Lies upon lies--are you sure you aren't talking about Obama.

Hello to all those who have expressed faith in me on reading pigslayer's "Hunt Report". I will try to not disappoint you.

Hello pigslayer,

I have been eagerly awaiting your Hunt Report.

You have decided to discredit me, and my wife, in a "Trail by Internet". I am very sorry that you chose that route to the "sit down and discuss like adults" - even if it means sitting down and writing and sending e-mails - that I proposed. Unfortunately for you, there is now no turning back for you. Trail by Internet it will be!

I gladly accept that challenge with a few simple reservations. These are necessary and a pre-condition as I fear that if you respond in a similar manner to what you did when, shortly after your return home, I asked you, in response to your accusation that I'm a cheat, in an e-mail message to refer to my "final settlement spreadsheet" and tell me exactly which figure is wrong and what it should [according to you] be? Instead of "sitting down and discussing the matter like a grown up, you reverted to stringing together insults and bad name callings. [Much like you did in your long "Hunt Report".]

1. Every accusation that you make against me gets fully substantiated.
2. Every very specific question that I ask you about gets a factual and to the point reply.
3. If asked to quote from our pre-safari or post safari correspondence, you do so in full, even if it means sending something to any number of people here by e-mail. [This last requirement is regarded as essential, because any Excel spreadsheet, in particular one with multiple worksheets linked together, does not print well as a posting on AR.] I have no doubt that there will be - at least initially until pigslayer starts to get the better of me in our Trail - enough members here who will be willing to study that and report on my behalf.

I again repeat that I take you up on this challenge to a "Trail by Internet", but on one condition only: That you either unequivocally accept my "Trail By Internet Rules". If you wish to have other rules, or do not agree with what I have proposed here, by all means make your suggestions, here on this forum and I'll be glad to consider those suggestions, and reply thereto.

My dear pigslayer, I repeat that I welcome the opportunity to defend myself here on AR in a Trail by Internet. Please note that this will be my very last posting on this issue if there is a failure to come to an acceptable agreement on some simple rules of how we are going to cross-examine each other. A court without rules, and a method to ensure that those rules are strictly adhered to is nothing other than just a lynch mob! I don't intend putting myself at the lack of mercy of a lynch mob. Trail by Internet - that's OK by me!

I do look forward to either pigslayer's acceptance of my rules for this challenge, or his suggestion(s) for other rules.

The jury is waiting!

This should be interesting ...

There will be no further posting from Pigslayer.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Jvalha:
This should be interesting ...

Actually such pissing contests are rather irritating and provide little information that reviewers can utilize to understand who's right and who isn't. If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes. People have been ripped off by unscrupulous outfitters and hunters, sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Where do they go for relief?

Taking the "offender" to court is extremely problematic due to the issues of jurisdiction, and collecting damages (if there is a court ordered award) is even more difficult. Handling such matters with an administrative review by a DSC or SCI investigative board could settle the matter properly. Both sides could agree to binding arbitration and if the party judged to be in the wrong refused to make good, he/she could be banned from offering hunts at the organization(s) convention. Such bans have been publicized on this forum previously and (I believe) attract notice. If a client (hunter) fails to meet his/her obligations, they could properly be placed on a "warning list" indicating what they'd been found at fault for.

The way things presently stand is unacceptable. Trying to work things out as "gentlemen" doesn't cut it when the other party ignores their obligations and the organizations that could provide assistance turn their backs on situations they're at least partially responsible for. DSC and SCI both provide not only the venues for the meetings between clients and operators, in many cases their "leaders" have vouched for the trustworthiness of the parties involved. No one deserves to get ripped off and no one should get slammed on a forum read by thousands of people when they've done nothing wrong. Reputations and businesses can be irreparably harmed and consumers (all of us) are either scared off or redirected to other operators, sometimes for good cause and other times unnecessarily.

I've spoken with other AR members about this issue, some of whom have "clout" with one or both of the major organizations that could do something (DSC and SCI), but when will they take the bull by the horns and demonstrate leadership? We can't settle these problems with "Pistols for two-tea for one" these days (much as some might prefer that option), so why don't we set up a system to handle these cases properly???

The conventions are coming up in a few months and this is when and where disputes should be addressed. Just being in a location where both parties can meet face to face (with an arbitrator) can provide the right environment to properly settle matters. While its true that many people just go to these sites to get hunts or clients, others attend to take care of unfinished business from hunts already completed.

I don't know Andrew, but I've read much about his ethics and what he's done to assist forum members previously. He shouldn't be a victim of a client who'd been treated fairly and he should also appreciate how it feels to be in a situation where it all comes down to a "he says-he says" shouting match. Nothing in the way of real evidence is provided, just accusations. Ultimately, nothing is really solved, but the "cloud of guilt" might harm his business and reputation to one degree or another indefinitely. I suspect that Mr. Mclaren would want to change that. I know I do. If so, maybe now's the time and the DSC/SCI conventions are the place?

Nowhere in this report do I see what you agreed to pay and what you actually paid. Just a lot of name calling and infantile stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:


Actually such pissing contests are rather irritating and provide little information that reviewers can utilize to understand who's right and who isn't. If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes. People have been ripped off by unscrupulous outfitters and hunters, sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Where do they go for relief?

Taking the "offender" to court is extremely problematic due to the issues of jurisdiction, and collecting damages (if there is a court ordered award) is even more difficult. Handling such matters with an administrative review by a DSC or SCI investigative board could settle the matter properly. Both sides could agree to binding arbitration and if the party judged to be in the wrong refused to make good, he/she could be banned from offering hunts at the organization(s) convention. Such bans have been publicized on this forum previously and (I believe) attract notice. If a client (hunter) fails to meet his/her obligations, they could properly be placed on a "warning list" indicating what they'd been found at fault for.

The way things presently stand is unacceptable. Trying to work things out as "gentlemen" doesn't cut it when the other party ignores their obligations and the organizations that could provide assistance turn their backs on situations they're at least partially responsible for. DSC and SCI both provide not only the venues for the meetings between clients and operators, in many cases their "leaders" have vouched for the trustworthiness of the parties involved. No one deserves to get ripped off and no one should get slammed on a forum read by thousands of people when they've done nothing wrong. Reputations and businesses can be irreparably harmed and consumers (all of us) are either scared off or redirected to other operators, sometimes for good cause and other times unnecessarily.

I've spoken with other AR members about this issue, some of whom have "clout" with one or both of the major organizations that could do something (DSC and SCI), but when will they take the bull by the horns and demonstrate leadership? We can't settle these problems with "Pistols for two-tea for one" these days (much as some might prefer that option), so why don't we set up a system to handle these cases properly???

The conventions are coming up in a few months and this is when and where disputes should be addressed. Just being in a location where both parties can meet face to face (with an arbitrator) can provide the right environment to properly settle matters. While its true that many people just go to these sites to get hunts or clients, others attend to take care of unfinished business from hunts already completed.

I don't know Andrew, but I've read much about his ethics and what he's done to assist forum members previously. He shouldn't be a victim of a client who'd been treated fairly and he should also appreciate how it feels to be in a situation where it all comes down to a "he says-he says" shouting match. Nothing in the way of real evidence is provided, just accusations. Ultimately, nothing is really solved, but the "cloud of guilt" might harm his business and reputation to one degree or another indefinitely. I suspect that Mr. Mclaren would want to change that. I know I do. If so, maybe now's the time and the DSC/SCI conventions are the place?

Taking legal proceedings for internet libel is actually relatively easy & with very few exceptions one can prosecute in any country the libel can be viewed & incidentally, many countries not only allow the libeller to be sued but often the server company and/or site owner..... A Google search will show you cases where this has been accomplished.

Recovering monies might be more complicated but I'd guess could be done relatively easily in the US.

As for SCI/DSC, if the people concerned are not members then nothing could be done & even if they are members, neither organisation has any legal powers anyway & all they could do is refuse booth space & as AMC almost certainly doesn't exhibit, that's a non starter.

I just saw this.
Reminds of Ray Ray and drummond but with a lot more drama.
Waiting on Doug Chester Esq. to show up.

Wonder what the truth really is?

I wait with baited breath!

Can we possibly get Tex Grebner to be the Judge. I recon this is going to degenerate to a shit slinging zombie death match and Tex is the man for Zombies. Hell, he even shot himself in the leg trying to help the world get the drop on zombies with his quick draw techniques.

Tex, if you out there, we need you. Gammy leg and all.

This is long on sensational allegations and short on proof. This of course doesn't mean it isn't true. I have never seen a safari's finances handled the way this safari is alleged to have been handled.

The way this is written also makes me suspicious as does the direct conflict in comments posted. As far as I recall , Andrew has never had a similar report here on AR.

I don't know either party . It will be interesting. I am suspicious of the allegations.

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes.

Why on God's green Earth would either organization want to get involved with this kind of dispute. That's just silly to imply that their lack of involvement in something like this means they don't care about their membership.

Brett

Pig said:

"punch him or backhand him like the proverbial redheaded stepchild.....with autism"

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

If I recall, a guy using the same writing style posted a similar report a while back on a South America hunt. It was the same nonsense - confused prose, name calling, lack of punctuation, and arguing over fees.

Is this the same whiner?

In a pissing contest like this I feel each party should provide their legal name. Andrew was obviously identified but who is "pigslayer". I suspect a lot of outfitters would like that information to avoid a headache down the road. Seems like the proper thing to do. If you are going to roast someone, have the courage to identify yourself.

So what's the problem with Karl Human Taxidermy? Just got 8 animals last month from him. Good work, fair prices, kept all the promises he made. I have no problem with him. He's doing my 2013 work now.

As for briebing african police, well I did it myself....smooths matters, how do you argue with an african soldier almost 2 meters high with an AK-47 in his hands..?

I lead such a simple life. Been to Zim once and RSA twice and the only issue in those three trips was trying to figure out if I wanted hot tea, hot chocolate, or coffee in the AM.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
There will be no further posting from Pigslayer.

Jeff

Why not?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
There will be no further posting from Pigslayer.

Jeff

Why not?

Pure speculation and figuring the fifth of cheap scotch wore off....

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:


Pure speculation and figuring the fifth of cheap scotch wore off....

fair enough!! I make it a rule not to drink and post!!

IMO - Andrew should just post a basic (his) version of the events as they transpired. No need to write a thesis on it or engage in a public 'trail' (sic) shitfight.

When you are potentially affecting a man's livelihood you should really have your waterfowl aligned before opening fire. If someone screws up, so be it. If someone screws up and refuses to make things right, that deserves a public airing so other folks can be forewarned.

I wasn't there, but I get the distinct impression this is little more than a drunken rant by an insignificant asshole, pending evidence to the contrary. I have read a bunch of hunt reports by folks who have hunted with Andrew, and have seen him offer and provide assistance to hunters when he had no obligation or prospect of profit in doing so, and seeing him smeared like this kinda pisses me off.

Pigporker needs to put up or shut up. I suspect we'll hear nothing coherent from him.

Have you ever seen when someone posts a paragraph on Facebook with the letters of each word all jumbled and due to "the power of your brain" you can still read it? Well this report was kind of like that except you still can't read.....or at least comprehend it.... Incoherent doesn't even begin to cover it!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes.

Why on God's green Earth would either organization want to get involved with this kind of dispute. That's just silly to imply that their lack of involvement in something like this means they don't care about their membership.

Brett

Because the business of safari contracts often (though obviously not always) begins with meetings that occur on their premises and both organizations claim (and have some degree of credibility) to "be there for hunters."

If they give a crap about the promotion of hunting as a sport, give a rat's ass about the reputation of those involved in the sport as a business (ie: outfitters), and cared about keeping matters such as this out of the courts and away from the prospect of future legislation/regulation, they'd use a small amount of their considerable money and expertise to arbitrate these disputes before they got ugly .

Name calling on the internet involving multiple jurisdictions and various nations will probably not result in successful litigation for either "internet libel" or any other civil/criminal violations. (Try suing a guy in South Africa for "stealing" your money on a hunt outside of the U.S. where the money came from and you live, or "libel" and attempt to collect it. Try to counter sue and see how far that will go, its your dime.)

With both of these organizations making millions of dollars through membership dues and contributions from businesses associated with and profiting from hunters' dollars, the relatively small investment could do much for hunters and the industry. We have enough problems dealing with those who oppose hunting.

Why not clean up our house on our own? Do we need regulation of those who book hunts here in the U.S. by a federal authority (ie: USFW or IRS)? Do we need more international control? That's not what I want, but its clear that arguing on the internet isn't in our best interest and certainly doesn't solve legitimate disputes.

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes.

Why on God's green Earth would either organization want to get involved with this kind of dispute. That's just silly to imply that their lack of involvement in something like this means they don't care about their membership.

Brett

Because the business of safari contracts often (though obviously not always) begins with meetings that occur on their premises and both organizations claim (and have some degree of credibility) to "be there for hunters."

If they give a crap about the promotion of hunting as a sport, give a rat's ass about the reputation of those involved in the sport as a business (ie: outfitters), and cared about keeping matters such as this out of the courts and away from the prospect of future legislation/regulation, they'd use a small amount of their considerable money and expertise to arbitrate these disputes before they got ugly .

Name calling on the internet involving multiple jurisdictions and various nations will probably not result in successful litigation for either "internet libel" or any other civil/criminal violations. (Try suing a guy in South Africa for "stealing" your money on a hunt outside of the U.S. where the money came from and you live, or "libel" and attempt to collect it. Try to counter sue and see how far that will go, its your dime.)

With both of these organizations making millions of dollars through membership dues and contributions from businesses associated with and profiting from hunters' dollars, the relatively small investment could do much for hunters and the industry. We have enough problems dealing with those who oppose hunting.

Why not clean up our house on our own? Do we need regulation of those who book hunts here in the U.S. by a federal authority (ie: USFW or IRS)? Do we need more international control? That's not what I want, but its clear that arguing on the internet isn't in our best interest and certainly doesn't solve legitimate disputes.

In short; it's not going to happen. SCI and DSC are advocacy groups. They are not enforcement or police organizations.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:

Because the business of safari contracts often (though obviously not always) begins with meetings that occur on their premises and both organizations claim (and have some degree of credibility) to "be there for hunters."

If they give a crap about the promotion of hunting as a sport, give a rat's ass about the reputation of those involved in the sport as a business (ie: outfitters), and cared about keeping matters such as this out of the courts and away from the prospect of future legislation/regulation, they'd use a small amount of their considerable money and expertise to arbitrate these disputes before they got ugly .

Name calling on the internet involving multiple jurisdictions and various nations will probably not result in successful litigation for either "internet libel" or any other civil/criminal violations. (Try suing a guy in South Africa for "stealing" your money on a hunt outside of the U.S. where the money came from and you live, or "libel" and attempt to collect it. Try to counter sue and see how far that will go, its your dime.)

With both of these organizations making millions of dollars through membership dues and contributions from businesses associated with and profiting from hunters' dollars, the relatively small investment could do much for hunters and the industry. We have enough problems dealing with those who oppose hunting.

Why not clean up our house on our own? Do we need regulation of those who book hunts here in the U.S. by a federal authority (ie: USFW or IRS)? Do we need more international control? That's not what I want, but its clear that arguing on the internet isn't in our best interest and certainly doesn't solve legitimate disputes.

By your reckoning - Accurate Reloading (as an organisation) ...should be responsible for mediation!! I presume that the contract was made through contact on these premises??

Oh wait, that's whats going to happen (for better or worse)

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes.

Why on God's green Earth would either organization want to get involved with this kind of dispute. That's just silly to imply that their lack of involvement in something like this means they don't care about their membership.

Brett

Because the business of safari contracts often (though obviously not always) begins with meetings that occur on their premises and both organizations claim (and have some degree of credibility) to "be there for hunters."

If they give a crap about the promotion of hunting as a sport, give a rat's ass about the reputation of those involved in the sport as a business (ie: outfitters), and cared about keeping matters such as this out of the courts and away from the prospect of future legislation/regulation, they'd use a small amount of their considerable money and expertise to arbitrate these disputes before they got ugly .

Name calling on the internet involving multiple jurisdictions and various nations will probably not result in successful litigation for either "internet libel" or any other civil/criminal violations. (Try suing a guy in South Africa for "stealing" your money on a hunt outside of the U.S. where the money came from and you live, or "libel" and attempt to collect it. Try to counter sue and see how far that will go, its your dime.)

With both of these organizations making millions of dollars through membership dues and contributions from businesses associated with and profiting from hunters' dollars, the relatively small investment could do much for hunters and the industry. We have enough problems dealing with those who oppose hunting.

Why not clean up our house on our own? Do we need regulation of those who book hunts here in the U.S. by a federal authority (ie: USFW or IRS)? Do we need more international control? That's not what I want, but its clear that arguing on the internet isn't in our best interest and certainly doesn't solve legitimate disputes.

In short; it's not going to happen. SCI and DSC are advocacy groups. They are not enforcement or police organizations.

Jeff

No. Its called taking care of those you claim to be an "advocate" for. That's the whole point behind having a credible organization accepting the responsibility for acting as a mediator: to avoid the necessity of having outsiders enforcing a rule of law. If these groups purport to represent hunters' interests, actively lobby for and against legislation that impacts hunters (including "gun control issues"), and through their magazines, conventions and other events direct/encourage hunters to enter into business relationships with member outfitters, I don't believe its expecting too much of the organization to recognize its role in settling disputes.

If we (hunters and outfitters) can't do that in a somewhat informal fashion (ie: arbitration), then the only alternative is going to be increased, formal means of dealing with the problem: legislation. You and these organizations can bury your collective heads in the sand and ignore that reality, but why? Self-policing makes a hell of a lot more sense than increasing government involvement or letting an obvious problem continue to fester. Not only that, but taking an active role would increase the regular members (read: hunters) confidence in organizations that are becoming more and more known as insiders' clubs where a few people at the top of the "food chain" are the only ones that matter. If you haven't heard that type of talk increasing in tone and frequency, then you haven't been listening.

If we want to increase the number of people involved in this sport, or for that matter retain those already involved, then we'd better do something about these kinds of issues. The internet and social media such as AR will make bad reputations and poor business practices (real or imagined) known worldwide in a much shorter period of time than many of us here can even imagine. That reality or the threat of increased legislation should be enough for all of us to insist that our organizations do something beyond lip service.

DSC SCI HSC PHASA, or for that matter any organisation can only do something if both parties are members of the same organisation and even then will they have very little or no teeth!! PIGSLAYER made some very nasty comments and ANDREW IS more then prepared to answer all QUSTIONS so PIGSLAYER SHOW YOUR SELF! My only advice to would be hunters, clients if you are unsure about anything get it in writing before the hunt start.

Andrew
I don't think you will get agreement on the "rules" by pigslayer. I suggest a concise rebuttal laying out your side of the story. I'm sure most will be able to draw a conclusion from that. Your reputation will stand you in good stead. Being in the business since 1974, you will come across the odd pigslayer now and then.
JCHB

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If DSC and SCI really cared about their members (hunters and outfitters alike), they'd provide a impartial, credible and definitive venue to settle such disputes.

Why on God's green Earth would either organization want to get involved with this kind of dispute. That's just silly to imply that their lack of involvement in something like this means they don't care about their membership.

Brett

Because the business of safari contracts often (though obviously not always) begins with meetings that occur on their premises and both organizations claim (and have some degree of credibility) to "be there for hunters."

If they give a crap about the promotion of hunting as a sport, give a rat's ass about the reputation of those involved in the sport as a business (ie: outfitters), and cared about keeping matters such as this out of the courts and away from the prospect of future legislation/regulation, they'd use a small amount of their considerable money and expertise to arbitrate these disputes before they got ugly .

Name calling on the internet involving multiple jurisdictions and various nations will probably not result in successful litigation for either "internet libel" or any other civil/criminal violations. (Try suing a guy in South Africa for "stealing" your money on a hunt outside of the U.S. where the money came from and you live, or "libel" and attempt to collect it. Try to counter sue and see how far that will go, its your dime.)

With both of these organizations making millions of dollars through membership dues and contributions from businesses associated with and profiting from hunters' dollars, the relatively small investment could do much for hunters and the industry. We have enough problems dealing with those who oppose hunting.

Why not clean up our house on our own? Do we need regulation of those who book hunts here in the U.S. by a federal authority (ie: USFW or IRS)? Do we need more international control? That's not what I want, but its clear that arguing on the internet isn't in our best interest and certainly doesn't solve legitimate disputes.

In short; it's not going to happen. SCI and DSC are advocacy groups. They are not enforcement or police organizations.

Jeff

+1

Yet again this is just silly. These are conservation groups not arbitrators or law firms....

Brett

I have known Andrew for a number of years and find many of the remarks made by pigslayer hard to believe. I have been in camp with Andrew with my clients and received hospitality, respect and help whenever I needed it. In fact at times I found his attention to detail amazing.

Redress was taken when pigslayer reported Andrew to the authorities. Why now have a severe case of verbal diarrhoea on an international public forum?

Slightly off topic but can anyone tell me, in 50 words or less, what this article of Andrew's is really all about??

https://www.facebook.com/Andre...osts/464607936910632

Matt, It must be some promotional article I would recon trying to market safaris I see it is A face book link witch is A vey good marketing tool these days. The bottom line is some clients hunt with A PH OR Outfitter because he likes and trust him and the Mighty $$$ is not always the determent factor. I have clients that hunt with me year after year and never questions pricing or ask for A better deal.

Geez! This is thread must be related to a previous thread?

World Wide Hunter Thread

It's time for....
our favorite lawyer!

quote:

Slightly off topic but can anyone tell me, in 50 words or less, what this article of Andrew's is really all about??

Intrepid Safaris did a better job than I can, but I believe basically Andrew is addressing a concept that is gaining a following in other business venues, where by customers/clients, "Bargain" for a better price on meals/clothing and for years automobiles.

For less experienced big game hunters or hunters not really interested in "nothing but Book or Medal specimens" only, it is a way of putting a hunt together at a reasonable price.

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

In short; it's not going to happen. SCI and DSC are advocacy groups. They are not enforcement or police organizations.

Jeff

+1

Yet again this is just silly. These are conservation groups not arbitrators or law firms....

Brett[/QUOTE]

"Silly"??? They're "just conservation groups not arbitratrors or law firms"??? Are you for real??? These two organizations take in millions of dollars from individual members (hunters and those in the hunting industry) and use it as "advocates" for our sport. In addition to "conservation" projects, everyone knows that a huge percentage of those millions goes towards lobbying and litigation efforts on other issues which can directly or indirectly affect us. Like the National Rifle Association (which has its roots in marksmanship training/competition programs), SCI and DSC need to evolve if they're expected to remain relevant. Both of these organizations purport to represent hunters' interests, but how can they if they close their eyes to the fact that hunters, PHs, and outfitters (including many who've posted their stories on this very forum) have been ripped off or libeled by unscrupulous people and found that they were helpless to deal with the situation?

The reason they're unable to address the problems of misrepresentation or outright theft is because of the international nature of these types of commercial transactions. Hypothetically, one can join one of these "clubs" while residing in another state, visit the convention and be introduced to an outfitter by a board member of the organization (someone the hunter is supposed to "trust") and is told that this man's company is run properly, can provide a safe and satisfying experience, and can be relied upon based upon the experience of numerous other club members. The client might pay thousands of dollars in deposits or fees only to discover that the the hunt was misrepresented or even nonexistent or an unscrupulous "hunter" could allege such a situation even if the outfitter did his part, but (for whatever reason) the client was dissatisfied. Since the contract may have been initiated in one state, signed by either party in another state(s) or countries, funds deposited in other states or wired to other countries, with the agreed upon hunt occurring in still another country, where does the litigation occur if someone gets ripped off?

How does one go about suing for damages or collecting them if one is "libeled" over the internet but the defendant lives in another country?

What if the board member(s) of the safari club are in collusion with the outfitter and obtain kickbacks for the referrals? What if the upper echelon of the organization(s) know that there are numerous and credible complaints about the conduct of an outfitter, yet continue to allow him to use their venue because of the contributions made to the organization?

How many ordinary members of safari clubs realize that while much is claimed about their organizations' "high standards of ethics", some may not even document unethical conduct in business practices as a reason to ban an outfitter from conducting business at a convention?

I've only been involved in hunting overseas for about a decade, yet even in my rather brief (compared to some) experience, the problems are quite evident. I've met many members of this forum who've been ripped off and seen (as in this thread) accusations made that can significantly harm a business or man's reputation, with an innocent person finding himself no recourse. If such incidents occurred in the state of Alaska (where Brett apparently lives), the aggrieved party could complain to the professional guides' association and expect a proper investigation if one of their members conducted malfeasance, regardless of the ability to take serious matters to court. They believe in being proactive, because their profession (guiding hunters in Alaska) depends upon their reputation! Why wouldn't DSC or SCI care enough about their reputations as hunters' advocates to stand up for their members if they were harmed by those doing business with them? Why wouldn't DSC or SCI care about their members being libeled or slandered if those making unsubstantiated claims were DSC or SCI members or those accused of malpractice or theft proudly their proclaimed association with DSC or SCI for purposes of credibility?

If board members of either organization were found to be involved in accepting bribes or kickbacks for endorsing unscrupulous outfitters, shouldn't they be held accountable? Shouldn't such actions be in violation of these organizations' ethical standards? (Are they violations now??? )

Brett: If you think for a minute that these aren't issues DSC or SCI should be concerned about and shouldn't get involved in, you're greatly mistaken. Failing to manage our own house will lead to the organizations' loss of reputation, membership, and political clout. The future of hunting depends upon hunters and those in the industry working as a team. If hunters become disillusioned because safari clubs are unwilling to protect them from unscrupulous members or are working in collusion with such people, the organizations will self-destruct.

I'm a life member of the NRA because its an organization that recognizes its role in protecting Americans' right to keep and bear arms. I'm a member of DSC and SCI because both organizations do much to protect our ability to hunt in the U.S. and abroad, but both organizations need to be seen as protecting hunters from a variety of threats-including those of an internal nature. If Andrew Mclaren or the OP (whoever he is) can't go to their own organization to mediate matters involving fellow hunters and they can't litigate matters in court, where can they go?

Edited to add: This can't be overemphasized. If hunters and hunting organizations can't or won't police their own ranks through self-initiated/proactive means and are unwilling or unable to defend their members from wrongs committed by other members those organizations will wither and die on the vine and so will our ability to fight the groups opposed to hunting. If new legislation and government intervention to address these legitimate issues is the only alternative (and it may be), are SCI, DSC and similar organizations going to actually oppose it? What will happen to their reputations then?

Pigslayer said that all he wanted was to put the truth out.

We are all interested in hearing the truth, so if he refuses to post the information as Andrew has asked - correctly - then we know for sure he is talking a load of rubbish.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Pigslayer said that all he wanted was to put the truth out.

We are all interested in hearing the truth, so if he refuses to post the information as Andrew has asked - correctly - then we know for sure he is talking a load of rubbish.

Or the Scotch wore off...just sayin....

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I lead such a simple life. Been to Zim once and RSA twice and the only issue in those three trips was trying to figure out if I wanted hot tea, hot chocolate, or coffee in the AM.

Yeah, but look at all the adventure you're missing out on..................... The nature of adventures is not knowing exactly how, when and sometimes even if they will come off. Granted, sometimes adventure is over-rated but with time the rough stories tell just as good as the smooth ones. Sometimes a bit better.