Safari Club Intenrnational

09 April 2009, 19:57

Die Ou Jagter

Les, I don't now about you but I am tired of butting my head against this brick wall. Life is too short so I will continue to support SCI and work our local banquet etc.

SCI has survived for many years with out the support of these people and I am sure the organization will continue ot succed with the help of good people, be they rich or poor, well middle class

. Thank God for those rich guys where ever they may be. Where would this world be without the rich self made men and women.

09 April 2009, 20:04

Bwana Bunduki

David,

Tha would get you position of choice in any convention hall I was in charge of...

09 April 2009, 23:16

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by David Hulme:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:

Yep, SCI is doing great for us as hunters.

Wow, you guys keep clutching at straws eh? And you keep pulling the short straw. Now the score is: Rest of the world 198 - England/UAE 0.

Saeed, can you tell me the names of ALL the African safari operators you know who are dissatisfied with SCI? You have been harping on about that issue on thread after thread, but we don't know who they are. Might they just be the fellows you hunt with, perhaps? I, like billquimby, know quite a number of operators who are satisfied with the service they get from SCI. Why are you generalizing and painting all African operators with the same brush? I'm sure there are plenty of African operators who don't want you speaking for them, insofar as SCI or anything else is concerned. Who elected you African operator spokesman? Who are ALL these operators that are so bleak about the service they get from SCI? Come on man, facts now - you are always whining about wanting facts and yet you provide none yourself. I could post an extensive list of Zim operators who have bought a booth at SCI every year for many years, and who will undoubtedly continue to do so. These are not stupid men, so I'm certain they feel that attending the convention benefits them. Surely they wouldn't continue attending if they thought they were being ripped off time and again?

Your sarcastic comment 'SCI is doing great for us as hunters' should rather be directed at you and Steve. Yep, you guys sure are doing great for us as hunters with your baseless accusations. The truth is that you are doing nothing for hunting by spouting all this unsubstantiated drivel. Kindly stop harping on about facts - you are the one with the accusations, you provide the facts. Which operators in particular feel they are being ripped off by SCI? Tell us, we are all ears. As far as I can see, only one side in this debate has provided any facts at all, and it's not the combined England/UAE team, which explains the scoreline...I guess at 198 down you are starting to get desperate, hence the aimless swinging.....

Dave

Seeing how SCI works, if I named those PHs, they probably would be refused entry into the convention next time.

I repeat, I have not, as yet, met a single PH in Africa who is happy with SCI.

As to your claim that answers have been provided for our questions, wher are they?

I have totalled ALL the monetary value from ALL the links offered, and they totalled less than $60,000 since 2002.

If you have any figures, please enlighten us.

09 April 2009, 23:30

Die Ou Jagter

Saeed, if it is our responsibility to provide you with more information in support of our position, then it is only proper and fitting that you do the same i e names of offended outfitters as they are the ones that pay the fees not the PH that may work for them unless they are free lancing. Since you are the host it would only be fiting that you go first. I am sure SCI is not following this forum so you will not be placing the offended parties at risk of retaliation.

Since SCI is so money hungry they would never refuse entry to anyone with MONEY! That dog just won't hunt. Find another Red Herring!

09 April 2009, 23:46

Navaluk

Yea Saeed, why do you not betray your friends confidences?

You know these SCI lap dogs would do so if it would help them win an idiotic argument like this.

You got down in the mud with these people, now look at yourself! I thought you were smarter than this.

09 April 2009, 23:47

465H&H

I was surprised when I compared SCI with Pheasants Forever on the provided link, http://www.charitynavigator.or...h.summary&orgid=8553. Two things surprise me. One is that SCI only spent less than 500,000 on fund raising expenses. and only grossed 6.7 Mil last year and spent around 5.1 Mil. I would think with the size of the convention expenses and revenue would have been much higher. Pheasants Forever isn't one of the larges5t conservation orgs but they grossed over 28 mil last year and spent 31 Mil almost all on field related projects. PF is small compared to DU or RMEF. Also it looks like SCI spends token dollars on field projects but counts on the individual chapters to aspend their funds on local projects which they are very good at. SCI doesn't llok like a very effecient operation to me. On the other hand none of these orgs are there to maximize the dollars that the hunting industry generates. They are there to maximize the dollars they can get for their projects. If the African Safariindustry didn't find attendance at any convention profitable they wouldn't continue to go to them. Saying that,IMHO SCI should be alloting more dollars to on the ground projects.

465H&H

10 April 2009, 00:20

Die Ou Jagter

465H&H, it is interesting on your take of SCI vs other org.. Are you aware that RMEF, Du etc require the local chapters to remit 100% of their net proceeds to the national org and then the local chapters must request funds from national for any local projects. With SCI the local chapters retain 70% of their net funds raised for local projects thus bypassing all the red tape for their projects. The above is the main reason I got involved with the local chapter of SCI, the funds stay with us to do what we deem proper in our area. I guess you could say the other org model themselves like the current administration wants the federal government to be and SCI is more like the Republican (conservative) party.

Local knows best for their area.

Just another interesting observation.

I reread your post and Pheasants Forever does sound much like the federal government, revenue of 28 mil and spent 31 mil. Go figure.

One other fact SCI is not a conservation org it is a lobbying org. They use SCIF for the consevation efforts. One should compare apples to apples not apples to cucumbers.

10 April 2009, 04:15

465H&H

Die1

You are quite correct but and these are big "Buts". PF lets the local chapters keep 100% of the dollars they generate. I thought I said above that the local chapters do a great job. I tried to join the local chapter without joining the national org. but wasn't allowed to. Your point on the local chapters keeping 70% of the local dollars means that the National earned even less dollars at their convention since local chapter dollars are included in the 6 Mil the National org reported. I have a real problem with their numbers. Something just doesn't add up. PF indeed spent more than it earned last year but if you look at the amount of dollars in reserve it should be obvious that this is not normal operating procedure. I don't know why they dipped into the reserve this year but I suspect they had a major purschase such as a land deal that was completed this year. Money sitting in a reserve account doesn't produce any birds but is valuable to maintain operations in down revenue earning years. Also I think many of us would like to see SCI National spending more money on the ground. You are wrong as to SCI being a conservation org. Just look at any of their literature and you will see them touting their conservation efforts.

465H&H

12 April 2009, 06:20

Larry Sellers

DOJ - I agree that the other Organizations mentioned are indeed like our current Federal govt and that SCI is more like the conservative Republican side. I am certainly glad of that fact and hope they continue steering the same course.

A real life example is RMEF, what a totally misguided ORG. Their main interest is simply buying up large tracts of elk property and tying it up for only their elite to hunt on. There is a prime example of this here in New Mexico recently. They also scam their members into thinking they are hunter supportive when indeed they never take a stand for the hunter. They keep all monies from the Chapter fundraisers, have really large Administative salaries and costs, etc. Not my cup of tea for sure.

I'll continue to support the efforts of NRA and SCI, someone else can support the others.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member