Guys,

With the greatest of respect to you all, I'm seeing lots of cans of worms being opened lately and thought it might be an idea to remind some that Big Brother, probably in the form of USF&WS could well be watching and that it's not impossible that some comments might inspire them to consider extending their Mozambique ban into 'some' neighbouring countries if they feel quotas, game laws and/or management programmes might possibly be being abused.

Let's also not forget that no matter whether people are guilty or innocent of anything, they just might face expensive and possibly embarrassing invesigation.

Might be better to post with caution, lest someone shoots either themselves, someone else or perhaps an entire hunting industry in both feet.

+10!!!

Steve,

In Spite of Die's opinion of you, THIS IS THE BEST ADVICE OF ALL.

Everyone should enjoy a nice glass of shut the hell up. You do not want any Federal Agency looking at you or anyone you know.

They have all the capacity to squeeze you EVEN if you have done nothing wrong. The arrogant notions of "I don't have anything to worry about, because I always hunt legally"; don't prevent them from looking you over. Even if you are clean, if you go through something like this without legal representation, then you are a fool. At best you are out legal fees.

Jeff

I can almost hear USF&WS and perhaps a few antis rubbing their hand with glee!

Bwana Bunduki,

Nice of you to say so!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
I can almost hear USF&WS and perhaps a few antis rubbing their hand with glee!

I would think that given Zims recent history, it wouldn't take much to push USF&WS over the edge..

i know a nice edge they could be pushed over. its called the grand canyon

I agree with the above posts 100%. USF&W can come down on Zim hunting with a hammer.

Zim is one place were the blue collar guy can go and afford a great hunt.

We are men of honor and integrity. We are professionals.

Phifer can easily remedy this situation and pay the trophy fees.

He shot them, pay for them.


dale

AFR hunter seems intent on not only throwing gasoline on the controversial PH but on anyone that has hunted with him. His six posts to date are accusing others of illegal hunts then quoting hunt reports to lock in evidence. Shakari, I don't think he has any intention of following your excellent advice. Wonder what his next move will be?

+10 Steve, we have enough problems without shooting off our mouth and starting more

Steve has it right. What you say, can come back to bite you in the backside later. I have no doubt USFWS watches all hunting and auction sites. I am suprised no one has said this before.

Steve,

Well said Mate!!!! FFS these "storm in tea cup" that love brewing here are out of control all the while honest outfitters are trying to make a living. people who have sweet jack to do with it shouting odds, it is like a bun cake fight in junior school.

Regards to jason, we have to make plans to get into my area sometime soon as promised

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Steve,

In Spite of Die's opinion of you, THIS IS THE BEST ADVICE OF ALL.

Everyone should enjoy a nice glass of shut the hell up. You do not want any Federal Agency looking at you or anyone you know.

They have all the capacity to squeeze you EVEN if you have done nothing wrong. The arrogant notions of "I don't have anything to worry about, because I always hunt legally"; don't prevent them from looking you over. Even if you are clean, if you go through something like this without legal representation, then you are a fool. At best you are out legal fees.

Jeff

Jeff is dead right in that statement. Those (Americans) who do believe that the attitude of "I don't have anything to worry about, because I always hunt legally"; Might like to look at this:

http://video.google.com/google...833865&hl=en&fs=true

and then think very carefully indeed about some of the statements that are being made.

If USF&WS get arsey about Zimbabwe elephant imports, half the African hunting industry and half the Americans who hunt that part of Africa will be well and truly rubber ducked. (Cockney rhyming slang that I'm sure you'll be able to work out! )

To say nothing of the individuals who may or may not have completely unknowingly broken a game law or an international agreement of some kind and by posting an unfortunate comment about it here, just might be dropping themselves well and truly in the shit!

As I said previously, there's also the issue of some of the allegations that are being made and internet libel laws. It's not a case of saying you know something to be true, therefore it is true, it's a case of being able to prove absolutely that what you say is absolutely true.

I'll bet a pound to a pinch of shit these threads are currently being monitored by a number of individuals and organisations.

I can guarantee it is being watched. The US F&W man's handel appears on the intro list at the top of the page every night! I also know the Brits have a man who vistis these pages but have never known him to sign up

So we should just keep quiet about the unscrupulous who are doing their best to tarnish, and indeed destroy, hunting? Is this site not about ethical hunting and the combating of illegality in our industry? The difficulty, I suppose, is differentiating between the genuine cases and the bulldust, of which I have no doubt there is plenty.
I still say expose the rubbish and if some of the ethical guys have to pay some legal fees to clear themselves, so be it. The consequences of not exposing those who are destroying hunting will be far more costly in the long run. Of course USF&W are watching us and who cares? They are supposed to be on our side, remember? They have an obligation to deal with lawbreakers in the wildlife industry, and so do we. Is it not a good thing for them to see us as actively weeding out the rot? What do we as ethical hunters have to hide?

Saeed, may you please create an icon of a fella ducking bullets? For me and die ou jagter?

Cheers and good hunting. Long may it last.

David

David,

I'm sure you know how I feel about ethics but that isn't my point.

I agree with you that the dodgy operators need to gotten out of the business but that applies to all dodgy operators in all parts of Africa and that comment doesn't necessarily imply anything in this instance.

However, in this case, IF some of the allegations are true and actually, even if they're not true, the implications could be very far reaching indeed and could affect not only individuals overseas but also the entire industry..... and I don't just mean in Zimbabwe.

Therefore and especially as an awful lot of what's involved is nothing more than allegation and often involve cases where some people might have been totally unaware they may have been doing something wrong, I'd suggest everyone involved, exert a degree of discretion and instead contact Martin privately so that the association and possibly game dept can investigate and punish the guilty rather than drop clients in the shit and risk all that collateral damage.

The matter of the travellers checks is to me a different matter but still one that should perhaps be sorted out in private if at all possible.

As I see it, it isn't the hunters that have anything to hide at all but it is them and the hunting industry in general that could be most seriously hurt.......

Steve, I do understand what you are saying and I do know where you stand on the ethics issue.
All a bit emotional this end, I'm afraid, and I have no problem admitting to that....I guess I just musn't let the emotion override reason..

David

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
So we should just keep quiet about the unscrupulous who are doing their best to tarnish, and indeed destroy, hunting? Is this site not about ethical hunting and the combating of illegality in our industry? The difficulty, I suppose, is differentiating between the genuine cases and the bulldust, of which I have no doubt there is plenty.
I still say expose the rubbish and if some of the ethical guys have to pay some legal fees to clear themselves, so be it. The consequences of not exposing those who are destroying hunting will be far more costly in the long run. Of course USF&W are watching us and who cares? They are supposed to be on our side, remember? They have an obligation to deal with lawbreakers in the wildlife industry, and so do we. Is it not a good thing for them to see us as actively weeding out the rot? What do we as ethical hunters have to hide?

Saeed, may you please create an icon of a fella ducking bullets? For me and die ou jagter?

Cheers and good hunting. Long may it last.

David

+1

Shakari,


Sounds like some good advice.

quote:

Originally posted by .458Aubs:
Steve,

Well said Mate!!!! FFS these "storm in tea cup" that love brewing here are out of control all the while honest outfitters are trying to make a living. people who have sweet jack to do with it shouting odds, it is like a bun cake fight in junior school.

Regards to jason, we have to make plans to get into my area sometime soon as promised

Sorry mate. I missed your post..... it sounds good to me!

I spoke to Jason today and he's like a dog with two dicks because he's just had his new rifle permit approved.

Steve,

Well said Mate!!!! FFS these "storm in tea cup" that love brewing here are out of control all the while honest outfitters are trying to make a living. people who have sweet jack to do with it shouting odds, it is like a bun cake fight in junior school.

Regards to jason, we have to make plans to get into my area sometime soon as promised


Sorry mate. I missed your post..... it sounds good to me!

I spoke to Jason today and he's like a dog with two dicks because he's just had his new rifle permit approved[/quote]

Steve

I have never heard it quite like that, I will have remember that one.

Oh my - guys if you are going on your own do your homework or just use outfitter - no matter what switch you use - pay for what you have shot (trophy fee = redemption for life taken) - and let others do their work - I hope we are still hunters not lawyers?

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
Steve, I do understand what you are saying and I do know where you stand on the ethics issue.
All a bit emotional this end, I'm afraid, and I have no problem admitting to that....I guess I just musn't let the emotion override reason..

David

David I know that feeling! Steve's 100% on the ball with this one it's just that sometimes one can't help the emotion overriding any reason I know I'm guilty as well.

BTTT

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Steve,

In Spite of Die's opinion of you, THIS IS THE BEST ADVICE OF ALL.

Everyone should enjoy a nice glass of shut the hell up. You do not want any Federal Agency looking at you or anyone you know.

They have all the capacity to squeeze you EVEN if you have done nothing wrong. The arrogant notions of "I don't have anything to worry about, because I always hunt legally"; don't prevent them from looking you over. Even if you are clean, if you go through something like this without legal representation, then you are a fool. At best you are out legal fees.

Jeff

Jeff is dead right in that statement. Those (Americans) who do believe that the attitude of "I don't have anything to worry about, because I always hunt legally"; Might like to look at this:

http://video.google.com/google...833865&hl=en&fs=true

and then think very carefully indeed about some of the statements that are being made.

If USF&WS get arsey about Zimbabwe elephant imports, half the African hunting industry and half the Americans who hunt that part of Africa will be well and truly rubber ducked. (Cockney rhyming slang that I'm sure you'll be able to work out! )

To say nothing of the individuals who may or may not have completely unknowingly broken a game law or an international agreement of some kind and by posting an unfortunate comment about it here, just might be dropping themselves well and truly in the shit!

As I said previously, there's also the issue of some of the allegations that are being made and internet libel laws. It's not a case of saying you know something to be true, therefore it is true, it's a case of being able to prove absolutely that what you say is absolutely true.

I'll bet a pound to a pinch of shit these threads are currently being monitored by a number of individuals and organisations.

They just can't leave it alone... edited for meaning...

Not for my own good buddy.

I'm just still seeing a lot of gossip and speculation that could very easily cost individual members immense problems....... and also destroy the industry.

There's a CITES convention coming up and this silly gossip could easily contribute to a withdrawal of all sport hunted Elephant quota for all African countries if people don't stop speculating.

Better to leave the individuals to settle it in private and hope the gossipers and flamers can read between the lines!

Sorry Steve,

You are was the last person this was directed to. I saw you BTTT and I wanted to movesome meaningful text closer to the end. It was addressed to all those who continue to speculate about things in various threads with NO CREDIBLE evidence what so ever. You and I are way on the same page on this.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

no problem my friend.

I read your comment as in support of mine and my subsequent comment was to underline the original sentiment.

Steve,

I get your point, especially about gossiping flamers, but we still need open and honest commentary on what is going on. If we don't point out things we honestly think are wrong, how are things going to improve? What if we don't name and shame to a certain extent and demand things be done correctly? Stuff like canned shooting got a nod and wink. The next step was growing acceptance. After that, economics made it the norm in a few places and real hunting suffered. Maybe things would be better now if people had pointed out the truth earlier.

The key is trying to be mature and honest when pointing out things you don't think are right. I know internet, maturity and honesty don't sit well together, but we still have to try. I'd rather have the odd ugly flame fest than give the cheaters a free ride and thereby give my approval to what they are doing.

Cheers,
Dean

Maki

Mate, people REALLY need to read between the lines on this one both for the good of several individuals AND a complete hunting industry.

Steve:

You have made this issue one of Nixon's conduct. You don't get it. Many of us are really pissed off he stiffed Nixon. I don't care if Nixon did something "wrong" - does that justify Phifer stiffing Nixon on the TFs? Hell, it actually is incriminating since Phifer went ahead and shot the zoo.

I have never hunted with Nixon, but I find it interesting no one on AR has ever posted anything negative about the guy.

It is not speculation - just look at the facts as they have been presented here. Give me one possible scenario that vindicates Bill Phifer.

What do you think is going to happen if we do nothing? Phifer is going to pay his trophy fees because he goes to church and feels guilty?

Maybe it's just me, but I have seen very little "fact" coming out of the dialogue on this issue. The only fact that has e]been established is that there is a dispute concerning payment - one party believes they are wowed money,the other believes they have paid in full. Beyond that, there is little proof on either side that one would consider fact supported by unimpeacheable evidence.

To Steve's point, no one is disagreeing that we all have a responsibility, a moral imperative, to police our own ranks as hunters. To those of us for which hunting is not merely a "sport" but a reflection of who we are, we carry the torch for the future, with the goal of leaving our heritage in at least a little better shape than we received it.

Policing must be limited to fact. It does not involve rumor, innuendo, speculation or personal agendas. Unfortunately in this day and age accusations are enough to ruin erstwhile stellar reputations, and serve as fodder for those who would seek to destroy the heritage we hold so dear. And make no mistake, those who do look ill upon who we are are well funded, very well organized, and extremely manipulative. What we discuss amongst ourselves as possibilities or issues of a negative nature, they take as fact. It is one thing to confide in a friend or associate about suspicion, but it is quite another thing to air those suspicions as foregone conclusions in a public forum with a wide audience.

Those who have yet to be through the experience of being on the wrong side of unfounded allegations have not lived long enough yet to experience it. You do not get through life without stepping on a few toes, even unintentionally, and at times those toes belong to someone not bothered by inflicting damage and pain just to settle a perceived score. Or those of the "sewing circle" mentality who revel in gossip and rumor, and who are gold medal winners in the event of jumping to conclusions.

While it may be true that where there is smoke, there is fire, all too often these days what is seen as smoke is in actuality the fog of confusion, creating a perception clouded by inaccurate or incomplete information, emotion, or a past personal experience that is only tangentially relevant to the issues at hand. In such a state, what passes for "fact" is all too often anything but fact.

Our duty and obligation to police our own does not include the multiple role of investigator, judge, jury and executioner. In addition to the resources of our governments devoted to these very separate and distinct roles, those before us, and some of us, have established private endeavors to assist in our oversight roles. Those organizations do have the connections and resources to do more than any of us can do on an individual basis. They also have the objectivity to separate fact from fiction, and to assess the credibility of both the accuser and the accused.

There is a pretty common standard throughout the world that any evidence or testimony be limited to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is such a common phrase that few people really take the time to reflect on the scope of that very simple phrase.

The truth is a basic component of fact. It culls out all information that is false, inaccurate or wrong. It is an element devoid of emotion and not subject to debate, although discerning it is often times a herculean task.

The whole truth is a mechanism to bring out the entire story. Isolated instances of fact (truth) may taken alone seem damning, but when seen in the context of the entire scope of all facts related to a matter, provides an objective view as to whether all facts, taken as a whole, support a given conclusion. More often than not, it turns an "AHAA!" piece of the whole truth into nothing more than a passing observation.

Nothing but the truth seeks to eliminate the "noise" in the background; to disregard matters not relevant or not material to the issue at hand. One of the intended effects is to remove any emotional component into one's decision making.

Given the public criticism and scrutiny of hunters in general and the magnifying glass under which we are viewed, we do ourselves no favors by deviating from the truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth) and dealing in anything but fact. To thecontrary, we are probably doing more harm than good. Not a result conducive to those who taken their roles as protectors of our heritage seriously. Let's make sure the bandwagon we are hopping on isn't headed off a cliff.

Jim:

Long diatribe, but you strike me as a guy who has not carefully considered what has been presented.

Do you honestly believe there is any chance Nixon got paid his TFs and is lying about it? There are only two possibilities here: Nixon is lying, or Phifer is.

I will bet you $1000 Phifer will be proved wrong. If there is "no decision," then niether of us wins. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

For the record, do you have any personal relationship with Phifer? Have you met him personally? Are you "one of the many" who have sent him PMs of encouragement? I remember you gave us the "libel" warning on the original thread.

These aren't rumors. And we aren't part of a "sewing circle."

You seem to be a smart guy. Tell me, given what is posted, do you personally think Nixon is lying? Don't be a fence sitter. Reminds me of the famous Dante quote, "The hottest flames in hell are preserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

Ironically, Dante's best known work was titled "Divine Comedy." A fitting title to the explanation offered by Bill Phifer.

AAZW,

No mate, I haven't made it an issue of Nixon's conduct at all..... or anyone else's for that matter and I think some people, possibly you included, are failing to read between the lines properly...... So I'll try to be slightly clearer, and would STRONGLY suggest people again try to read between my slightly less subtle lines.

Firstly, IF BP gave Nixon TCs and then reported them stolen and/or reneged on agreed payments of any kind, I reckon he was very wrong indeed to do so, no matter what the reason and IF he has, my advice would be for him to pay the outstanding amount along with any incurred additional bank costs to Nixon poste haste..... but I've already said that.

I'd suggest that BP might even have 'forgotten' he'd paid them to Nixon and his reporting them stolen could have been a result of a clouded mind caused by jet lag or larium etc.

Regarding the rest of it, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened and I have no idea what is and isn't true or proveable anyway. Therefore I don't allocate blame to anyone for anything.

There are no end of possible scenarios that could have happened and many/most of them could be perfectly innocent and probably many of them are not proveable either way anyway...... However,some of them, if they are proveable, could very easily result in some AR members who had absolutely no idea they had/have done anything wrong, ending up in very deep doo doos, including loss of liberty and huge financial penalties.

There's also the fact (as I've mentioned previously) that you can bet your cotton socks that Big Brother in the form of USF&WS at the very least are monitoring these threads and that they'd love nothing more than to find a reason to extend the Moz Elephant import ban to Zim and possibly even other countries..... if that happens, an awful lot of members here would find themselves unable to import trophies they've already shot and even more importantly, would fuck the entire Zim (AT LEAST) hunting industry like you wouldn't believe. Not one of us here, wants any of those things to happen.

There's also the issue of internet libel. As I've also previously stated, blokes don't seem to have any idea of how serious this issue can be. It isn't the case that you can post something about a person or organisation if you believe or even know those allegations to be true..... you have to be able to 110% prove they are 110% true.

If someone can find any cause whatsoever to sue for internet libel, they can not only sue the person who stated the libel, they can also sue the ISP company that provided the service and even the site owner the libel was stated on.

Cases can be bought in pretty much any country in the world the site is viewable in and there are plenty of legal companies that will take cases on a no win no fee basis. Penalties can be massive and for example, one company recently settled OUT OF COURT and their total costs were close to seven figures...... and all they had done was provide the ISP to the libeller for the BLOG.

As I see it, there are umpteen possible scenarios that could have happened here but no matter what really happened, trial by internet never works and always causes unnecessary problems. In this case, they could cause bloody big problems!

My advice would be for the parties to settle this in private (probably with immediate full payment) and for them and everyone to stop hurling accusations and insults around, some of which could very easily have far reaching implications not just for individuals but also for entire industries!

In closing, I'll say that as usual, Jim Manion has hit the nail absolutely on the head and I'd recommend people to pay close attention to his post.

Sincerely hope people can read between the slightly more defined lines now.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
AAZW,

No mate, I haven't made it an issue of Nixon's conduct at all..... or anyone else's for that matter and I think some people, possibly you included, are failing to read between the lines properly...... So I'll try to be slightly clearer, and would STRONGLY suggest people again try to read between my slightly less subtle lines.

Firstly, IF BP gave Nixon TCs and then reported them stolen and/or reneged on agreed payments of any kind, I reckon he was very wrong indeed to do so, no matter what the reason and IF he has, my advice would be for him to pay the outstanding amount along with any incurred additional bank costs to Nixon poste haste..... but I've already said that.

I'd suggest that BP might even have 'forgotten' he'd paid them to Nixon and his reporting them stolen could have been a result of a clouded mind caused by jet lag or larium etc.

Regarding the rest of it, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened and I have no idea what is and isn't true or proveable anyway. Therefore I don't allocate blame to anyone for anything.

There are no end of possible scenarios that could have happened and many/most of them could be perfectly innocent and probably many of them are not proveable either way anyway...... However,some of them, if they are proveable, could very easily result in some AR members who had absolutely no idea they had/have done anything wrong, ending up in very deep doo doos, including loss of liberty and huge financial penalties.

There's also the fact (as I've mentioned previously) that you can bet your cotton socks that Big Brother in the form of USF&WS at the very least are monitoring these threads and that they'd love nothing more than to find a reason to extend the Moz Elephant import ban to Zim and possibly even other countries..... if that happens, an awful lot of members here would find themselves unable to import trophies they've already shot and even more importantly, would fuck the entire Zim (AT LEAST) hunting industry like you wouldn't believe. Not one of us here, wants any of those things to happen.

There's also the issue of internet libel. As I've also previously stated, blokes don't seem to have any idea of how serious this issue can be. It isn't the case that you can post something about a person or organisation if you believe or even know those allegations to be true..... you have to be able to 110% prove they are 110% true.

If someone can find any cause whatsoever to sue for internet libel, they can not only sue the person who stated the libel, they can also sue the ISP company that provided the service and even the site owner the libel was stated on.

Cases can be bought in pretty much any country in the world the site is viewable in and there are plenty of legal companies that will take cases on a no win no fee basis. Penalties can be massive and for example, one company recently settled OUT OF COURT and their total costs were close to seven figures...... and all they had done was provide the ISP to the libeller for the BLOG.

As I see it, there are umpteen possible scenarios that could have happened here but no matter what really happened, trial by internet never works and always causes unnecessary problems. In this case, they could cause bloody big problems!

My advice would be for the parties to settle this in private (probably with immediate full payment) and for them and everyone to stop hurling accusations and insults around, some of which could very easily have far reaching implications not just for individuals but also for entire industries!

In closing, I'll say that as usual, Jim Manion has hit the nail absolutely on the head and I'd recommend people to pay close attention to his post.

Sincerely hope people can read between the lines now.

That is a bunch of mamby-pamby crap.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:


That is a bunch of mamby-pamby crap.

That should be namby pamby crap but it is a typical example of someone not being able to read between the lines.

I see no reason to read between any lines.

Let me see if I have this straight: You decided that there were too many people posting on this subject to you started posting these childishly cryptic suggestions on those threads. You then decided that there was not enough bandwith for you to pontificate on the two other threads so you decided to start a third thread about how nobody should post on the other two threads and when people post on your thread you tell them not to because they might get sued!! This is laughably sad.

Then you come through with this gem, "I'd suggest that BP might even have 'forgotten' he'd paid them to Nixon and his reporting them stolen could have been a result of a clouded mind caused by jet lag or larium etc." I do not know whether or not BP paid Nixon or Nixon is trying to screw BP, but I do know that this is damn sure not what happened. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

PM sent......

If Steve is right some blokes will be hunting behind thick bars and high fences

AAZW.

FOR THE RECORD - I do not know Phifier, never met the guy, never interacted with him on this board on any prior posts.

Any more attacks on my credibility, or are we through?

As far as my opinion goes, I may have an opinion, but I certainly cannot support it with fact. That said, as I noted, it is probably better to keep from airing them on a public forum where the "law of unintended consequences" may be in effect.

This is an internet forum, not a court of law. There are no rules, like the rules that set standards for admissible evidence, rules that bar opinions from people other than certified experts, and rules that require authentication insuring that any documents presented are teur, correct and complete, without alteration. Rules, mind you, that have been established to insure that the trial of the issues is a fair one, and both parties are given an equal opportunity to present their sides.

Here, it is pretty clear that neither party is going to present evidence here - and I say good for them. That is their right, and neither has to answer to anyone else on this board.

You and I can agree to disagree. But I continue to be of the belief that speculation, unvetted accusations and the reliance on unauthenticated materials serves no useful purpose when aired in a public forum. I believe that such banter only provides fuel for those with an agenda against us. In addition, I personally do not want to contribute to the destruction of one party's or the others reputation and possibly livelihood when concrete facts are very few and far between. But those are my opinions, and I respect your right to think otherwise.

One opinion we do share - whomever the guilty party is here should be strung up by the wedding tackle, left for Hyena bait, and be subject to serious financial consequences.