A recent request for information from Safari Club has yielded the following :



Africa Program Update


African Lion Management

SCIF is the only hunting conservation organization assisting with the development of man-
agement programs at the highest levels of government. Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia
now have complete national lion management plans. Botswana continues to implement
their existing predator plan and Mozambique, Tanzania, and Malawi will likely complete
their plans in 2009. SCIF is conducting field surveys of lions in Mozambique to allow this
state to prepare a well developed management plan. SCIF has also funded an independent
survey in the Kalahari to estimate the relative density of predators and complement data
collected by the government of Botswana.



SCIF’s African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF)

Hosted by the country of Namibia, the 7th meeting of the AWCF focused on progress made
in African lion management and identification of remaining needs for the sustainable use of
this magnificent species. One of the significant outcomes of this meeting was a commit-
ment by the countries to update the Parties to CITES on progress made in lion conservation
at the next Convention (CoP15).



Partnerships with PH Associations

SCIF awarded grants to the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA)
and the Namibia Professional Hunters Association (NAPHA) to send members of local
communities to college for training in wildlife conservation and hunting concession opera-
tion.



Eurasian Program Update


Snow Leopard

In the extreme conditions of Siberia, rare photographs of snow leopards were taken using
trail cameras modified for cold weather and positioned where evidence of leopard presence
was found. The images will be analyzed to determine the density of snow leopards and
their prey at the most northwestern limit of their range. Please attend the full seminar on
snow leopards at the 2009 SCI Convention to get a more detailed look at this project.



Sheep

Research continues on argali sheep, testing DNA and using morphometrics (body size
measurements) to properly classify species of sheep and to validate the extent and compo-
sition of surveyed sheep subpopulations.



Saiga

SCIF is also monitoring the saiga antelope, which is suffering from a drastic decline over
the past 15 years. It appears that the vegetative communities of the Russian steppe ecosys-
tem are changing to less palatable species. Surveys continue on both saiga and the species
vegetation comprising the steppe.



Brown Bear

In July, SCIF met with Russian bear biologists and administrators in Kamchatka, Russia to
improve the management of brown bears. A conservation strategy was developed at this
workshop to ensure Kamchatka brown bears are sustainably managed, and the province
will next take steps towards implementing the strategy.






North American Program Update



Predator-Prey Research

In 2008, SCIF has partnered with agencies on two major predator-prey research projects.
A project designed to investigate and halt the decline of Woodland Caribou in Newfound-
land is monitoring adult and calf caribou, their predators and habitat conditions.



The second major project will be a similar study on the relationship between white-tailed
deer, wolves and bears in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Given the difficulty of Michigan’s
economy, this project likely would not have happened without the support of SCIF and the
SCI Michigan Involvement Committee.



SCIF has contributed in a meaningful way to other predator-prey projects throughout
North America. The relationship between elk, predators and habitat conditions is being
investigated in Alberta and Wyoming; cougar and ungulate prey studies are underway in
Alberta and Oregon; black bear studies were launched in Maine and Maryland; and wolf
studies have begun in Alberta.



East Mojave Water Project

Research to better understand the role of artificial water development for desert wildlife,
especially mule deer, was initiated during February of 2008 in East Mojave National Pre-
serve, Nevada. In the past year, wells have been refurbished and several mule deer have
been outfitted with GPS collars. A second capture of mule deer using helicopters will take
place next week and approximately 20 mule deer will be outfitted with GPS technology.
The HLF100 and the SCI Chapters in California have made significant contributions to
this project, which ultimately will determine the importance of water to wildlife in this
desert environment.



Wood Bison

After over a decade of dedication, the partners of the wood bison restoration project relo-
cated 53 wood bison to Alaska from Canada last summer, which marks a major milestone
in the SCIF and SCI Chapter efforts to restore wood bison to their native range in Alaska.



Treaties and Organizations

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

SCIF is participating on several CITES working groups focused on issues that directly im-
pact international trade of wildlife and hunting trophies. In addition, as one of the few sus-
tainable use organizations present, SCIF attended an important CITES International Expert
Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. The Workshop reviewed the scientific in-
formation and methods used by various countries to determine whether exports are detri-
mental to the survival of the CITES listed species. The deliverables of the workshop will
be addressed at the upcoming CITES Animals Committee meeting in April.






Conservation Committee

Report to the EC and Board

January 2009, Convention

SCI FOUNDATION

First For Wildlife



Safari Club International Foundation

Department of Science-based Conservation Programs and Research



SCIF Washington D.C. Office

501 2nd Street NE, Washington D.C. 20002

Tel: 202-543-8733

And:

"Three times a year, for each SCI Board meeting, SCI’s Litigation Team prepares a detailed report of action in all cases in which we are participating. In addition, for each Board meeting, the Litigation Department produces a newsletter full of stories about our battles, victories, and achievements in representing SCI’s interests in the courts.


Our recent newsletters offer stories about the ever changing status of wolves in the Western Great Lakes, and Northern Rocky Mountains, the growing number of cases that challenge the listing status of polar bears and restrictions imposed on polar bear importation, our Continuing Legal Education course and lunch with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. For a detailed look at what we’ve been up to, check out the links on this page to our latest reports and newsletters. "

Please see the attached for extensive Litigation information:

SCI

Further to the Wood Bison mentioned above:

"Wood Bison Reintroduced to Alaska to Conserve the Species
Fifty-three wood bison were transported from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center (AWCC) in June, 2008. This is an occasion to celebrate as it has taken nearly 15 years to bring wood bison across the national border. State, federal and private partners are collectively working to restore wood bison populations in their historical range within Alaska’s interior.
Radiocarbon dating and paleontological records show that wood bison were present in Alaska for more than 400,000 years, but disappeared from the Alaskan landscape nearly 200 years ago. Wood bison numbers declined to less than 1000 animals in Canada by 1900. Wood bison were listed as endangered by both Canada and the United States when legislation was passed to create an endangered species list.
Today, over 4,000 wood bison range in healthy free-ranging herds in Canada. Wood bison have been down-listed to threatened under the Canadian Species at Risk Act. To help ensure their long term survival, the Canadian Wood Bison National Recovery Plan recommends reestablishing one or more populations in Alaska to help secure the future of the subspecies.
The movement of animals to Alaska is only the first step to free-ranging populations of wood bison. When bison stepped foot onto US soil, they walked into a two year quarantine at the AWCC facility. All animals received rigorous USDA disease screening and have met health certification requirements prior to their relocation. Their health will continue to be monitored until federal and state veterinarians approve their release.
The state of Alaska has conducted habitat assessments and identified three areas that are suitable to sustain a population of 400 or more wood bison. These areas include Minto Flats, Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, and the Lower Innoko/Yukon River area. While bison are under quarantine, preparations will continue to l be made to release the wood bison into one of these areas and continue the restoration of a free-ranging herd of wood bison in Alaska.
Additional conservation benefits include ensuring the genetic integrity of the subspecies and enhancing Alaska’s biodiversity within the interior grasslands. If the conservation effort is a success, a number of socio-economic benefits should also be realized, such as wildlife viewing and tourism, subsistence use, and hunting.
The SCI Foundation, SCI Kenai Peninsula Chapter, and the SCI Alaska Chapter have been central to funding the maintenance of bison while in holding in Alberta, disease testing, construction of the AWCC holding facility and hay barn, and assisting with the regulatory processes necessary to move this rare species into the United States."

SCI Foundation Funds Deer Survival Study


The SCI Foundation and the SCI Michigan Involvement Committee have partnered with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to assess the magnitude of cause-specific mortality of white-tailed deer fawns in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Beginning in 2008, the research project will provide multiple years of data and assess how weather, habitat conditions, and predators affect deer recruitment. This information will enhance the deer and predator management strategies adopted by the state. Funding from SCI and SCI Foundation has purchased research equipment to help begin the investigation.

There is grave concern over the measured decline in deer abundance on the Upper Peninsula. In some areas, deer abundance has declined 7% annually since 1990. Biologists have found high deer pregnancy rates in these areas, but also observed low fawn/doe ratios. This loss of fawns suggests that fawn mortality is high in the first few weeks after birth, which may be indicative of high predation.

Predation of white-tailed deer fawns by black bears, wolves, coyotes, and other predators has been demonstrated. Overall fawn mortality due to predation is approaching 60% on the Upper Peninsula. Yet, it is important to simultaneously evaluate predation, winter severity, food quality and quantity, and other habitat conditions to determine which variables have the most influence on fawn recruitment.

GPS collars and other radio transmitters will be put on bears, coyotes, wolves and both adult and fawn deer to monitor the predator-prey interactions. Monitoring will take place in three study areas of the Upper Peninsula that are characteristic of having distinct differences in annual snowfall. Weather stations will record weather conditions in each study area, and habitat suitability for deer will be assessed using aerial photography and field assessments of forested and agricultural lands.

This research will clarify any misconceptions of the true impact predators have on fawn recruitment in the Upper Peninsula. Generally, predators are often blamed for low deer abundance and low hunting success rates. As a result, requests from the public to liberalize hunting seasons for predators are submitted on a regular basis. The SCI Foundation recognizes the importance of providing science-based reasoning behind the formulation of appropriate harvest recommendations for both deer and their predators. Thus, investments in research are a high priority.

This science-based approach towards understanding predator influences on prey is the focus of SCI Foundation’s North American wildlife conservation program. Predator numbers are high in several areas of the United States and Canada, and in many of these areas, prey populations are decreasing. Short and long term management of prey, such as white-tailed deer, is hindered without a clear understanding of the true influences imposed by limiting factors. The SCI Foundation will continue assisting state wildlife agencies to produce the best science available for wildlife management and policy recommendations.

Well that is all good and proper, but how much money was spent in Africa. Just posting reports of the activity SCIF is involved in doesn't answer HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT IN AFRICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Mr. Howell, We needed that.

Adrian

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Well that is all good and proper, but how much money was spent in Africa. Just posting reports of the activity SCIF is involved in doesn't answer HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT IN AFRICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for getting that out of the way you know it was coming soon enough.

So, how much was spent on the above programs?

Grumulkin, I beat you to the punch. I got to ask the first stupid question. Where are Saeed and Steve etc?

Well, since we're asking the tough questions, how much offtake, that is executive salaries, etc., over income/donations is there in SCI? How much is actually spent in field programs vs. fund raising, executive compensation. If SCI is a non-profit, just post the 990.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Grumulkin, I beat you to the punch. I got to ask the first stupid question. Where are Saeed and Steve etc?

None of the above answers any of our questions, so we will continue to ask our stupid questions, and if you think you are more intelligent, why don't you come up with the answers?

Well,....they DO answer SOME of the questions, the original ones at least.

A. They show that the SCI is doing some things in and about Africa, in response to the statement that they had not done anything noticeable there.

B. And they show that SCI is doing a lot of things in a lot of places that have nothing whatsoever to do with Africa. But they are doing things that serve the cause worldwide.


And for doing that I thank them, and I sincerely thank the donors who have made it all possible.

Les

You know if you come up with a $$$ amount they will want copies of checks and bank statements and maybe even social security numbers. Its kinda like pissing against the wind.

LHowell, Amen brother. Gatogordo, just go to their web site and click on the 990 report, it is very long, you will find the compensation of the officers and their fring benefits. I am no expert in these matters but I do believe they have an extreamly good ratio of total income and funds expended for the benefit of hunting. As to Saeed's statement "If you think you are more intelligent" well of coursed I think I am more intelligent, I know I don't have to answer your questions and am smart enough not to try, now are you smart enough to stop asking the questions in a forum of people who do not have the sources to answer your questions. Now you decide who is stupid.

There will never be any dollar figures releases as SCI doesn't want members to know how much (how little?) they are spending on these programs.

It is good to see a list of these programs. That is a start. The money is the essential part, however. If SCI contributed, lets say, $1,000 to each of the above named programs, would that be meaningful? I've worked for corporations who sent a $100 donation to most all of the "known" local charities just to say they contributed. It still didn't amount to squat for a large company. I would like to think SCI is not playing these kind of games. Their refusal to release the records, among other things, makes me wonder.

For a supposedly membership driven organization, they are incredibly secretive about where the money goes.
None of the other major conservation groups have any difficulty releasing this kind of information.

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Pauly3511:
You know if you come up with a $$$ amount they will want copies of checks and bank statements and maybe even social security numbers. Its kinda like pissing against the wind.

Thanks for the info Les, I expected no less.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
There will never be any dollar figures releases as SCI doesn't want members to know how much (how little?) they are spending on these programs.
Bill

Bill, within 60 seconds of reading your post I was able to find this report by a non-profit rating agency. They rate the SCI as "Exceptional" ;See Ratings and Expenditures summary.

There IS information out there.

I went to the RMEF web site and checked their 990 and it was 27 pages of information vs SCI 990 of 120 pages of information. Oh I am sorry RMEF doesn't give a fiddlers fuck about Africa.

One of the posts on this subject stated that all that $60,000 was all that SCI had spent in Africa since 2000. SCI has an office in a complex near Pretoria with two full time employees. Their salaries, office expenses, and rent surely must have been more than that during that period.

Someone also said that Africa was the primary source of its convention income. I'm not sure that this is true. Although there are a large number of South Africans exhibiting there, North American outfitters, taxidermists, gunmakers, etc., certainly seem to outnumber them.

Bill /Quimby

Bill, don't you know the monies to proved employment to Africans doesn't count nor do the costs of maintaining offices in Africa. Surely it couldn't count as it is in RSA not Tans, Zim, Zam etc..

quote:

Originally posted by LHowell:

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
There will never be any dollar figures releases as SCI doesn't want members to know how much (how little?) they are spending on these programs.
Bill

Bill, within 60 seconds of reading your post I was able to find this report by a non-profit rating agency. They rate the SCI as "Exceptional" ;See Ratings and Expenditures summary.

There IS information out there.

SCIF is not the same as SCI. I'd like to see the SCI books and salaries.

I've been away for a few days and didn't have any internet connection........ however, the questions were:

How much have they spent in Africa and on what?

How much have they taken from Africa by way of 'donations' etc?

What have they done with the difference between the two figures?

All quite simple questions and it's already been proved that other organisations with probably similar budgets can post full financial details........ So why are SCI so reluctant to publicise that info. So far, all they've done is wait a considerable amount of time and then finally and seemingly reluctantly, named a few projects without quoting figures.

Surely these figures should be in the public domain rather than kept what seems to be secret?

Steve, they are not secrets just go find them and quit being so lazy and asking other people to get the information you want. See it is very simple. By the way I found them so can you, I think.

Despite this issue rearing it's ugly head at least once a year and usually more, no-one has been able to publish those figures.

Your claims that you have found them mean nothing until you or someone else publishes them in their entirety here.

Until then, it seems to me that they're remarkably well buried........ wasn't it you a while ago that posted it would be impossible for them to publish those figures because it would take too long to download?

If I remember correctly, it was just before I posted links to an organisation that does just that very thing without any problems with download speed or anything else at all.

Why do my claims mean nothing. They mean as much as your claims about all of the Africian Outfitters that say SCI rips them off. I have not seen one come here and say they have ripped him off. You don't attend the convention or have membership in SCI so you are just out in the cold blowing shit and sucking wind.

The claim would only be valid if you can publish the figures. If you can't, then it's still as seemingly secret as it was before.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
SCIF is not the same as SCI. I'd like to see the SCI books and salaries.

Gatogordo,

I was going to cut and paste the info for you but decided I had better things needing done.

Here's the source material - enjoy! http://www.scifirstforhunters....538/SCI_2007_990.pdf

Les

Someone else may know how to "cut and paste" but I can't seem to do that from the link provided. There is some good information in this document.

Page 52, statement 26, includes a summary of expenses:

$422,431 for Sponsored projects. No specific breakdown, but at least we know they spent $422K on projects last year.

Bill

Gatogordo, SCIF is the charitable arm of SCI. Donations to SCIF are tax deductable and donations to SCI are not as it is a lobbying organization basically. SCI does donate funds to SCIF along with SCIF own fund raising,

It does behoove posters to have a basic understanding about these type of organizations so as to better understand the workings of each organization.

Many of the larger local chapters have a foundation attached so they can obtain donations that are tax deductable.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Why do my claims mean nothing. They mean as much as your claims about all of the Africian Outfitters that say SCI rips them off. I have not seen one come here and say they have ripped him off.

I didn't say 'ripped off' I said didn't resent the donation system. However, be that as it may. Let's try a little survey. We have a pretty good number of agents & outfitters etc here. Sooooooo.

Hands up all those who have 'donated' hunts in the past and wouldn't prefer to pay a flat fee in the future rather than make a 'donation'

Steve, maybe a separate thread on this?

Steve:

The figures below are from the SCI and Dallas Safari Club websites. They represent the prices of 10x10-foot booth spaces at their 2010 conventions.

SCI regular space : $2,050 + $600 cash or donation
SCI prime space: $2,400 + $600 cash or donation

DSC regular space: $1,850
DSC corner space: $1,950

SCI says it will have 2,000 spaces in 2010 in Reno -- with a waiting list of people wanting to get in. I found nothing stating the number of spaces for DSC, but its show will be in the Dallas Convention Center for the first time, so the potential for the same number of exhibitors certainly exists.

DSC says it will have 20,000 attendees in 2010.

SCI claims a similar number attended in 2009, with more in 2008. Because of its much larger membership and a larger venue to accommodate its waiting list of wannabe exhibitors, I would guess it would attract many more attendees and exhibitors in Dallas in 2013 if the economy improves by then.

The difference between the two shows will be the demographics of attendees, of course.

Judging by "gate" prices alone, guess which will attract more people who can afford to pay what a safari or a double rifle or a hunt for Marco Polo sheep or a brown bear costs today, and which will attract the highest number of tire-kickers for whom a $5,000 Texas trophy whitetail hunt is beyond their means?

As for SCI's "donation system," I could find nothing that requires anyone to donate a hunt.

Those who donate goods and services valued at more than $600 apparently do so voluntarily in the hope of attracting business through "exposure" to SCI's affluent membership.

I compared SCI with DSC, not to knock the Dallas club because it does a great job for a local organization, but because these data indicate to me that SCI is not screwing its exhibitors.

Bill Quimby

billrquimy,

Isn't booth space choice and location at SCI determined by previous donation amounts? Want a nice spot then give the money/hunts to us not just this year but every year to build points and booth preference.

quote:

Originally posted by SG Olds:
billrquimy,

Isn't booth space choice and location at SCI determined by previous donation amounts? Want a nice spot then give the money/hunts to us not just this year but every year to build points and booth preference.

Yes, from what little I know about it, the very best booths are sold according to "points," part of which are determined by donation values. Another part of the formula is longevity of exhibiting.

How do you think choice booth locations should be sold? By random lottery?

Bill Quimby

I wonder what came first.

African Outfitters attending SCI because of the amount of affluent attendees,

or,

Members attending SCI because of the amount of African Outfitters.

Gator:

Judging by the 1973 exhibitor list at SCI's first-ever convention, big-name wildlife artists from around the world were the major draw, followed by North American outfitters and then a very few African outfitters, jewelers, and taxidermists ... all of them obviously drawn by the money SCI represented. (There were only five-hundred members in just six chapters then.)

Here is an excerpt from my book, "The History of Safari Club International:"

"To ensure the convention’s success, C.J. McElroy, Hy Erickson, and other early officers came up with a list of wildlife artists and sent out invitations, offering the artists exhibit space in exchange for a percentage of their sales.

"More than two dozen American artists, as well as fifteen from Britain, and others from Argentina, Mexico, Kenya, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Austria showed up. It could have been billed as the world’s largest-ever wildlife art show at the time. (Some of the artists, including Guy Coheleach, Gary Swanson and sculptor Doug Van Houd, have shown their art at every SCI convention since that year.)

"In addition to the artists, the exhibitors also included outfitters Keith Johnson, Coenraad Vermaak and Cotton Gordon, booking agent Beverly Wunderlich, Los Angeles wildlife jeweler Bill Jefferey, Jack Jonas of Jonas Brothers Denver taxidermy, and Chris Klineburger, then a taxidermist and travel agent in Seattle. Those who still are in business continue to exhibit at SCI conventions today.

"The fledgling club also invited dozens of the most prominent members of the hunting and conservation world at the time, and a great many of them came. They included Congressman John Dingall of Michigan; gunmaker Roy Weatherby; former South Dakota Governor and World War II ace Joe Foss; Apollo Astronaut Charles Duke, California Fish and Game Department Director (and later the Reagan Administration’s assistant secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks) Ray Arnett; the director-general of the Conseil International de la Chasse (CIC) Francois Edmond-Blanc; the director of tourism for Mongolia; and state fish and game agency directors from Nevada, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Mexico; as well as the presidents of Ducks Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep; plus prominent outfitters and professional hunters from Africa and Asia. Among them were Keith Johnson and Lynn Castle of Alaska, Norman Deane of South Africa, John Kingsley-Heath of Botswana, and Adelino Serras Pires of Mozambique.

"Speakers included the presidents of the International Professional Hunters Association and the guides and outfitters associations of Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia. The presidents of SCI chapters in Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Denver and Mississippi chaired the sessions, which included seminars featuring game and fish directors and other guests discussing worldwide hunting conditions.

"Bill Stremmel of Nevada’s Stremmel Galleries conducted wildlife art auctions on Thursday evening and on Friday and Saturday afternoons. Hunting films were shown as well.

"Registration for the Wednesday through Saturday gathering cost $125.00.

"Comparatively few of the world’s hunting outfitters and firearms makers had discovered SCI but this first convention was a success without them, thanks to the artists. In just a very few years, however, the SCI conventions would become the world’s largest marketplaces for hunting outfitters and custom gunmakers."

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:



SCI regular space : $2,050 + $600 cash or donation
SCI prime space: $2,400 + $600 cash or donation

DSC regular space: $1,850
DSC corner space: $1,950

Gentlemen,

Please enlighten me a little...Are the booth prices above what all this bleating about SCI ripping off operators has been about? This 2.5 odd grand for the opportunity of marketing one's services to thousands upon thousands of prospective clients? About the same amount as a buffalo trophy fee? Come on people, surely there are more important issues to debate? These booth fees are absolutely not a rip-off - SCI also has to continue functioning and these charges are reasonable, given the service provided. Wait for it now - the thread about what shoddy service SCI provides!!!

Dave

David,

No mate, it's not about the booth price in either show. Both venues charge for the booth, plus an additional cost per service such as carpet, furniture, electricity, cleaning and internet etc etc and although the services are expensive at both venues, I don't think anyone is particularly unhappy with that. (at least in in principle).

The major cost difference is that with SCI, the exhibitor has to 'donate' a minimum of US$600 or so but to get a good location, that 'donation' has to be considerably more and as everyone is in competition with each other, those 'donations' get very expensive indeed. Hunts, double rifles and original paintings are all fairly common 'donations'.

Those 'donations' are then auctioned off at the convention and the buyers are people who might otherwise buy the 'donation' direct from the exhibitor. Thus it costs the exhibitor both whatever he's donated and also the potential client who might otherwise buy the 'donation' direct from the exhibitor. Therefore in the case of a safari company who have 'donated' a hunt, it effectively costs them 2 hunts.

The total cost of a booth at the convention can easily be well in excess of ten times the price of just the booth rental cost. (PLUS the cost of the the donation and lost client)......... What a lot of people seem not to realise is that the exhibitor then has to recoup all those costs over his season by adding a surcharge to his normal prices........ and that's one of the main reasons a lot of safari companies fail or certainly struggle after a few years and why hunting safaris are so expensive.

Just a matter of simple economics and in my mind at least, the difference between fairness and otherwise.

Steve,

Speaking of fairness, don't you think it's fair to accept that you have lost this debate? You guys have gone on and on ad nauseum about what a rip-off SCI is and how you feel they don't do anything for African hunting, and yet all the information posted suggests just the opposite. I bet it's not too long before other guys dig out more information and figures providing further evidence of worthy hunting causes SCI channels its funds into. In any case, there is no need as the evidence already posted by LHowell and others totally shatters any argument the 'antis' may have had.

As far as this topic is concerned, you and Saaed are like the hypothetical England/UAE combination rugby team - 144-nil down with ten minutes to play and you still think you've got a chance.

There is no organization in the world that benefits hunting more than SCI. This has been the case since its inception. They stand for all our rights and don't deserve to be shredded on a public forum by way of unwarranted assumption which suggests that they are somehow crooked. And on a hunting forum at that. That's why the England/UAE rugby team (let's just make it England, they get trounced often enough and most of their players are foreigners anyway) is 144 points down - no teamwork, too many forward passes, lack of consolidation...

The bottom line is exactly what so many guys have already stated in previous threads - If you think they do good, support them, if you don't, then don't. If you think buying a booth is good for business, buy it, if you think it's a rip-off, then by all means invest your money elsewhere.

Hope you are doing well and that business is good in sunny South Africa

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

The major cost difference is that with SCI, the exhibitor has to 'donate' a minimum of US$600 or so but to get a good location, that 'donation' has to be considerably more and as everyone is in competition with each other, those 'donations' get very expensive indeed.

So it is now SCI's fault that the vendors make a business decision to donate more than minimum because they expect to profit from the larger donation?

It sounds to me like both SCI and the vendors understand the value of the spots and act accordingly. If vendors are willing to make a donation of $3000 for a spot, how should SCI apportion the spots if every gave $1000?

Furthermore, if SCI only asked for $1000 per spot with no donation, how long would it take for a vendor to offer more money to SCI for a prime location?