Interesting thread. Let me say that I was one of the ones who thought that Gater's taxidermy wasn't well done, and that the outfitters response wasn't what it should have been (see other thread).
Having said that, there are a few things about this particular thread which I find interesting.
First, Gater is, of course, more than welcome to post his hunt report, and to present his perspective, and I am happy to see it. And, also of course, the outfitter is equally more than welcome to post his perspective on the issue . . . or is he? It seems that Mr. Bernard has been pretty much slagged from the get-go. Given that, I commend him for having the patience to engage with just about everyone who has asked questions of him (often somewhat aggressively I'd say, but I'm a marshmallow). More on this below.
Breaking down the issues, it seems there are two. The first is the taxidermy. Mr. Bernard must be aware that his pictures - soft focus and taken from a distance - can easily misrepresent what the taxidermy actually looks like on closer examination. I put much more weight on Gater's close-up pictures than on Mr. Bernard's. Mr. Bernard has proposed a solution, which is to have a third party make a finding, which he agrees to accept. That third party - he suggests PHASA - apparently doesn't get involved in this way between members and clients (PHASA is impractical in any event since it would clearly be best if the arbitrator could see the mounts in person). I still believe this is a reasonable proposal, and so long as the parties can come to an agreement on who that should be, that should be the end of the matter for now. I acknowledge that the fact that the parties are continents apart is a problem, but since it appears that Mr. Bernard is in North America at least for DSC or SCI, this shouldn't be insurmountable, though his presence isn't entirely necessary.
The second matter is the other issues which occurred at camp, of which the gemsbok seems to be the main one. I believe that Mr. Bernard has given an explanation of what happened here, and speaking personally, it strikes me as reasonable. Part of the problem no doubt - and I say this without casting blame - is that there was an agent between Mr. Bernard and Gater, or so it appears. Communication can easily go awry, and that may have been what's happened here. It may also be that Mr. Bernard was intentionally vague in order to get a hunt, a tactic which would not be new, novel or unheard of. I'm not sure we have any real way of determining which is the right answer. Having said that, I personally find it a bit surprising that people would expect to hunt gemsbok in the Limpopo, but I guess that's what game ranching has done to us. But that's another thread, so since this line has no bearing on this particular case, I will pursue it no further.
Now one interesting matter (at least to me) which occurs to me is the fact that so many are (1) jumping on the outfitter for getting some of his other clients to join AH for the purpose of posting positive reviews and (2) jumping on those same clients for posting those positive reviews.
Now, there are thousands of people who hunt Africa every year, and only a very small percentage of those who have been to Africa are members here (giving full recognition to Jerome for the 6,000+ members he does have here!). It's hardly surprising then that an outfitter - any outfitter - would have a lot of clients who are not members here. And is it surprising - or wrong - for an outfitter who is being attacked for his business practices to point to the fact that he has plenty of satisfied clients, and then to ask those clients to step up and say so? I see no malicious intent in the Facebook or WhatsApp pages which were posted as if they were evidence of malfeasance. This is simply how the outfitter communicates with a group of clients who seem to have had such a good time that they want to remain connected to him and to Africa. I get that. If these are indeed real people, then they are entitled to have their say, even if it's only once to support an outfitter who has been attacked. An outfitter is entitled to defend himself, and if he can do that by having people vouch for his practices, then good for him.
I do think it's much different when someone joins up for the sole purpose of posting something negative. These positive comments were presented as evidence that Mr. Bernard has happy clients. And, as I say, he is entitled to post evidence that his business practices are not as alleged. Real clients are unlikely to lie by posting positive comments if they don't mean them. And again, no one has alleged these are not real, happy, clients. The situation would be much different if they were not, of course. We can give these comments whatever weight we choose, while acknowledging that he does have happy clients. This is not the same with a negative post which can be done for a number of reasons, not all of which are valid or honourable (note I am not suggesting that that is the case here - to the contrary).
I think that overall, it's good for AH to have new people join, even if initially only for a single purpose. Some may stick - who knows - and we will be the better for more members.
In summary, and this is just my view, I think we have an unhappy client and I believe he is justified in being unhappy with respect to his taxidermy. I think the outfitter has proposed a reasonable solution, but I think he has to appoint someone in the US to look at the taxidermy, rather than someone in South Africa.
I cannot form any reliable opinion about the gemsbok, though I tend towards a view that there was a miscommunication, while acknowledging that I could well be wrong here.
Lastly, I think that people who are accused of poor business practices should be encouraged to get real people to join AH, and we should encourage (as some have done) those real people to post more than one or two lines. I believe that having satisfied clients is at least some evidence that the outfitter might not engage in poor business practices. I hope some of those people find this site so interesting that they stay as long term members and contributors.
