or intentionally poor shooting.

Sullivan generally prefers an immediate track and then a close approach to finish as opposed to a shot from afar on follow-up. If the animal is mortally wounded on the ground they will shoot it at that point. If the game bolts, they shoot again, if it charges, they shoot at a preferred distance. If it does nothing they momentarily await the animals action to determine the finish (on charge, as it flees, or on the ground). This last component is likely where some take issue and is perhaps where your term lack of ethics is targeting.

Many prefer this style of hunting. Getting up close, taking on dangerous game, and finishing close on the animal's terms unless mortally wounded. This is also what has become the specialized market share of Nitro Express Safaris video.

I respect and understand that some hunters may prefer to hunt differently. My method may or may not be yours. That alone does not make it unethical. You should hunt how you prefer and always follow the game laws.