Bowsite.com

Michael

Hopefully the legal battle is over and reconciliation can begin so that both organizations can move forward and concentrate on the conservation of Wild Sheep.

John

John

Steve H

"Very bad news for sheep if it's true."

Am sure that GSCO, flush with cash will step up and fund the many programs that FNAWS will not be able to.

Does anyone know if:

1. Will this bankrupt FNAWS?

2. Will there be a cease and desist order or gag order against the use of all the trademark infringements?

Ok sportsmen, it is up to us now. How important is being "recoginized" for your achievement coined under trademarked terms? What do you get as an individual out of it? What have the sheep lost so you can have your 15 seconds of fame like 1,750 other individual just like you?

Let's build a big stage with bright lights. Erect shrines to honor those with puffed out chests. That's right, you are better than everyone else because GSCO says you are.

And FNAWs leadership, damn you couldn't comply with a goodwill agreement you participated in making? Why's that?

The whole thing continues to sicken me.

Todd aka Ramhunter - because that is my handle until someone trademarks it and sues me for using it!

Here is the link to the verdict. WOW.

"Hopefully the judge will reduce or even set aside the monetary damages."

Why would you even think that. It was a cut and dry slam dunk.

"Hopefully the judge will reduce or even set aside the monetary damages."

Why would you even think that. It was a cut and dry slam dunk.

"Am sure that GSCO, flush with cash will step up and fund the many programs that FNAWS will not be able to." I really hope that would be the case. But not likely.

The IRS records show GSCO puts but a fraction of their total money raised into actual programs for the sheep compared to FNAWS. 90% of it goes into administration and "fundraising". GSCO put just 10% of their money directly into sheep programs.

FNAWS puts nearly 78% into programs with only 22% into administration and fundraising. Very impressive for FNAWS, for any non-profit. Very telling for GSCO.

Maybe the court can require any payment to go directly to sheep programs? OK, after the lawyers get their pound or two of flesh.

I guess Major League Baseball will soon be in court. And the Judges can go back to suing dry cleaners for millions over a pair for freaking pants. What a world.

In the U.S. you register it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

You ever heard of Nike's "Just Do It" phrase? Even their "swoosh", which looks like a check mark, is trademarked.

For instance, a BigMac is a trademark of McDonald's within the fast food field. McDonald's need not have been the first to use such a term in history or even invented the term. They only needed to be the first to place the term into service within the fast food business.

Let's say that you made a motorcycle part and for whatever reason you called it the BigMac. McDonalds Corp would likely have no legal issue with you because you are in the motorcycle business and they are in the food business--there is no risk to McDonalds that their fast food customers will confuse your BigMac part with their hamburger. You would probably not be infringing on their mark.

There are all sorts of very strange trademarks. I believe that the SHAPE of a bottle of Coke is a trademark.

The reason we don't open our own private hamburger stand with golden arches and a signature hamburger called the BigMac is because of trademark/copyright law. The reason we don't take Microsoft Windows CDs and copy and resell them is because of copyright laws. It would be easy to be a billionaire like Bill Gates if I could just copy his work.

Trademarks and copyrights protect businesses against unfair competition.

Not a good day for sheep conservation IMO....

I am with Ramhunter and TD- Too often the need for "glory" overrides the experience of the hunt. It seems obvious GSCO's mission is to exploit the human desire for "glory" while FNAWS' focus is on the sheep. FNAWS just got legally outmanuevered by GSCO,that's all. Doesn't make it right.

I bet Grancel Fitz and Jack O'Connor are spinning in their graves....

Company's do it for branding purposes, so I imagine a similar motive for GSCO, but again for what benefit? The answer is likely before our eyes.

GSCO is a tax-exempt conservation(?) organization with 501(c)(3) status. They market their raffles, their goods, and their AWARDS. GSCO states its main purpose and objective is to be the established documentation and records-keeping organization for legally-taken Grand Slams of North American wild mountain sheep. It appears that GSCO sees significant value in the term Grand Slam. Afterall, how do you survive as the "established documentation and records-keeping organization" if others give awards by the same name? YOU DON'T - you become insignificant.

So you trademark the term, then sue FNAWS that puts more money towards sheep conservation than does GSCO because FNAWS used the trademarked term that has been in existance since at least 1948 when TRUE magazine published an article by Grancel Fitz, titled "Grand Slam in Rams".

You go to court and sue for money that was earmarked for sheep conservation and put it into the hands of lawyers and the awards programs.

Which begs the question, what is more important sheep conservation and hunting opportunity or peer to peer award recognition & celebration?

I only wish the FNAWS BOD could have seen this for what it is, taken the higher road, and let the sportsmen figure it out for themselves over time.

The time is now before us, what decision will sportsmen make? Will GSCO continue to be supported. Will AWARDS, chest thumping, and peer to peer recognition take precidence over sheep conversation, or will the sportsmen that care for sheep demand more? Only time will tell.....

It is very clear this trademark has significant value in its field. FNAWS was willing to spend, reportedly, over $1,000,000 of its own money in lawyer fees fighting to use that term. Empirically, one can only assume that this term is highly valuable to BOTH sides.

FNAWS could have stopped this argument at any time by simply respecting the legal rights of GSC/O and stop using the terms.

Indeed, FNAWS was asked to stop using this term in 2004. No lawsuit existed and no money was sought.

In 2005, FNAWS and GSC/O signed an agreement outlining the use of GSC/O's trademarks. Both orgs published this agreement in their magazines. FNAWS breeched the contract; GSC/O did not. This was judged to be fact by 12 jurors.

FNAWS continued to use GSC/O's trademarks and was ultimately found liable on many counts--by 12 independent jurors that heard the very best arguments from BOTH sides. This is a fact.

GSC/O was simply defending itself.

In civil court, when you are defending your rights, you are called a Plantiff. When you are the Defendant, you are accused of a wrong doing.

When the jury rules in favor of the Plantiff, the Defendant has been proven to have broken laws and done wrong.

It's a sad day for sheep and sheep hunters any way you slice it. trademarks or not.

So, does the FNAWS make the check out to Mr Campbell? Then he can deposit it into his personal account and keep an eye on it for 3 to 5 years before putting it in GSCO like he did the other GSCO money. LOL! Non-profit! LMAO!

Kum-bay-yah, my a$$, kum-bay-yah...

There are two sides to every story and there is a lot of stuff that we will never know about all the events the unfolded. There are a lot of people in the sheephunting business that I respect and not all of the those people have sided with one group. That should tell all of us something.

I will not give up on either organization and I will continue to support both.

Roger

From what I remember:

1. Dennis Campbell WAS on the Board of Directors for FNAWS.

2. When he WAS on the Board of Directors, the Conventions "seemed" to be on the rise in both attendance and revenue. New programs and marketing campaigns we being introduced at a rapid rate.

3. I could have sworn years ago I got a letter promoting a "partnership" with FNAWS/GSC signed by both organizations? A short while later I saw the resignation letter of Mr. Campbell from the FNAWS Board due to something like irreconcilable differences?

Again, to ME, it all doesn't add up that he alone is to blame for this mess. It is really too bad the only ones benefitting from the whole fiasco are the lawyers.

I appreciate the GOOD both GSC and FNAWS have done.

Possibly the reason why GSC has not donated as much as FNAWS to conservation yet is they are very new to that part as a 501C deal and FNAWS has been in that role for many decades?

You said that a lot quicker than me ;~). Ditto.

I honestly don't know the answer...it is an honest question. Thanks in advance for your answer.

"Both organizations should be ashamed of spending moneys donated BY hunters FOR sheep conservation on this lawsuit regardless of the reasons or outcome."

That is the best sentence I might have ever read on the issue.

The judge could just as easy triple the awards. This was not a good deal for anybody but it could have been settled for a lot less if not for some folks not willing to give any at all. You are very aware of the big gamble here and they lost.

no comment would have sufficed

It is that attitude that I do not understand. They have lost a lot of respect and support around the world. FNAWS backed GSCO in a corner and left them no choice. The court says FNAWS is wrong. FNAWS did not honor the original agreement, tryed a bluff and got called big time. Now you want to act like you are the good guys and did nothing wrong. With that atitude you will ride this mistake all the way into the ground.

he never gives up even when he is dead wrong.

i guess he didnt care it wasnt his money he lost.

nice job kyle-why dont you go work somewhere else. you should resign

Care to clarify!

"FNAWS backed GSCO in a corner and left them no choice."

I have heard that one before. What you really meant to say is..... EGO'S left them no choice. The correct "choice" was to do what was best for wild sheep. That didn't happen. Sportsman's money used just to feed EGO's is pathetic. GSCO should be embarrassed, IMO.

Now that this thing is all but settled, they seem to be the only ones who see fit to pick at the scab - to what end?

Stillhunter: The jury found FNAWS/ISHA liable for the civil law violations of trademark infringement (unfair competition), copyright infringement, breach of contract, interference with business relations, and malice. It is clear that FNAWS is the one that should be embarrassed. Do you support illegal activities, including malice?

Matt: I have a low post count. I post here to bring a balanced perspective to negative posts, especially certain people's false and misleading posts.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Stop all the negative posts. If you like FNAWS/ISHA then go ahead and say something positive. If you like GSC/O then say something positive. But no more negative opinions! It doesn't do any good. I include myself in this request starting right now. Anyone care to join me?

It's clear you have some affiliation with GSCO, yet you hide behind the keyboard like a coward, I will say this, I will never support you or your organization based solely on the way you come off on this thread. you got what you wanted, you had your day in court and you won B.F.D I makes me sick to think of the normal hard working people that provide the money too be pissed away on something this ignorant. The thing that chaps my ass is the fact that you come on here and try to justify it by making it seem as some crime was committed, give me a break, sounds to me like a bunch of unchecked egos throwing around someone else's money. if you or your organization had any class you would apoligize to every one that ever supported you.

Speaking of stepping up to the plate...let it be known that henceforth a home run hit with the bases loaded must be referred to by play-by-play announcers as "a home run with the bases loaded." So say we all.

Exactly my feelings.

I stand by what I said earlier. I agree with Tank in that the only crime committed here is the law suit itself and the spending of money that could have been used for wild sheep.

Was just wondering now that you have WON the verdict as you so humbly described, where does the money go? To sheep as your name implies? What exactly is the "mission"? It has been bantered about on the internet (actual regular hunters) that in the recent NON-profit statements that FNAWS gives 78% back to sheep where GSCO only gives back 10% and the other 90% goes to administration and fundraising. Are these actual numbers and if so, is there and explanation? And what was the whole lawsuit really about in laymans terms that would cost both organizations so much money to take away from wildlife and be p*ssed away to lawyers. I will also be emailing FNAWS if there is one anymore. Thanks for the future response.

Kevin

Please see our website for answers about our conservation contributions. We are very proud of our record…over $600,000 in 2007 alone. We have no way to battle web chat and we choose to not participate in such forums. If we only gave 10% to conservation in 2007 then that would mean that we generated over $6,000,000 which of course is not the case. People can read anything they want to into a financial statement.

As to the lawsuit I think the jury verdict is the best answer to your questions. It is attached and also on our website. By the way I do not remember saying anything using the word “Won”. If I have been quoted as saying that then I misspoke or was misquoted. There have been no winners in this.

GSCO

I am NOT a GSC/O director.

Kyle and Tank: I already said the reason I use a handle is because Kyle and I have worked on sheep projects before and if we work on them again, I don't want any hard feelings. Using a handle is my way of keeping a potential working relationship going, despite clear disagreement--all for the benefit of wild sheep. That has nothing to do with cowardice.

DJ: I think it was great to have the trial in Alabama (a non-"sheep state"). Twelve good independent people heard the very best arguments from both sides without any bias. They ruled FNAWS was liable.

Kyle: Illegal means "not according to or authorized by law". FNAWS was illegal. Plain and simple. No excuse for that. I guess you don't know that because you are part of the FNAWS Board that engaged in illegal actions. That is plain and simple too.

Capo: The FNAWS Board (which includes Kyle) wrote me an email in December. It was a long letter that said, "In 1995, FNAWS and GSCO entered into an agreement whereby FNAWS would let GSCO participate in the FNAWS Conventions, in an effort to help build interest in GSCO, while providing some ancillary benefits to FNAWS.[...]We believe that Dennis Campbell violated this agreement..."

Okay, so this explains why GSC/O was conducting fundraising on donated hunts at past FNAWS conventions. It was an agreement between the two orgs. There is nothing wrong with that.

GSC/O DID NOT violate this 1995 agreement. The jury was asked, "Did the plaintiff [GSC/O] breach the 1995 Agreement?" Jury's answer: "NO".

I am repeating myself here, so I am not going to post anymore. I feel like I am just repeating what the jury ruled. I believe the jury found out the truth.

I am going to GSC/O's Las Vegas show and will have a good time. I am going to get Grand Slam and Ovis magazines and read about sheep hunts. As a GSC/O member, I feel good about all the conservation funding the org does--their website says they funded $600,000 in 2007. I don't care what percentage that is--I think that is a lot of money towards wild sheep and hunter's rights.

I am GSC/O member and proud of it.

Reading thru the trial transcripts I see basically the same two men mentioned--named, to some extent, from the FNAWS side of the House.

Is there more legal activity coming towards these two men or is it just trial stuff and a done deal now?

Good luck, Robb

Why would you get this E-mail if you are only a member, was every member of GSCO sent a copy, or just the lucky ones?

The fact that GSCO filed suit speaks volumes about the organization itself.

I will continue to support organizations that benefit sheep including FNAWS, but count me out in contributing to GSCO. Helping sheep needs to be the top priority. As already mentioned above, IMO, the legal battle was pathetic and a waste of needed funds.

Presumably, FNAWS sent this email to a great many people in the sheep hunting community, regardless of membership status. It was a "blind email", where you can't see who all it was sent to.

Kyle knows more about it. It was signed by the FNAWS Board--ask Kyle.

(Ok, I am REALLY done posting now. Tank asked a simple question so I answered it.)

I am the one who found information on GuideStar on both organizations and shared it here on the Bowsite.

----------

From the GuideStar website: If you care about nonprofits and the work they do, then you're affected by what GuideStar does — even if this is your first visit to www.guidestar.org. You see, we gather and publicize information about nonprofit organizations. Our reach is far and wide. Our database is broad and deep.

GuideStar's mission is to revolutionize philanthropy and nonprofit practice by providing information that advances transparency, enables users to make better decisions, and encourages charitable giving. We encourage nonprofits to share information about their organizations openly and completely. Any nonprofit in our database can update its report with information about its mission, programs, leaders, goals, accomplishments, and needs — for free. We combine the information that nonprofits supply with data from several other sources.

----------

Here are my two posts from the previous Bowsite thread:

Dec 29 - I don't have a dog in this fight, as I'm not a sheep hunter. I'm interested as someone who has managed three non-profit corporations over the past 28 years, two of them being 501c3 charitable non-profit corporations.

After reading all of the posts, I decided to go on Guidestar and look at the most recent IRS form 990's for both FNAWS and GSCO. This might be of interest to readers:

FNAWS had total expenses of $3,295,103. Of that, $2,560,386. went toward Program Services, $672,028. went toward Management and general, and $62,689. went toward Fundraising.

GSCO had total expenses of $1,777,836. Of that, $184,463. went toward Program Services, $323,013. went toward Management and general, and $1,270,360. went toward Fundraising.

There's more I'll share from the 990's when I have time.

December 30 - I read where some question the merit of this thread. I respectfully disagree. This is precisely the kind of information sharing that demonstrates the power of the Bowsite to inform bowhunters and allow for legitimate debate.

I've now had a chance to review the 2005 IRS 990's for both organizations. Those are the latest forms available on Guidestar.

I found nothing unusual on the FNAWS form. In fact, their percentage and amount of total expenses going toward program services is impressive. I was also impressed by the list of specific projects they provided in the report to inform readers of how they expended their $2,560,386 for program services. Additionally, I noticed that there were 9 FNAWS chapters who also filed IRS Form 990 reports. To me, that means over the years, FNAWS has successfully spawned state and regional entities, which is the kind of capacity building I consider to be an indication of organizational strength.

I really only found a few things on the GSCO IRS Form 990 that puzzle me. First, they state on the form that no compensation is paid to their Executive Director, Dennis Campbell, who indicates that he devotes 50 hours per week to the position. Nowhere in the report does it list any salary paid to him. Obviously, that leaves me wondering how he is compensated for his work, and how much he is paid.

Second, they reported a transaction with a noncharitable exempt organization for "Rental of Office Space". The noncharitable exempt organization GSCO transacts with to rent office space is listed as "Dennis Campbell". On their Statement of Functional Expenses, they list an expense for Occupancy of $94,095.

Unlike what I found on FNAWS report, GSCO did not provide specific information on how they used their $184,463 in funds they expended for Program Services othen that to simply state it went toward "Wildlife Conservation Projects".

----------

Part of GSCO's response to kevin3006: "Please see our website for answers about our conservation contributions. We are very proud of our record…over $600,000 in 2007 alone. We have no way to battle web chat and we choose to not participate in such forums. If we only gave 10% to conservation in 2007 then that would mean that we generated over $6,000,000 which of course is not the case. People can read anything they want to into a financial statement."

Here is what is listed on the GSCO website:

Funding 2007

• World Conservation Force Bulletin: $4,670 – Hunters rights protection

• National Bighorn Sheep Interpretive Center: $250 – Support

• National Shooting Sports Foundation: $250 – Support

• South Okanagan California Bighorn Sheep Recovery Project: $20,000 – Wild sheep disease recovery project

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission: $5,000 – Wild Sheep Transplant Project

• Conservation Force: $50,000 – Hunters rights protection

• Northern British Columbia Guides Association: $10,000 – Ungulate enhancement

• Yukon Outfitters Association (YOA): $10,000 – Hunters rights and conservation

• Organizacion Vida Silvestre: $79,200 – Carmen Island Project

• Colorado Division of Wildlife: $99,000 – Wild Sheep & Goat conservation

• Wyoming Game & Fish / Wildlife Heritage Foundation of Wyoming: $49,500 – Wild Sheep conservation

• Hualapai Department of Natural Resources: $40,500 – Desert Bighorn sheep conservation

• Texas Desert sheep project (in conjunction with Texas Parks & Wildlife): $65,000

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game: $58,500 – Wild sheep conservation

• Conklin Foundation: $61,068 – Cooperative Funding

• Alaska Professional Hunters Association: $10,000 – Hunters rights and conservation

• University of Alberta: $20,000 – Central East Slopes Cougar Project

• Colorado Division of Wildlife: $500 – Bighorn sheep & goat orientation

• Gulf Coast Women's Center for Nonviolence: $7,500 – Humanitarian aid (2007 Ladies Luncheon donation)

• Youth Outdoor Safari Day: $2,500 – Youth Hunter Education

• Wyoming FNAWS: $5,000 – Domestic goat removal buyout

• Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep: $3,000 ­– Adopt-a-Guzzler Program

Total 2007 Funding to Date: $601,438

----------

Unfortunately, the most recent GSCO IRS Form 990 available for viewing on the GuideStar website is for 2005. Perhaps a GSCO member could contact them and obtain their 2006 IRS Form 990. Their 2007 IRS Form 990 is likely nowhere near being completed by their accountant/auditor at this time. I noticed that their 2005 form was signed by the Preparer and Officer in September of 2006.

Something else of interest I noticed is that their 2005 IRS Form 990 states that their "Total of Program Service Expenses" for "Wildlife Conservation Projects" was $184,463, yet the GSCO website lists the following: "Total 2005 Funding to Date: $294,121"

I know this is a lot of information. Perhaps too much. LOL I hope people find it helpful.

- Jimbo -

"I believe the jury found out the truth."

Hahahahahaha....

Court trials have nothing to do with "the truth". Only the legal rules and interpretations and definitions of a select handful of people. That handful of people can change from courthouse to courthouse all the way to the Supreme Court.

I've been on the jury in several trials. As a juror you are SPECIFICALLY told this is not about justice and not to do anything to find the truth. Usually you are restricted to a very narrow judgment. The fine letter of the law. The only time "truth" is mentioned is when someone is sworn in. As a juror in a court trial how it is conducted is pretty frustrating, from jury selection to the final verdict. In most cases you are given STRICT rules on what you can and can't take into account. And as to what you can and can't believe is the "truth"

Truth and justice? Those are concepts any lawyer or judge can twist any number of ways. And have no actual bearing in a trial.

The TRUTH???? The real truth is this shouldn't have even ever happened.

As far as GSCO's actual spending on sheep programs the IRS forms tell the story. I've seen the 2005 990 forms and can't speak to the 2007 as they aren't currently publicly posted on Guidestar. They claim on the website program funding of $294,121 for 2005??? The IRS form says 184,463. With an income of $1,846,541. (Thus the 10%.) "People can read anything they want to into a financial statement." No, actually you have to file the figures of a nonprofit with the IRS annually. What money came in and how. What money went out and how. And these filing are public record.

Another real truth is people can and do claim anything they want on a website. Why the discrepancy? I have no idea. Maybe ask them.

Ooops. Beat me to it Jimbo. Thanks.

I don't know for sure but I'd guess the first use of this phrase was related to baseball and not the taking for all four species of NA sheep. I don't know the details of this lawsuit, and I don't care too, but it does sicken me that money was wasted on a lawsuit to defend a term that was probably originally coined to explain something special that happened in baseball while hunter's money was wasted.

I will say I work for a publicly held company that is by far the worldwide leader in its industry. As any publicly held company would do that's in the business to make money for its shareholders we vigorously defend our intellectual property and trademarks as both a source of revenue (when we win) and to prevent competitors from taking market share and technology. We also hold more patents in our industry than all of our other competitors combined. However; as previously stated, we're in the business to make money and please share holders by returning that money to them.

All that said I support many hunter and conservation organizations and I will continue to do so but I still can't understand why two organizations supposedly dedicated to the preservation of wild sheep and wild sheep habitat would spend hard earned dollars that were donated by hunters defending the use of a phrase rather than use the money for the conservation which it was intended. Both of these groups convinced their "shareholders" (hunters who donated their hard earned dollars) that their return on investment would be preservation of sheep and sheep habitat when in reality this money was given to lawyers to defend the use of a phrase that's also used to describe a homerun. As much as I'd like to believe and hope one organization winning this lawsuit over another that's supposedly in it for the same thing would benefit wild sheep I can't think of one single way that it would. I for one will choose to donate my money and time to organizations who I'm more confident won't waste it on lawsuits such as this ego driven suit. There are many other organizations out there who do great work and deserve our money that haven't gotten involved in one upping one another.

The only thing that could convince me to change my mind would be if Ovis immediately put the proceeds of the suit toward the preservation and proliferation of wild sheep and both groups apologized for wasting YOUR money on this lawsuit. If they do that and document it I'll immediately join each organization as a life member.

Basically, they needed to protect the identity of the club and who they have been for the past 50 years. I guess the most simple illustration would be MacDonalds putting Burger Kings "Have it your way" slogan on all it's advertising.

Dennis Campbell said they are not persuing to triple the penalty. All the GSC/Ovis board members are Life Members of FNAWS and don't want to see them eliminated.

He also said he received a positive letter from Ray Lee indicating both organizations could work together again in the future to benefit the wild sheep.

The most interesting thing I heard about the whole unfortunate incident is at the beginning of the process, Dennis and the GSC Board along with Ray Lee (but unfotunately for us here on the Bowsite, not his board) pledged to conduct this matter in a professional, ethical, and courteous manner...

I will admit I haven't studied the particulars of the case and the history leading up to it. I also understand that once the lawsuit began moving forward FNAWS had no choice but to defend themselves which is the point of your response to me. However, it was stated earlier in this thread that FNAWS was "asked" to stop using the term and if that's true they made a choice at that time to continue using the term which eventually lead to the lawsuit. These two organizations should not have acted like they are in competition with one another. IMHO it's counter to what they supposedly stand for.

You wrote, "Note also that on three occassions FNAWS met with GSCO to try to settle the case without going to court. FNAWS offered every option imaginable, including merging, joint conventions, etc. GSCO refused all of the offers."

I'm curious about one thing you may or may not be able to answer. Did FNAWS at anytime offer to stop using the term in question?

Doesn't necessarily mean you guys were wrong.

Good hunting.

Kyle,you seem to know the motives of most GSCO actions before you were a board member for FNAWS,but conversely declare your newly elected board member status when asked direct/indirect questions on why FNAWS chose not to abide by the agreement between the 2 parties.

A very fair question.....

Your explanation seems reasonable. The bottom line is it's a shame this came to a lawsuit and money was taken away from sheep and habitat conservation regardless of the true motivations. I think this is one thing nearly everyone can agree on; except maybe those who's egos are involved. It's pretty evident at least one organization was acting like they were in competition with the other and there's no denying this behavoir did nothing to promote the organization's supposed mission.

What silliness.

Are you telling us that GSCO doesn't hold elections to allow the members to vote on directors and officers? And that GSCO board members are appointed by Dennis Campbell, the organization's Executive Director? Are you sure about those statements? I've never heard of anything like that for a CHARITABLE non-profit corporation. Especially one that has "members".

That heightens my curiosity from having seen GSCO's 2005 IRS Form 990 on GuideStar and noting that Dennis Campbell did not receive any compensation, even though he indicated that he devoted 50 hours per week to the position. In my opinion, that raises two fair questions: How does Dennis Campbell get paid? How much is Dennis Campbell paid?

GSCO also reported a transaction with a noncharitable exempt organization for "Rental of Office Space". The noncharitable exempt organization GSCO transacts with to rent office space is listed as "Dennis Campbell". On their Statement of Functional Expenses, they list an expense for Occupancy of $94,095. In other words, based on the 2005 IRS Form 990, it appears that GSCO pays Dennis Campbell $95,095 for office space. While I'm no expert in real estate, in my opinion, that seems like an unusual arrangement for a charitable organization.

I do know that magazines and trade shows can be profitable. I wonder if GSCO contracts with Dennis Campbell to produce their magazines and trade shows, and he is compensated in that way? If he does, in fact, appoint his own Board of Directors and Officers, it wouldn't seem difficult for him to obtain exclusive rights to produce their magazines and trade shows.

I would like to have certain facts about GSCO before developing any firm opinion about them. For that reason, I just sent the following email to GSCO, and will post any response I receive here on the Bowsite.

To: [email protected]

Subject: Questions

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would appreciate your responses to the following questions:

Are GSCO members allowed to vote in elections for GSCO Board members and Officers?

How does your Executive Director, Dennis Campbell get paid for the work he performs for GSCO? Does GSCO compensate him? Does he receive any compensation from other entities that have a relationship with GSCO to provide goods or services?

How much is Dennis Campbell compensated by GSCO and/or other entities that have a relationship with GSCO?

Would it be possible for me to receive a copy of GSCO's ByLaws?

I'm aware of the money Mr. Campbell received in 2005 from GSCO for rental of office space, as that amount is listed on GSCO's 2005 IRS Form 990 available for review on the GuideStar website.

Thank you.

Jim Mathes

Don't expect a lightning fast reply from Mr. Campbell. In fact, don't expect any reply at all.

How quickly I receive a response isn't an issue. But, if I don't hear anything from them in a couple of weeks, I'll inquire as to whether or not a GSCO member can obtain this kind of information. I'll also ask for a complete overview of GSCO member services, benefits and opportunities to become involved in the organization. I might end up joining.

Check the ticket sales....I bought "Y" as I said I would.

Kyle,are you not going to answer the question of why FNAWS chose not to abide by the agreement?That may very well be the 10 million dollar question.

I thought I did answer your question.

1. I was not on the board when the agreement was made, nor when it was supposedly violated.

2. I have not seen the agreement.

Now, answer me this: If GSCO is so concerned about having exclusive use of the terms and claimed financial damages because FNAWS used those terms, why did GSCO just grant SCI complete use of those same terms for free?

Kinda brings me back to the original question I posed about the "agreement".

How somebody conducts business and the regard given to the other party is really the crux of the matter here.

If you haven't read the agreement how do you know that your org has acted in the best interest of it's membership?

You don't....

That's why I can't imagine a BOD not reading the darn thing.Take a night away from the Guidestar website and read the agreement tomorrow night....or quicker.

IMO from what I've seen on the GSCO org and their leadership I sure wouldn't be the one to throw stones at the FNAWS and theirs. But it's pretty easy to throw stones from behind a fake name. "Kyle and Tank: I already said the reason I use a handle is because Kyle and I have worked on sheep projects before and if we work on them again, I don't want any hard feelings. Using a handle is my way of keeping a potential working relationship going," Yeah, right. So much for that. I can see with my own eyes who has and doesn't have any credibility here. That last post was lame. And yes, cowardly.

I'm not a SCI member,but I would wait to see EXACTLY how they will use the term and if that usage will be a conflict with GSCO.

It goes back to the working relationship each party has most likely and HOW and WHAT FOR the term is being used.....but I don't a clue.If I was on their board I would though...:)I would know if the custodian smokes while on the job also.

----------

JIM: Grand Slam Club/Ovis is a 501(c) (3) non-profit corporation. It is also a membership organization. You are not a member according to our records. We will be happy to answer your questions if you decide to become a member.

GSCO

Michael

As the great Huggy Bear once said, "they just went down a notch in my book"

Michael

The Wild Sheep Foundation is it, now? ;)

If we are going to talk about "ethics" lets ask the question again, "why spend money, badly needed for wild sheep, on the right to use a specific phrase?"

As Scott pointed out, the phrase has been used for baseball for years. Heck, people use the phrase all the time, should we expect more law suits in the future? Is this an organization I am going to be willing to piss away my money on? LOL Not me.

It is the American way!

Pretty sad if you ask me--

Michael

John MacPeak

I'm also a member of both organizations and that has been the best advice I have seen on this thread so far.

TThomas good seeing you at the Wild Sheep Convention aka FNAWS, I am already looking forward to next year.

John

I agree with you. I would bet that both sides share some responsibility for the disagreement and also for the poor communication skills that allowed this to happen (both conventions on the same weekend for example). I also think that BOTH organizations were trying to compete "head to head" with each other after the split. I have respect for Ray Lee and the FNAWS BOD and for Dennis Campbell and the GSCO BOD. They have each done some good things for wild sheep. I am also disappointed that both could not work out their differences without going to court. The missions of each group are slightly different. I believe that both groups can survive and flourish even if they never get back together.

Ramhunter,

I am surprised that you criticize GSCO for recognizing the Grand Slam of North American wild sheep so much and the hunters that appreciate the awards. FNAWS also gives out awards and both groups also regognize the large sheep taken each year by members. I believe you have been a little more than affiliated with the CBA's Record Book, which recognizes the taking of Colorado's ten big game animals with a bow (some refer to this as the CO bow slam). No offense but that seems like a double standard to me. I believe you have helped compile the record book have you not? I don't have a problem with awards and/or record books. I enjoy seeing such great animals as they are a testament to our management efforts and the skills of our bretheren.

Kyle,

I wish you and the FNAWS BOD the best and hope we can all get over this and work towards the mission. I think Gray Thornton will be a good leader for FNAWS and that Ray Lee will do a good job in his new capacity specializing in working with the states, provinces, and countries on sheep issues. I think he enjoys that area of his job the most anyway.

Also, just to clarify for some of you out there, GSCO has the registered trademark to use the term "Grand Slam of North American wild sheep" as well as some other slam terms only as they apply to sheep hunting, not baseball, tennis, food, etc... They won't be sueing MLB or Denny's!

Regards, Scott.

They might as well. The point being made is that it would be no more ridiculous than what they have already done.

Despite the effort to show blame on both sides, the fact that GSCO filed the suit in the first place, is what people on this thread are venting about. IMO, that action speaks for itself, and can't be justified.

I agree that folks need to set aside their egos, which is what caused this fiasco in the first place. Hopefully both orgs have learned from this.

I agree with your assessment and I am disappointed that this ever went to court. Also I have been a long time member of DSC and I am sure that Gray Thornton is a great addition for FNAWS (Wild Sheep Foundation).

Stillhunter,

To be simplistic this all could have been headed off if either GSCO hadn’t filed a lawsuit or FNAWS had agreed to GSCO’s request. Apparently both organizations thought that the issue was sufficiently important not to come to a compromise out of court. I therefore find fault with both organizations but see no point in bickering over who was most at fault. Let’s put this behind us and move forward and focus on the future and the positives that both organizations can accomplish for Wild sheep and sheep hunters.

John MacPeak

George Santayana

Awards and recognition and records are not the problem until egos get in the way and make that more important than anything else. If CBA were solely a records organization, I wouldn't support them the way I do. If Pope & Young were solely a records organization, I wouldn't support them the way I do. GSCO by their very mission are primarily a records organization, and that by itself does not make them bad or problematic. UNTIL the records and the recognition become so important that lawsuits are filed because EGOS are too big. That's not a double standard, that is a distinct and measureable difference. If CBA, P&Y, B&C, SCI or others sue in the name of awards and recognition to the determent of conservation I will be as critcal as I am of GSCO. I doubt that will ever happen, but time will tell.

Todd

So by your comment, should I assume that if you were on the Board of CBA, P&Y, B&C, or SCI and then FNAWS comes along makes exact copies of the awards, profits from them, and republishes exact copies of the records as their own, you would allow all this to happen???

In other words, you would allow FNAWS to completely disguise the labors of your organization and cause fund raising profits to be directed away from your org, when you are doing all the work???

In my book, you would be a terrible board member to allow this. It is also against the law, no matter what you think.

This is exactly what FNAWS did and it was WRONG.

GSC/O made all sorts of attempts to settle without going to court. FNAWS refused them all.

Works both ways doesn't it!

But the problem you can't spin is that FNAWS is the one that BROKE THE CONTRACT. Why did FNAWS break the contract? They signed it and even were so proud of it they published it in their magazine for everyone to see.

If you are going to have it both ways, you should at least hold others to the same standard. Does it not occur to you that repeatedly violating the rules of this site in order to cast aspursions against FNAWS for violating a contract is the pinnacle of hypocracy?

The implication that one can violate "the rules" solely because it suits them is to validate what FNAWS has done in this instance.

You are kidding yourself if you think P&Y or B&C would allow someone to copy their score sheets and awards such as the Sagamore Hill Award that B&C gives out. P&Y and B&C scoresheets are both registered by those organizations. I know that B&C and P&Y almost sued a hunter over claiming he had shot the World Record whitetail buck several years ago.

If you think that keeping records of bowhunted animals is not the primary reason that P&Y exists, you are kidding yourself. Sure they do other good works but probably not as much as GSCO or FNAWS. I beleive that at the P&Y and B&C conventions, both the animals and the HUNTERS are recognized. Just like at GSCO and FNAWS. Have you ever been to a GSCO convention? JM and I have. I have also been to a B&C convention where the three-year period animals are recognized, along with the hunters.

My point was that you have also participated in awards of one type or another. Perhaps you should not have been so aggressive in your attack. I respect the work you have done on the CBA book but I don't think it is much different from what other groups do for their members.

Speaking as a hunter who just got my award at both conventions for my four sheep, I wish that FNAWS still had the ability to call my award there a grand slam award. My story about my desert sheep hunt even got edited in the last issue of the FNAWS magazine because I used the grand slam term. I think that is crazy and I am disappointed in both groups that they both cannot use the terminology that we all recognize because the deal broke down.

Regards, Scott.

Except for the fact that P&Y copied B&C's scoring system. Does anyone know how much money B&C was awarded when they sued P&Y for doing so?

The correct answer is of course that B&C didn't sue P&Y, and probably was happy to let P&Y piggyback on their scoring system for the betterment of the hunting in general. How times have changed.

Works exactly the same both ways.

This is over and done with and it is time to move on. No matter what happens, each side passionately believes in their cause and they have a right to. Neither side will ever back down, and you are not going to convince them to.

Who is right? Who cares. In their own minds they are both right.

Lets just move on and get back to what we need to concentrate on, and that is doing what we can to help the Sheep-

GSCO has their mission and that is fine for them. The Wild Sheep Foundation (TWSF now??) has their mission and that is also fine.

Thhis entire thing is sad because it probably could have been prevented and the money spent could have been spent on the Sheep-

Good hunting-

Michael

"Kyle, Why did FNAWS change the dates of their 2008 convention to dates they knew GSCO was holding theirs? Thanks, Lee"

They didn't. FNAWS had tentative dates that were determined by "blackout dates" that two other big Salt Palace outdoor shows have written into their contracts. GSCO was notified as to what those tentative dates were. FNAWS then booked its convention, but GSCO never checked back with FNAWS to see what the final date was before booking their convention.

I don't think this is important at all. But for the record, I was born in California, raised in California, and live in California. This is the first time anyone told me I have a Southern accent.

Good luck, Robb

Chip, I agree, this all looks bad. Sheep hunting also brings out the best in people. There are more folks ready to help out on a sheep hunt, free of charge, than an other type of hunting.

Nothing's wrong with it. When "Manco" called my friend, he wouldn't give him his name. My friend simply commented to me that he sounded young and that he had a southern accent. Maybe he's from southern California? ;^)

I live in California, therefore I could not have been a jury member.

Have a great bowhunt. BB

How could the MM thread get any better than this? We have Robb serving buscuits and gravy, a fake southern accent from a mystery caller, and nobody being able to afford the hunts for the four sheep that started the whole thing.

One thing his comments highlighted is that, with the history of use of the terms outlined, one would think that they would be deemed prior art and not copyrightable in the first place. The concept of prior art is that once a term is used openly/publicly for a period of time and that can be evidenced, one who is not the originator cannot copyright that term and restrict its use. Can anyone comment as to whether FNAWS' counsel approached it from this viewpoint and then why these terms were not deemed prior art in this case?

You have no clue what "prior art" is. You have it all wrong.

I am laughing right now that you think you have discovered some "new" legal approach.

"...one would think..."

No, actually, most would not think like you. Especially the jury of 12, who found GSC/O held valid trademarks. Even the judge, months before the trial, thought that GSC/O's trademarks were valid. That is why the Court imposed an injunction on FNAWS last year.

Matt nailed it. Would B&C sue P&Y? And I think he has it right about the legal strategy. They should have and I believe still can challenge the copyright itself with the PTO. That would have invalidated the whole thing and Manco knows this. Seems they made a tactical error in assuming the whole thing would never make it that far. I can see that as it actually makes some sense.

The court can only decide if there was an infringement. The court I don't believe has any say in what is and isn't a copyright. But the PTO does and has a procedure to challenge and invalidate a copyright that has already been granted. But it can take a very very long time and the time constraints may not have allowed for this.

In the end, one group actually filed a lawsuit against another. Over a commonly accepted term that has been in use for exactly that reason since before either organization ever existed. Shooting 4 sheep. You guys can spin this any way you want, with all the legalese you want, it still all comes back to that.

This had nothing whatsoever to do for the benefit of hunting, sheep hunting or even sheep. (Although possibly a small handful of sheep hunters.) This was ALL about some people trying to better their position at the feed trough. Sheep be darned. Shameful.

Both orgs are going to suffer from this. But IMO it's clear which one will suffer most in the end. And it will be all their own doing.

If no one within GSCO actually "coined" the phrase, and it has been used by many groups and individuals for a long time(1940's), then in my mind they have no more right to it than anyone else does. The "claim" is laughable, despite what one jury has decided.

Again, the fact that a law suit was ever filed is ridiculous, and you can deny it all day long, but it is a reflection of the priorities and the character of those involved.

Do they compete?

Does each org have a distrust of each other?

Does one org treat the other maliciously?

The answer to the last 3 questions will mirror the answer to the first one......

In this discussion the competition has become adversarial. At some level it matters not why or who started it, just that it is inappropriate and should not be perpetuated. I don't see that as the direction of the conflict however.

You are a friend. I respect you and your contributions to Colorado hunting, even though we may disagree on best approach to problem solving from time to time. If you were offended by my broad brush comments about those who have taken the grand slam and registered it with GSCO, then I apologize to you and others, and I'll take this opportunity to elaborate on my rant.

You and those like you that registered your slams wasn't problematic and did so with an organization that at the time portrayed themselves as there to benefit sheep. However, after this action I would seriously question the motivations of others that would seek recognition in the future with this organization. That is my opinion. I'm pissed off at GSCO and I'm very disappointed with FNAWs. Those are my feelings, right - wrong - or indifferent, that is how I feel about it, and I've expressed that here. Obviously that is a waste of time, but public forums provide an outlet. If I could figure out how to communicate a maddening scream, that is what I would type, that is how I feel.

In regards to CBA, P&Y, B&C, and others, let me respond to your questions that I have fact based answers for:

1) I'm kidding myself if I think B&C or P&Y would allow someone to copy their scoresheets. ANSWER: Actually they do. I did, in the CBA record book, now and in the past. I wrote to both organizations, I asked for permission. I was granted permission by both in writing. I gave the credit in the book they requested, and provided them with a copy of the book for their library as requested. That's it, seems like a mature, cooperative, and gentlemenly approach.

2) B&C and P&Y almost sued a hunter over claiming he had shot the World Record whitetail buck several years back. ANSWER: Anyone can claim anything about a world record, neither B&C nor P&Y nor anyone else has any issue with that. They did have issue when the individual claimed in printed press that they had shot a new P&Y World Record. The issue was not the world record, or terminology, but in the fact that they used the organizations name in to gain credibility. In addition, I stated I would be disappointed if these organizations sued in the name of awards and recognition to the detriment of conservation - that is not the case in your example, but is in the scenario discussed here.

3)I'm kidding myself if I believe P&Y records in not their primary purpose. ANSWER: As a Regular Member I know that is not the case. It is the primary fund raising function, but not the primary function of the organization.

4) P&Y and B&C recognize animals and HUNTERS. ANSWER: Yes, I understand that, and I did state that the recognition is not the problem until the egos grow so large that the recogition becomes so important that lawsuits are filed to the detriment of conservation. Hypothetical - what if RMBS gives a sheep award this year to one of your hunters, and you choose to use that in your business literature. And then another outfitter sues RMBS because they mismeasured one of their hunters rams that was actually bigger. Okay, so it is a little out there, but that would be an ego where the sueing outfitter is putting their interests above that of conservation. That is an ego out of control. Make sense, even kinda?

5) Todd, you do similar work with CBA, why is it wrong for others to do the same? ANSWER: I don't think it is, again until egos get in the way.

Scott, congratulations on your accomplishment, I truly am happy for you.

GSCO's actions really make me angry. I'm very concerned about RMBS current affiliation with GSCO, although I understand that affiliation was formed before this lawsuit. I think it is wrong for GSCO to take credit for the term Grand Slam and others, regardless of what their trademark says. I think it is wrong that GSCO takes credit for Colorado Govenor tag fund raising on their website with no credit given to RMBS who is awarded the tags by the State of Colorado - even if they are auctioned at their convention. I think it is wrong for them to portray their fund raising efforts as greater than anyone else when they really are only providing the venue in which some of these tags are auctioned.

As a former member of GSCO, they have an implied fiduciary responsibility to spend membership funds - MY PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS - in a way that they state they will in their mission. In my opinion, they failed miserably when this lawsuit happened.

And again to be clear, I'm very disappointed in the way FNAWs handled this too. Legalities aside, I personally see more fault with GSCO than FNAWs. I won't be a member in the future, and I hope that over time as a member and former board member of RMBS that they too carefully consider their affiliation with GSCO in the future. Putting sheep on the mountain is the goal. Raising money to accomplish this goal is critical, but money alone is not the only thing to consider and it sure isn't the final measuring stick of success.

Organizations and individuals alike need to choose their bedfellows wisely.

I've made my decision about GSCO, and that is the end of my story.

Todd

Todd's thread above probably best represents how I feel about the mater. There is no doubt both parties are in the wrong, but IMO one is more wrong than the other. While this FNAWS/GSCO feud probably isn't over, I no longer care to add fuel on the fire. Nothing but one's ego is served through the continued bickering.

GSCO appparently puts 20% of its money towards sheep conservation- the rest towards who knows what.

FNAWS puts 80% towards sheep conservation and 20% for administration.

GSCO sued over a 60-year old phrase and caused millions to be spent by both sides on lawyers while obviously trying to gain a monopoly as the only sheep organization.

Seems to me GSCO's actions speak for themselves and they cannot be defended...

I tend to agree with TX Hunter if only 20% gets to the Sheep, whats the point, I'm no mathematician but 80% seems to constitute a far better organization.

Special thanks to BB who photoshopped it for me prior to sending it in.

You posted the following which was a part of the quote from Don Peay:

“If you want to get a pretty magazine, go with GSC. And if your ego is so big, you are to cool to hang out with "just north American sheep hunters" go to GSC.

. Particpate in GS if you want, get that pretty magazine, feel that you are better than the rest of us who can only afford to hunt N.A. “

There are many good points for FNAWS case in Don’s statements but the above comments are condescending, inflammatory, and childish and should be below anyone who is on the board of directors of FNAWS. Is this the attitude that was used to placate MR. Campbell during negotiations? Does the board of directors not realize that many people are long time members of both organizations? I personally don’t appreciate the insinuations. Also, they are quite hypocritical statements considering changing FNAWS name to the Wild Sheep Foundation to encompass international sheep hunters and the resurrection of ISHA by FNAWS to compete with GSCO.

A second statement:

“And before you jump on the legal system, just rememember OJ Simpson is innocent as well, according to the Jury.”

This quote shows me that FNAWS hasn’t taken responsibility for their part in this debacle. The desire to get even is overriding the good sense to heal the harm that has been done. Frankly I don’t want to hear anymore excuses I don’t care who is more at fault; I want to hear we are sorry for our part in this dispute, we won’t make theses mistakes again , and let’s move forward with our mission the conservation of wild sheep.

Kyle, I am on your side but please stop this negative campaign against GSCO members and instead focus on the positives of what the WSF has done and is doing, actions will win out in the end.

John

Your not convincing anyone here how "right" this was. You think just winning a stupid court case makes it right? This was a boneheaded move by GSCO. Stupid. And the PR and the good will they lost will cost them. And you know all this. Because you're jumping up and down, making anonymous phone calls to people and God knows what else all as some kind of damage control. "Can't we all just get along? (right after I'm done hosing you)" Sorry. Too late. Damage is done. You've read many of the posts here. People are upset and have long memories.

Again, only a lawyer could see anything good to take away from this. Probably think that judges multi million dollar lawsuit over a lost pair of pants was pretty cool too. Yeah, wonderful system.

LOL! And you're still in hiding? If you'll notice, at least Mr. Peay signed his name to what he said.

Agreed. I'll continue to support FNAWS/WSF and will do the same for GSCO when sheep and sheep habitat rank higher than fourth place in their mission statement.

I also said ""Can't we all just get along? (right after I'm done hosing you)".

You said you were done posting about a week ago....

Yes, I do recall that. I changed my mind after several false and misleading comments were posted. I actually feel like I am done posting again...

FNAWS-WSF will continue their conservation programs. I'm a proud new member of FNAWS-WSF. Will never consider joining, supporting or dealing wwith GSC/O.

Martin

I have already stated this previously. I am absolutely not a Director of GSC/O, or any other corporation or organization. I am a GSC/O member, a sheep hunter, and a conservationist, just like a lot of other people reading this board.

This matter is historical at this point. I was member of FNAWS for many years (I think about a decade) and have been to many conventions, so I know both orgs very well. I have posted here to bring certain facts forward, to rebut certain false/misleading comments, and to hopefully encourage other people to do their own primary research.

With the case judged, I have run out of new reference material. I have cited again and again both orgs magazines, the jury's verdict, and the Court's final judgment. Anyone seeking to understand this historical matter, should re-read these documents.

Again (and again), I feel like I am done posting now.

I have a lot of respect for all you have done for CO hunting as well. Sometimes a guy gets on the internet and states things a bit stronger or at least they come across that way more so than in person. I think that may have happened in this case.

As you state, you contacted P&Y and they gave you permission. Good for you. I agree that is the way to handle things. I don't think they would have sued you if you did not ask but they might have if it was another organization or one they were in a battle with. What many people do not understand about this whole FNAWS/GSCO lawsuit is that the groups were already battling each other about other issues as well, that is one of the reasons the agreement between FNAWS and GSCO broke down.

I think we agree that P&Y and B&C did confront the hunter who claimed that he harvested the new P&Y or B&C world record. Anybody can use the term "world record" but they cannot use P&Y or B&C with it. We agree.

I think we agree that egos had too much to do with the lawsuit and we agree that we are disappointed in both groups.

Regards, Scott.

"Actually, the Court has made the final judgment. This matter is closed ..."

No, in fact, the court has not made its final judgement and the case is not closed.

In light of the court document (dated 2/15/08) that is now posted on both the FNAWS and ISHA websites, would you please expound on your statement?: "No, in fact, the court has not made its final judgement and the case is not closed."

Thank you.

Michael

There are still items in front of the judge on which she has yet to rule.

The reason I'm confused and asked for clarification is the posting on the FNAWS website (at the link above) is titled: "FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION"