YES, channel cats are shallow on windy points and flats, crappie are 1-4 ft spawning. Most crappie are 1.5 ponders

Saturday was the last day of the convention which ended with another dinner event at the Peppermill.  Obviously, tonight would be the grand finale because Sarah Palin was going to be the keynote speaker.  She's been the hottest ticket in town.

We finally had a day to sleep in and lose a little money at the tables after two straight days of running the convention floor all day long.  I was beginning to see african art in my sleep.  (Luckily, I didn't make it down in time to bet on the aggies against nebraska today.)

Five people from my group had tickets to tonight's event in the Tuscany ballroom. 

Just like last night, the place was jam-packed with suit-n-tie wearing hunters from all over the world.  What I found interesting about a lot of the guys I talked to was that most of them will leave the country for three or four months to hunt, and they'll travel to 4 or 5 different countries during that time.  No wonder every award winner that stepped to the podium that night thanked their wives first.

SCI presented the Hall of Fame award, the International Hunter of the Year award & the Diana award (for an outstanding female hunter) to get the night going.  I'm starting to realize that there's a whole different level of hunting that goes on around here.  At least different than what I'm used to.

One of the night's surprises was Larry Potterfield.  He gave a rousing speech about the direction of our great country and the important roles that the people of the Safari Club and the NRA should play in leading it.  I always thought Larry was just some gunsmithing guy who paid for a lot of Midway USA commercials on the Outdoor Channel, but he was really inspiring.  He even had to assure the audience that he wasn't running for office.  It was that kind of speech.

The bar was set for 'former' governor Palin to come out and she hit the stage running.  She talked mainly about hunting, conservation and politics of course.  Without taking many breaths, she continued the theme of making our country better and what she believes it'll take to get that done.  She took a few swings at the current regime in Washington, much to the delight of this crowd.  She also talked a lot about her upbringing in Alaska and how connected her family is to the land.  It's no wonder that hardly anything the media dishes out phases her.  She walked off to another standing ovation.

And that concluded our weekend with SCI.  We left before the auction started.  I think the first item was a guided hunt with Jim Shockey.  I doubt it would've been in our price range. 

It was a whirlwind weekend to say the least, and I'd feel remiss if I didn't thank the Safari Club Foundation for creating an award in the very obscure field that we call 'disabled hunting'.  Thanks to you and all the donors that support your programs, Oelofse Safaris, Sandhurst Safaris, Highveld taxidermy, Fauna & Flora and Cabela's.  We're going to be able to reach more people than you'll ever know.

More Corruption...you should be proud of that 04 vote.

Student Researchers: Madeline Hall and Julie Bickel
Faculty Evaluator: James Dean, Ph.D.

A report issued in June 2005 by the non-profit organization Action Aid reveals that much of the US tax money earmarked to rebuild Afghanistan actually ends up going no further than the pockets of wealthy US corporations. “Phantom aid” that never shows up in the recipient country is a scam in which paychecks for overpriced, and often incompetent, American “experts” under contract to USAID go directly from the Agency to American bank accounts. Additionally, 70 percent of the aid that does make it to a recipient country is carefully “tied” to the donor nation, requiring that the recipient use the donated money to buy products and services from the donor country, often at drastically inflated prices. The US far outstrips other nations in these schemes, as Action Aid calculates that 86 cents of every dollar of American aid is phantom.
Authors Ann Jones and Fariba Nawa suggest that in order to understand the failure and fraud in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, it is important to look at the peculiar system of American aid for international development. International and national agencies—including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and USAID, that traditionally distribute aid money to developing countries—have designed a system that is efficient in funneling money back to the wealthy donor countries, while undermining sustainable development in poor states.
A former head of USAID cited foreign aid as “a key foreign policy instrument” designed to help countries “become better markets for US exports.” To guarantee that mission, the State Department recently took over the aid agency. USAID and the Army Corps of Engineers now cut in US business and government interests from the start, making sure that money is allocated according to US economic, political, strategic, and military priorities, rather than according to what the recipient nation might consider important.
Though Afghans have petitioned to allocate aid money as they find appropriate, donor countries object, claiming that the Afghan government is too corrupt to be trusted. Increasingly frustrated and angry Afghan communities meanwhile claim that the no-bid, open-ended contracts being awarded to contractors such as Kellogg, Brown, and Root/Halliburton, DynCorp, Blackwater, and the Louis Berger Group are equivalent to licensed bribery, corruption, theft, and money laundering.
The Karzai government, confined to a self-serving American agenda, has delivered little to the average Afghan, most of whom still live in abject poverty. Western notions of progress evident in US-contracted hotels, restaurants, and shopping malls full of new electronic gadgets and appliances are beyond the imaginations or practicalities of 3.5 million war torn Afghan citizens who are without food, shelter, sewage systems, clean water or electricity.
Infrastructure hastily built with shoddy materials and no knowledge or respect for geologic or climatic conditions is culminating in one expensive failure after another. USAID’s website, for example, boasts of its only infrastructure accomplishment in Afghanistan—the Kabul-Kandahar Highway—a narrow and already crumbling highway costing Afghanis $1 million a mile. The highway was featured in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under the headline, “Millions Wasted on Second-Rate Roads.” The article notes that while other bids from more competent construction firms came in at one-third the cost, the contract went to the Louis Berger Group, a firm with tight connections to the Bush administration—as well as a notorious track record of other failed and abandoned construction projects in Afghanistan.
Former Minister of Planning, Ramazan Bashardost, complained that when it came to building roads, the Taliban had done a better job. “And,” he also asked, “Where did the money go?” Now, in a move certain to lower President Karzai’s approval ratings and further diminish US popularity in the area, the Bush administration has pressured Karzai to turn this “gift from the people of the United States” into a toll road, charging each driver $20 for a road-use permit valid for one month. In this way, according to American “experts” providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can collect $30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and thereby decrease the foreign aid “burden” on the United States.
Jones asks, “Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to ordinary Afghans to be something only foreigners enjoy?”
UPDATE BY Fariba Nawa
Afghanistan, Inc. is a thirty-page report that digs deep into the corruption involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The report focuses on US government-funded companies contracted to rebuild Afghanistan. The importance of this report is that it’s the first serious look at corruption of aid money spending from a grassroots level. It includes an emphasis on various projects in villages and the cities and it covers all sides of the issue. It shows how big money is spent on bad work.
The report was first published in English through CorpWatch, a watchdog of corporations, on May 2, 2006. It was translated into the Persian languages of Dari and Pashto in September 2006. The companies investigated in the report continue to receive millions of dollars in contracts from the US government despite their incompetence and wasteful spending. Louis Berger, Bearing Point, Chemonics, and DynCorp are still taking American taxpayers’ money and showing minimum results in Afghanistan.
Some of the mainstream press gave the report coverage, including NPR’s Morning Edition, KRON Channel 4 news in San Francisco when it was first published, and later on, BBC radio and many other European outlets continue to call and ask the author about the report. However, that’s a limited response to the fact that this was a groundbreaking report with important information for policy change. The report has been a source for many others researching the subject. If you’d like more information on corruption on reconstruction in Afghanistan, please refer to CorpWatch’s website http://www.corpwatch.org. Integrity Watch Afghanistan is another organization that monitors corruption in the country and produces various reports.
UPDATE BY ANN JONES
Nine months later the conundrum I described—no peace, no security, no development—still pertains, and Afghan hopes sour.
The US still looks for a military solution. In the first five months of 2007, seventy-five coalition troops were killed (compared to fifty-three in the same period last year), including thirty-eight Americans. Civilian casualties were variously reported—some sources said “almost 1,800”—including 135 killed by US or NATO forces.
The US position on military “progress” against the Taliban, expressed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 4, 2007, as he prepared to visit Afghanistan, remained “guarded optimism.” Gates told reporters a goal of his trip was to insure close coordination of combat operations and development and reconstruction efforts. That’s a switch, suggesting some clue that reconstruction may be a better way to “kill” the Taliban, but leaving unanswered the question of how to coordinate war and peaceful activity.
The real importance of “Why It’s Not Working in Afghanistan” lies behind the front page military coverage—in what it reveals of the systemic scams and should-be scandals of American aid. The story makes news now and then when billions “disappear” from reconstruction projects in Iraq, but to my knowledge it has yet to be investigated by media or congress. What’s discussed is the occasional budgetary black hole that suggests some random malfeasance, in much the same way that torture at Abu Ghraib was discussed as the work of a few “bad apples.”
Maybe reporters don’t want to take up the story because it’s complicated. It’s about numbers. Like Enron. Dreary, ho-hum, life-shattering stuff. I don’t know. But one curious thing: when my book Kabul in Winter appeared in 2006, a very long section on this topic was the one part no reviewer touched.
Now bigger voices than mine speak out. Abdullah Abdullah, the distinguished former Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, recently complained that of every $100,000 promised to Afghan development, less than a third reaches the country. Matt Waldman, head of Afghanistan policy for Oxfam, one of the most respected humanitarian NGOs in the world, wrote in The Guardian (May 26, 2007) that “America is bankrolling Afghanistan” but “as in Iraq, a vast proportion of aid is wasted.” And more to the point, “Close to half of US development assistance goes to the five biggest US contractors in the country.” Waldman argues that too much aid money is lost to high salaries and living costs of international experts, purchase of non-Afghan resources, and corporate profits. He figures the cost of the average expat (read “American”) expert at half a million dollars a year.
So why is it left to representatives of foreign governments, foreign humanitarian organizations, and foreign press to expose this fraud?

Hello my name Is Ken Dabbs, I and my wife own Hunt Wicked Close Television, Oak Lane Outdoor Video Productions, and we are currently filming for Dave Watson and Mathews Television on the Outdoor Channel. We stay very busy everyday and have a schedule so full this year I do not know if we can get it all done.

I am a 20 year veteran law enforcement officer, and a very avid hunter. My wife Rachel is a Para Legal and works for a very large law firm in the DFW area.  We both share the passion for the outdoors equally but we argue this point all the time on the camera.

I have hunted all across the United States and have filmed 100's of hunts across the USA as well and in Africa too.  This product you are and seem to be in an argument over is mine and my wife’s product, and I assure you it is real and will beat the competition hands down.

I am not sure why this thread got to this point and honestly I do not want to know or do I need to know, BUT!!  What is being talked about is mine and I feel I should straighten up some stuff on this. 

 I have a group of folks who have actually used my product and have been using it for a very long time now, unknown to any other people in the industry.  They have used it all across the world to beat the noses of the best animals known to man. They are our testimony to this product and have just in the last few weeks been given the "OK" to start talking about it to anyone and everyone.

We did not want this product to be known until we felt it was time and we believe it is time now.  And yes you will probably find several sites all across the US and Canada as well, and even in Africa that will be talking about BioExtreme.

We actually have a PH that we have to mail this stuff to in Africa because it works so well on his trackers body odors not to mention he uses it himself on the safaris with his clients.  So you see BioExtreme is real and does exist and yes it is new to the world now but was only known to a very few that have used the product and confirmed its ability in the field on camera. We will be returning to Africa in April of 2010 with a group of 4 hunter to stalk and shoot 4 bull elephants and BioExtreme will again makes its appearance in Africa with us. 

I would like to apologize to you folks if this thread in anyway caused any type of negative thoughts or publicity to this site as I have looked this site over very closely and can see that it is maintained and visited by some very professional and ethical hunters and outdoors people the same. I have spoken with several of my people (not all yet) and this type of talk will cease on all sites.

BioExtreme stands on its success rate and the public will soon know this success rate, but for now BioExtreme is distributed to the public off our web site and the shelves of some local retailers, and unfortunately the house wife’s have found out well it works on the kids football and soccer gear so they are buying it more often than the hunters, but the that is slowly changing with hunting season getting closer. 

Again please except my apology and this will not happen again on this site. 

Thank you

That's a good interview Scott.  Congrats.