Saeed,

At some point, will you post a poll so the jury may decide?

Dear Mr Glenn Bevin ,

You have still to show where the alleged all fees included comes from ( be brave young man be brave to acknowledge you made a mistake will make you a better man - we all get confused and misunderstand things but to flog a dead horse just shows your nature ) as far as politician go's, those friends who have hunted with me and those who have booked through me are chuckling , one of the many criticisms both my wife and good friends have of me is " I dont talk too much " but who wants to ride the river with a chatter box - get me upset over conservation and hunting issues - man - stand back the hornets are flying .
Glenn the mistake in you spelling in your final sentence to me about competence was that a deliberate mistake or just a competence thing , sorry folks just had to say whay was on all your minds . i should speak my spelling sucks.
Graeme Pollock
hey ! these forums can be fun !!

Dear Saeed ,

Thank you for posting the scans - the pages were numbered on top and circled , please check sequence - the number missing from your postings is page 5 , let me know if you dont find it .

Dear Mighty Joe and ALL :

The question over the CHA permit was not fully explained by me as I thought I had dealt with it before , the CHA permit was introduced in 2001 , and is valid for a periode of seven days , if you hunt ( even for one day ) this is a Government fee , If you go to the contract posted by Mr Bevin , bottom right corner , under terms and conditions : last paragraph you will see " the schedule of trophy and trophy license fee charges is subject to change by proclamation of the government and such changes are for the account of the hunter"
- the CHA gee was proclimated in 2001 - it is a fee applicable to hunting fees and accompanies the license fees as issued by government - the Hunt Booking form that Mr Bevin consistently refers to carries this clause .
" AND SUCH CHANGES ARE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE HUNTER "
Again in Black and White - I think that by now everybody must see that everything we said and did was a) in writing and b) honoured .

All the best and happy hunting
Graeme Pollock

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Should I set up a poll?

How should it be worded?

Regards,

Terry

SORRY FOLKS ONE LAST THING :

THESE PAGES ARE FULL OF PEOPLE I WOULD SPEND TIME AROUND THE CAMP FIRE WITH ANY TIME .

HAPPY ADVENTURES
GRAEME POLLOCK

HEY TERRY ,
TALK ABOUT BAD TIMEING FOR ME , MY LAST POSTING WAS NOT MEANT TO RALLY SUPPORT , YOUR POSTING SNUCK IN BETWEEN TWO OF MINE . BUT IT STILL STANDS .
GET OUT THERE , GET OUTDOORS
( SS : WHAT DO YOU THINK , IF BEVIN AND HUDSON CLOSE ME DOWN CAN I GET A JOB ?)
REGARDS
GRAEME

I served on the SCI Ethics Committee for 7 years, resigning in July of 2002. I just thought that I would pop in here to give a liitle info from the Ethics Committee side.

All of the he said/she said testimony will be dismissed unless it is corroborated. The involvement and other parties witnessing conversations will be taken into account and, I can guarantee you, that Duggaboys testimony will be viewed in the light of his attempt to mislead the people here.

All of the 'He is a great guy letters' from either side will be dismissed, they are all irrelevant to the particular case.

If it is not written down it will count less in the final decision. The fact that the contract wasn't signed by the plaintiff will not matter as he has it in his possession. He will be held to that

Every claim as to time and law (the new fees) will be double checked. No ones word on what is legal or when it happend will be accepted.

Every lead will be followed as will new ones. If additional, but non related violations are discovered, about either party, they will be dealt with.

This thread will be part of the case. If it is in fact filed I will forward it to Greg.

Everyone on that Committee has extensive hunting experiance and dealt with Agents and Outfitters all over the world. They can tell a BS story from a mile away so it would not be a good idea to say anything you can't prove.

The evidence will have to be overwhelming to require a sanction. A warning can be issued for borderline violations.

Plaintiffs can also be sanctioned for bringing false charges.

The Committee doesn't suffer fools as they have much to much to do with real problems.

My guess, from what I read here, is it will be dismissed as 'no violation'

A poll here will be more about personalities than evidence.

Gator

Isn't most of your post slanted against a complaint against an outfitter?

When this complaint is more likely to be a complaint about intentional slander by SCI members.

From reading your post it sounds like the ethics committee is a paper tiger.

Graeme,

Saeed is always hiring. Great work environment, although the salary and benefits are not much.

Regards,

Terry

NitroX

I'm not sure if I understand your question.

If you are asking if complaints against outfitters are judged by stricter standards than those by outfitters the answer is no. All complaints are judged on their merit.

One of the main sources of complaints are those filed by clients against outfitters. In the vast majority of cases the client had expectations the exceeded the actually hunt. It is the job of the Committee to determine if the Outfitter made overly optimistic claims (a problem usually traced to booking agents) or if the client refused to accept that it was in reality a hunting trip and their were no guarantees as to trophy quality.

These complaints take all sorts of forms, lousy camps, lousy accomodations, food, bad vehicles, bad PH's etc etc. In the end it usually boils down to trophy quality and the clients expectation.

Financial complaints usually end up being settled by what is in the contract. Unless it is written down it is pretty hard to prove one way or the other. Alot of clients pay money they don't think they owe just to get out of camp or out of the country. They then bring it to the Committee for redress. The Ethics Committee has no authority to require anyone to pay but can suspend or terminate membership in SCI. This has happened many times to both outfitters and clients. In the case of Outfitters it can, in fact, put them out of business if they are denied SCI access.

Outfitters also file a surprising number of complaints against clients. These usually are financial claims for bounced checks, canceled credit cards bills etc. Occasionally a client will refuse to pay for an animal that was wounded and lost, for instance. Occasionally they will shoot a protected species or exceed their tag allotments and expect the outfitter to cover for them.

Slander against another member is hard to seperate from opinion and everybody is entitled to one.

My estimate would be that 90% of the complaints filed are found to be not an ethical violation. Most of these are just people blowing off steam and wanting an audience. The other 10% are valid.

I feel there are three different groups at fault here.

#1 SCI
SCI should never allow any DONATED hunt to be sold without FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL COSTS related to the hunt. Statements like "Outer fees to be incurred by the hunter". Should never be allowed on any hunt contract SOLD BY SCI. This leads to far to many misunderstandings & or outright deceptions. Full disclosure will undoubtedly hurt sells of donated hunts that do not offer a true value. The definition of "Donated" means. A gift, To give or contribute. It does not mean" To market hunts". Its "MY" belief SCI integrity is compromised by some of their fund raising activities.

#2 Safaris Botswana
If you plan on using donated hunts to help market your outfitting services. It is to your advantage to have a crystal clear contract spelling out ALL cost . Written in term's a first timer can clearly understand. Ethically I think is the professional outfitters responsibility to fully disclose & explain ALL cost & services he provides.

Glen & Duggaboy
You probably had a right to feel all the cost weren't openly disclosed. But you choise deception to show your case. This raised serious doubt as to your Honesty & Credibly. To me honesty is like pregnancy, You are! Or you are not! There no middle ground.

Dear Mr Johnson ,

Thank you for your input , under normal circumstances I would have ignored Mr. Bevin's ramblings and tried to resolve his problem , but he made publice false allegations which have misled people - as evident in the fact that you do believe we did not disclose everything . I know this has become a long winded affair - but if you go through it all you will see everything was disclosed that we had any control over - the only new issue was the GOVERNMENT CHA permit. This permit as stated was imposed on Botswana Outfitters AFTER we returned from the 2001 conventions in March 2001 - we only became aware of the CHA permit once we went to purchase our licenses. It was therefore impossible to dislose something we never knew existed. Mr Bevin's thrust was we never disclosed license fees - but as evident - we not only disclosed them we circled them on his contract to highlight them - we even totaled them to avoid calculation problems.( Please see his posted copies of the contract ) .
If you look at Mighty Joe's posting he too did this hunt and verified nothing but nothing was not disclosed. I can assure you of one thing if anything on any one of our hunt contracts are amiss ( and it does happen I am not denying it )we quickly refund or make it right - In this case Mr.Bevin never ever even attempted to contact me to say he was unhappy - he simply attacked me on an open forum one year later - now surely you must ask why ???. He has been shown to have not been truthfull - if you go back into his postings he states that the contracts will show that ALL FEES WERE INCLUDED and licenses crossed out - where as in fact in his very own posted contract of evidence -they are highlighted. i could go through point for point and show you how each point was untruthfull if anybody would like me to.

The gentleman who wrote about the ethics committee , know's SCI cross their t's and dot their i's as best they can. As they deal with hundreds of fund raising donations they have got the system pretty much worked out. They to go to pains to disclose everyhting they can - but can only disclose that which the outfitters have given them. My letter of donation to them as posted on these pages disloses everything.

Trust me I have sat and studied Mr Bevin's submission and all our paperwork and there are still many untrue statements - do you know Mr Bevin STARTS his posting by saying his posting is that which he has communicated to SCI. Do you know if this was true SCI would have immediatly contacted me or forwarded his communication to me for comment. They have not and I doubt wether they even know about this problem . They will shortly be reacting though I hope.

Regarding the report to SCI ethics committee, it is correct , no violation of any bylaw has been made by either party , however I do believe that Messrs Bevin and Hudson have used decietfull ways to discredit both our company and SCI . I may be mistaken but I think SCI do have an ability to act on this.

All the best
Graeme Pollock

Graeme,

Here is page #5

I can get behind what Robert Johnson stated. When bidding on a SCI hunt you don't always know what all the extraneous fees will be, but just assume that they will be reasonable.

Myself, if I was bidding on a hunt at an SCI event that Graeme Pollock was at, I would talk to him in great detail before bidding. Glenn had this opportunity and from the sounds of what was paid for the hunt and the actual value, jumped on the hunt because it seemed to be a great deal without knowing all the detailed fees.

I pull out the same comments as GeorgeS as to what the complaints are and quite frankly don't see any that I would lose sleep over, except having to share a tent if I explicitly asked not to. No hunt ever goes 100% according to your expectations, people that enjoy hunts are people that can roll with "reasonable discrepancies" and move on with their hunt. I don't see any thing Graeme did that is unreasonalbe. To complain about your meat not being served, or a vehicle with a broken spring seems just silly(I don't even know how the broken vehicle affected you?). My last hunt I ended up having 3 ph's in 7 days, this wasn't planned but was necessary since my original PH came down with Malaria. This wasn't what I requested, bu I'll be darned if I would let something like that effect a good time.

For a plains game hunt Graeme Pollock's operation is a little pricey for me, but it looks like you got a heck of a deal and are making mountains out of mole hills with the fault's you find.

Gentlemen,
Please help me to understand something. As far as the actual monetary issues go, are talking about $1100 for the entire party? If so, I would guess that split 50/50 (2 hunters) that comes to $550 each. If I understand correctly, the gun permits and game transporation were originally not included but were actually credited after all. When you subtract the cost of the gun permits and game transportation from that $550, aren't we either at a break even point or at least talking about such a small amount of money that this is a non issue?

Again, I'm only talking about the monetary issues. I'm just trying to get a handle on the problems and break it down further. If I'm wrong on this or missed something then let me know.

Glenn,
You were so mad about extra fees, sleeping arrangements, food, and performance of the staff that you bought 2 SBB shirts(as per invoice)? What did you wind up doing with them?

[ 10-31-2003, 23:01: Message edited by: GeorgeInNePa ]

A friend called and told me about the ongoing dispute and written exchanges between SBB (Safaris Botswana Bound) and members GlennB, and duggaboy. I felt compelled to post my own comments about both Graeme Pollock and the SBB organization because I hunted with them only one month ago (September, 2003). Please take note that I do not have a dog in this fight. I am simply passing along my own experience with Graeme and his Safari Company.

In March 2002 a hunting buddy and I purchased a SBB hunt which Graeme Pollock donated to our local SCI chapter fundraiser event. The hunt was to take place in the Kalahari Desert region of Botswana and included trophy fees for 12 indigenous plains animals. The terms of the hunt along with the exclusions were clearly stated in the auction brochure. One particular exclusion relative to this discussion pertained to the government license fees. The brochure indicated that all license fees, including those for the 12 donated animals, were to be paid by the hunter.

Upon making payment for the hunt I received a copy of the donation form Graeme had given to our SCI chapter. Upon reviewing that form I found the hunt terms to match the description as printed in the auction.

Many months prior to the hunt I began corresponding with the SBB staff by email to finalize the exact dates of the hunt, acquire permits for addition species, arrange for an air charter and to arrange for an overnight stay at a local hotel in Maun before the hunt, etc. Graeme�s wife, Amber, and SBB staff member, Nicola, were extremely helpful and accommodated each and every request without undue delay. Their assistance made for a very pleasant and organized arrival and departure.

My hunting partner and I stayed in the KAA camp. This is a traditional tented camp (my preference) which we found to be very nice with a well organized and accommodating staff. The meals were all wonderful with the main course generally consisting of Eland, Springbok, or Hartebeest venison. There was daily laundry service and each tent had toilet facilities and a warm water shower to the rear.

We hunted government safari blocks KD-1 and KD-2. This a vast hunting region which encompasses approximately 1.8 million acres. We found this area of the Kalahari to be quite rich in game and with the exception of duiker, we easily took all of the game animals we were licensed to harvest early in our hunt. We were also asked if we would like to harvest several Springbok on license as subsistence for the local village. We of course accepted the offer and harvested an additional 7, or 8 animals at no additional cost to us whatsoever.

While in camp I had many occasions to be at the skinning shed. As my partner and I were the last hunters of the season the skinning area was quite full of horns and hides from several previous hunts. All of the hides I saw certainly seemed to have been cared for properly. Each of them was fleshed, salted, tagged, folded hair side in and separated in their respective hunting party groups.

Again, I don�t have a dog in this fight. I simply wanted to relay my recent experience with SBB and Graeme Pollock to those of you who may be sitting on the fence regarding this back and forth exchange. For the sake of credibility only, I will point out that my hunting experience includes more than a dozen safaris in several African countries, along with a variety of other hunts on three different continents. Over the years I have therefore dealt with many booking agents, safari operators, outfitters and guides. Not all of those dealings have been pleasurable or as agreed.

However, I found my experience with Graeme Pollock and Safaris Botswana Bound to be completely honest and forthright. I was apprised of all costs and related expenses many months before the hunt. There were absolutely no surprises or hidden costs encountered during, or after the hunt. Based upon my personal experience I would recommend SBB to anyone.

[ 11-02-2003, 21:56: Message edited by: Big Five ]

This horse is dead! And instead of kicking it we are looking up it's arse to see what killed it.Enough!

Crane,
I don't neccessairly disagre with you, but you come out of no where and call it a dead horse. What is your position? I for one, cannot see that SBB has done anything wrong. The only real beef is that the government has added a fee, and that is beyond their control.

Crane:

If it was your livelihood that was being attacked, 15 months or so after the fact, (I still haven't figured out the LOOOONG delay in posting this issue)you might not feel that the horse was quite so dead. Damage has been done, no doubt, now SBB is trying to repair it as best they can.

BigFive:

I believe your post, but as a new poster, with no email, and no name it doesn't carry much weight. With no disrespect intended, you could be SBB's nephew for all we know.

Gatogordo;

Sorry, I didn't know what I should, or should not "check" in the profile (never been a part of a chat forum).

My name is Lee Branch and my email is now listed.

[ 11-02-2003, 21:53: Message edited by: Big Five ]

Sorry , pehaps I was too breif. This whole complaint frankly seems a bit like whining over almost nothing.If polled, I would most certainly side with the safari company.

I can vouch for Lee, AR handle "Big Five". I know him personally, having been his guide on a brown bear hunt in SE Alaska a while back.

He may be new at posting online, but as he stated in his post, he's not new to big game hunting; that "Big Five" means what it says.