I would appreciate your input as I am trying to decide whether or not to submit an article to the SCI magazine. I have heard it said that SCI are extortionists and do little for hunting, and if that is true, I certainly don't want to support them. Please illuminate me by taking this poll.

Thank you, Dave

Question:
Does SCI have a positive or negative impact on international hunting in general, and African big game hunting in particular?

Choices:
SCI is postive for hunting
SCI is negative for hunting

 

David

Anyone who thinks SCI is bad for hunting is a Mental Dwarf.

Yes, they expect Outfitters who want to sell their product at their Convention to pay thru the nose for the privilege. So what? No one is forced to exhibit but evidently plenty of Outfitters think it is a good investment.

Someone has to represent hunters and that costs money. From Hunters and from Outfitters.

Gator,

Thanks for reassuring me. I have always been a staunch supporter of SCI, as have all the men I look up to in the hunting industry.

Dave

I think the question is rather too broad. - Or at least, it is for me.

To me, SCI are a shooting organisation with a lot of clout that does quite a lot of good work for the interests of hunters - mostly American hunters. There's nothing wrong with that and it's an observation, not a criticism.

However, I do have a big problem with the donation system which I honestly feel should be illegal because to me, it's not far short of extortion to agree a price for a product and then demand an additional 'donation' to avoid getting an unsuitable location.

I also have a big problem with their 'ethics committee' and (for example) the way they continue, year after year, to offer booth space to a certain safari company that has a seemingly endless list of justified complaints against them from SCI members. I'm sure we all know the story, so I won't bore everyone here with it again.

My third problem (as I said elsewhere) is that although it's often said they do a lot of work here in Africa, I for one have never seen a singly sign of that at all. Maybe they do achieve things, but as I said, I've never seen them.

As a last observation, if I were a member, I'd want to know why my shooting organisation has an HQ such as they do that must cost an absolute fortune to maintain and run for no apparent reason. To me, that money would be better spent protecting the interests of the membership. - Why not have ordinary offices instead of their current HQ and if it's not a palace of self aggrandisment, what does it achieve?

Steve,

Thanks for your input. The question is probably too broad, but I just want to know hunters' bottom line opinions of SCI. Sure they have their faults, which organization doesn't? As far as the 'extortion' story goes, I don't see too many of the hundreds of outfitters that exhibit at SCI complaining. As Gator suggested, they keep coming back year after year. SCI provides a service and many operators obviously consider it good value, even if they are obliged to make a donation to secure a prime booth.

Lastly, I'm afraid you contradict yourself somewhat. If SCI does good for American hunters,then they cannot help but do good for African hunters too. The vast majority of African hunting clientelle come from the US, do they not?

Best regards Steve,

Dave

Hi Dave,

I don't think I do contradict myself. I appreciate there's a lot of American hunters come to Africa, but so also do an awful lot of hunters from elsewhere in the world and they manage to make it without the help of SCI so why shouldn't the Americans? - All it would take is for African outfitters to stop attending the convention and instead just market direct. (like we do) - Just think of the saving in costs and how prices could drop if the guys didn't have to factor in the obscene and ever increasing costs of attending the convention!

The wonders of the internet mean that communications across the world are no longer the problem they once were. Hell, you even use skype and other VOIP facilities to call across the world completely free of charge.

I've also never met an outfitter who wouldn't prefer not to donate a free hunt if they had the choice.

As I previously said, I do think SCI do some good, but I also think they could do with a shit load of re-organisation and could achive an awful ot more if they did re-organise properly.

Steve,

I'll have to start another poll - would you prefer to book your hunt face to face with those you are hunting with, or over the internet?

Dave

I think it's just horses for courses Dave and every case is different.

I guess we're in an unusual position in that to some extent we have a bit of a niche market and have been around for long enough for people to know us and consequently we don't need to attend. I appreciate not everyone is in that position, but many do have sufficiently good reputations not to have to attend if they didn't want to......... I'd guess that you, Ivan and Ganyana (amongst others) would also fall into that catagory. - To me, it's mostly that a change of mind set or as much as I hate the expression, 'thinking outside the box' might be needed.

Perhaps a better question to ask might be, 'Do you think SCI could achieve more for huntin in general and hunters rights in particular etc if they re-organised and reverted back to the original intentions of the organisation?'

One thing that can be said about SCI is that they are very image conscious and have helped to change the face and popularity of hunting in the US.

However as Steve says we don't see any of it on the ground here in Africa. Dont get us wrong here, I have said it before and publicly thanked every hunter on this forum for their contribution to African hunting, but if they want to make more of an impact they should establish their face in Africa and other hunting countries where the results are being measured.

A good starting point would be using their massively powerful publicity team to help people understand how hunters contribute to conservation. There is no better way then engaging in activities on the ground. Produce films, sponsor research or whatever else you see big organizations doing in terms of Corporate Public Responsibility

There may or may not be some of you with good links into SCI upper levels, but if there are perhaps there is a way in which we could get more insight into the way they work and maybe to make some valid suggestions

One thing I had always hoped they would do is to establish a driven wilderness conservation trust and monitor the concessions that are currently available in Africa. My greatest fear, and that of many others I am sure, is that we are slowly loosing our wilderness. If the finances and strength of SCI were known to be protecting what we all care for I am pretty certain that even their bribe system at the conventions would not ruffle too many feathers.

Good hunting
Ian

quote:

Perhaps a better question to ask might be, 'Do you think SCI could achieve more for hunters rights etc if they re-organised and reverted back to the original intentions of the organisation?'

Shakari

I don't think anyone wants that. They were organized as a tax dodge by CJ McElroy and some of his cronies. A non profit for donating animals to a Museum.

Hunts for the favourite few were coerced from Outfitters and most of the money went in to Mac's back pocket.

It is obvious you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of SCI. That's fine as not everyone needs to belong or support everything. I find it sad that you have not taken any time to educate yourself though before expressing your opinion.

Why not pay the yearly fee and find out what's up?

This is the sort of question a political party asks!

There is no denying SCI is good for us hunters. They could do a lot more for the money they take.

Let us be specific now.

Can someone please tell me what SCI actualy does for AFRICAN hunting?

They charge an awful lot of money and blaikmail outfitters for "donations".

Can you show me specific things they do for the African hunting in general?

And when it comes to ethics, don't even let me start on that one.

They have glorified "bigger is better". They made it sound as if whoever shot those animals did something any other hunter would not have done. They forget that LUCK is the main reason one shoots an exceptional trophy rather than hard work.

They look the other way when some of their "inner circle" members breal laws in the country they hunt in to get those same "inner circle" trophies.

Instead of questioning some of the behavior of those so called hunters, they give them prizes and pat them on the back.

I have shot trophies that might have qualified as number one in SCI record book at that time. I refused to enter any for this very reason.

I hunt to enjoy my hunt.

I do not hunt to be glorified by some committee.

Back to my original question, can someone please show me what SCI does for AFRICAN hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:


I guess we're in an unusual position in that to some extent we have a bit of a niche market and have been around for long enough for people to know us and consequently we don't need to attend. I appreciate not everyone is in that position, but many do have sufficiently good reputations not to have to attend if they didn't want to......... I'd guess that you, Ivan and Ganyana (amongst others) would also fall into that catagory. - To me, it's mostly that a change of mind set or as much as I hate the expression, 'thinking outside the box' might be needed.

'

Steve,

I personally know several highly successful operators who have been in the business for 30 years + and probably don't need to attend the SCI convention, but without exception do attend on a yearly basis. Isn't this telling?

Dave

I think Saeed has pretty much said it all......

Gator1,

I used to be a member but quit when I saw what was going on. It'll be a cold day in hell before they ever get my money again.

As you're a member and evidently a fan, perhaps you can tell us how many hunts were donated last year, how much they made from them and what they did with all that money? - Surely they must have told the membership........

The guys that I feel really sorry for are the younger guys trying to get a foothold in the industry. If they go the convention route, it'll cost them a fortune and a number of years before they can get their names out there and if they don't go the convention route, it's gonna take them even longer.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


Can someone please tell me what SCI actualy does for AFRICAN hunting?

They charge an awful lot of money and blaikmail outfitters for "donations".

Can you show me specific things they do for the African hunting in general?

Um, they encourage thousands of hunters to hunt Africa every year....That must count for something

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

They forget that LUCK is the main reason one shoots an exceptional trophy rather than hard work.

Saeed,

I beg to differ. I believe that hard work has just as much to do with procuring a good trophy as luck does.

Dave

Steve:

I'll grant you that SCI's headquarters facility was originally conceived and created by the club's founder to be a pyramid that would tout his hunting prowess long after his death. But that goal changed soon after he was drummed out of his leadership position two decades ago.

Its first floor now is a true international natural history museum that is supportive of hunting (rare in the USA and elsewhere these days) and regularly draws thousands of visitors from across the Southwestern USA and northern Mexico and generates income through grants and admissions.

After deducting this income, the cost of owning and operating SCI's headquarters offices on the two floors above the museum is a darned sight less than leasing the same number of square feet of office space elsewhere.

In addition, the facility has a land, bricks and mortar value that will continue to appreciate when our national real estate scene eventually recovers.

As for SCI's impact on African hunting, it is safe to say that if it were not for SCI's influence there would be no CITES provisions allowing hunters (and not just Americans) to export leopards, elephants, lions, bontebok, bongo, sitatunga, etc., etc., from Africa today.

Do you know of any other international hunter's organization that lobbies and testifies before the U.S. Congress, CITES and other important conferences around the globe, and has local chapters with influentual members in as many countries?

Other groups talk about protecting hunting and hunters, but I know of no other international organization that includes this responsibility in its mission statement and then walks the walk.

I now feel the same way as you about the SCI awards programs and record books, but there was a time when I enthusiastically went after animals I would not have thought of hunting, just to get a damned pin. Although SCI's award programs can be criticized, it can't be denied that they have been good for Africa's outfitters.

SCI certainly has its warts, but the hunting world -- especially in Africa -- would be in a heap of trouble if we hunters did not support it.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:


As for SCI's impact on African hunting, it is safe to say that if it were not for SCI's influence there would be no CITES provisions allowing hunters (and not just Americans) to export leopards, elephants, lions, bontebok, bongo, sitatunga, etc., etc., from Africa today.

Do you know of any other international hunter's organization that lobbies and testifies before the U.S. Congress, CITES and other important conferences around the globe, and has local chapters with influentual members in as many countries?

Other groups talk about protecting hunting and hunters, but I know of no other international organization that includes this responsibility in its mission statement and then walks the walk.

SCI certainly has its warts, but the hunting world -- especially in Africa -- would be in a heap of trouble if we hunters did not support it.

Bill Quimby

Thanks Bill, just what I wanted to say! It's frustrating when you can't find the words eh?

Dave

quote:

David Hulme
one of us
Picture of David Hulme

Posted 29 November 2008 08:56
I would appreciate your input as I am trying to decide whether or not to submit an article to the SCI magazine. I have heard it said that SCI are extortionists and do little for hunting, and if that is true, I certainly don't want to support them. Please illuminate me by taking this poll.

Thank you, Dave

quote:

Steve,

I personally know several highly successful operators who have been in the business for 30 years + and probably don't need to attend the SCI convention, but without exception do attend on a yearly basis. Isn't this telling?

Dave

Hulme

What are you up to? First you ask about SCI as though you don't know:

quote:

I have heard it said that SCI are extortionists and do little for hunting, and if that is true , I certainly don't want to support them.

Then when Steve give his opinion you become an expert and jump on him?

Stop playing games. If you want to say something, then say it.

Jason

Hi Bill,

Maybe we might have to agree to disgree on some things. Esp the effect you feel that SCI had/has on CITES. - If that were the case, they'd have ensured that America (at least) would have been allowed to import sport hunted Elephant trophies from virtually anywhere on the African continent instead of just a handful of countries. They'd also have done something about the US F&WS and the Mozambican Elephant product situation. - They haven't exactly achieved a lot there with their lobbying there huh? - I personally think their claimed achievements where CITES etc is concerned is mostly sales propaganda and not much else.

I appreciate they do a lot within the US by way of lobbying etc and I've stated that earlier, but they haven't achieved much else outside the US that I know of and as previously mentioned, I reckon they should achieve a lot more inside the US.

Certainly they were notably absent from the various UK firearms problems and in fact the (comparatively small) BASC and BFSS did considerably more than SCI who hardly raised their heads above the parapet on those issues.

As to other organisations who attend conventions etc around the world, yes, there are others. All you have to do is look up the appropriate event on the net to see which ones attend what events.

As for talking the talk and walking the walk, as I said, they did bugger all when it came to the UK handgun ban, semi auto restrictions, recent UK trophy import fiasco (they couldn't even give their local membership the correct info on that one!) and nor did they do anything about the SA firearms laws in 2000. I don't know about walk the walk, it sounds to me more like (to coin a phrase) they try to walk like giants, but they're wearing Pluto's shoes'

Also, as for walking the walk, I fail to understand how their ethics committee can come to the decisions they do about at least one company we all know about. A few years ago, I met two American hunters, both of whom were SCI members who had bought an auctioned 2x1 PG hunt with camp exclusivity with that company and when they arrived there were 18, yes 18 other hunters in camp. They gave it 2 days and then gave up, went home and filed a complaint with SCI. The SCI ethics committee (which is almost an oxymoron in itself) found the company concerned had no case to answer..... Now, I wonder how that could happen........ unless of course, that same company makes a lot of donations to SCI. Incidentally, that's just one of many. many complaints that have been made against the same company but they all end in the same verdict.

I agree with your last para, but believe Africa has considerably more to thank individual hunters for than SCI.

I personally reckon Saeed has it about right.

Brown,

Knowledge is gold pal. I don't think I jumped on anyone, just interested in opinion. I think my position is very clear and wanted to find out what others think. Anything wrong with healthy debate? When did you become a moderator?

You should work on your manners.

Mr Hulme

And, for your information, this poll was posted tongue in cheek, as a result of the Rautenbach thread. I do know exactly where I stand on the SCI issue.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

They forget that LUCK is the main reason one shoots an exceptional trophy rather than hard work.

Saeed,

I beg to differ. I believe that hard work has just as much to do with procuring a good trophy as luck does.

Dave

Sadly, this has not been in my own experience.

As some of the biggest trophies I have come across where targets of opportunity.

Sort of jump off the truck and whack it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

They forget that LUCK is the main reason one shoots an exceptional trophy rather than hard work.

Saeed,

I beg to differ. I believe that hard work has just as much to do with procuring a good trophy as luck does.

Dave

Sadly, this has not been in my own experience.

As some of the biggest trophies I have come across where targets of opportunity.

Sort of jump off the truck and whack it.

Saeed, I hear you - that is how it often happens. But I don't think we can discount hard work either. A few elephant bull hunts, some lion and leopard hunts and a particular eight day eland hunt come to mind....

Dave

quote:

I would appreciate your input as I am trying to decide whether or not to submit an article to the SCI magazine. I have heard it said that SCI are extortionists and do little for hunting, and if that is true, I certainly don't want to support them. Please illuminate me by taking this poll.

Thank you, Dave

"Oh jee whiz guys I sure would like to find out about SCI."


As I said, if you have something to say, say it. There is no point "posting around the bush."


Jason

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
And, for your information, this poll was posted tongue in cheek, as a result of the Rautenbach thread. I do know exactly where I stand on the SCI issue.

Dave

Sigh..... wonder if I'll have to repeat this again before everyone twigs on?

In order to appreciate where this 'tongue in cheek' post came from, one would need to have been following the Rautenbach thread. There can be found a post I made in support of SCI one full day before this poll was posted.

This was done for a bit of hulmor and a bit of an education. Simply that, no malice involved. Sorry if it seemed, as JBrown suggests, I was coming down on you Steve. That was certainly not my intention. Knowing you, however, if that were the case, I don't think you'd need anyone to speak for you.

I think my little poll has turned out to be very constructive, thank you very much.

Lighten up Mr Brown, we are all on the same side here. Isn't it past your bedtime there in California?

Dave

FWIW

I didn't for a moment think that Dave was gunning for me at all....... I thought and think, it's nothing more than healthy debate and I consider Dave very much one of the good guys who knows his business very well indeed.

These bash Americans first fests are a bit tedious.

SCI is not perfect, grow up and get the hell over it.

quote:

Originally posted by odie:
These bash Americans first fests are a bit tedious.

Oh dear, and there I was thinking that Shakari was a Brit on the migratory cycle around Africa!

British by birth and English by the grace of God.

Dave,
You wanted some opinions and then when you got some you didn't agree with you become very defensive. I have been a member of SCI for several years and plan to continue. I had called to talk to them several times over the past few years and they seemed very snobbish to me. Kind of like the Hollywood elite type.

I booked a flight and paid for my reservations for the 2009 Convention and cancelled after looking closely at their exhibitor list. I was not very impressed considering their attitude and the cost to attend the event. I will attend the shot show instead.

They act like you should consider yourself privileged to attend. Not the attitude I get from the NRA and other organizations.

As far as meeting face to face, I don't agree with you. I booked my African hunt for this spring based on this forum and references. You can meet them face to face and what does that prove. I believe there are some posts here of hunters who met their outfitters/agents face to face and had negative issues to post about. If I want to meet them face to face I don't have to go to the SCI Convention to do that.

odie - As a proud American, I didn't get the impression anyone was bashing America. You say they are not perfect, well I think that was what some (me included) are pointing out. According to you, we should just accept every imperfection. Liberals are not perfect to me either, but I won't get over it. Grow up yourself!

I am not saying they do not benefit the industry. However, I don't think they are God's gift to hunters, but I get the impression that they think they are.

It seems I have got a few backs up with this thread and that wasn't the intention. I apologize for a)being defensive b)bashing Americans and Englishmen c)whatever else negative that is construed from what I wrote.

Truth - this poll plan was intended as a bit of a dig at Shakari and others, since I already knew their opinions of SCI. So what? Have a chuckle chaps.

Another truth - this is the first and last poll I will ever post!! Experimental, you know.

338 - I hear you re booking face to face as a pose to internet or whatever. I have booked enough hunts through this website to know that the internet is a great medium for doing so. It was another attempt at humor but guess I'm not doing so well with that today!

I surrender.

Sincerely and apologetically, Dave

Well I thought it was funny........

I laughed as soon as I saw the title.

Shakari,

At least you got a kick from it, knew you would.

In a moment I am going to hijack my controversial poll thread and post a picture of a boomslang eating a frog. Maybe that will take the heat off the 'not so funny' funny guy!

Dave

Ah, maybe you, like the frog were caught on the hop!

I for one ,or maybe the few, enjoyed the banter...

People take this way to serious....

Dan

I would be curious to know what SCI's total expenses are compared to the expenses directed specifically to hunting-related matters. The Better Business Bureau has a standard for charitable organizations that 65% of all funds should be spent on service delivery and no more than 35% should be spent on fundraising and administrative expenses. It would be interesting to know what groups like SCI and the NRA spent on administrative and other expenses unrelated to advocacy. This would certainly be one way to help assess whether an organization is being true to its mission.

There is another part of SCI, at least here in the USA and that is the good work done by the local chapters. I know this is the Africian board but again there is more to SCI than Africa, although many would like to differ with that point. I find it funny when some people rag on about people entering trophies in the record book but brag on the many Buffalo they shoot on a single safari and produce a video on the hunt.

There is not another organization the stands up for hunters rights like the SCI oh yea they are not perfect but then the last perfect thing or being is why many of us go to church on Sunday.

Bill, you said it all and in my opinion (which is all that matters to me) you won the debate.

As to the "service" they provide to industry ie outfitters yea they would be hard pressed to have the sucess they have with out SCI and the other shows.

All that being said I don't attend the Reno show (have in the past) but prefer the Dallas show. Steve would you like to expound on the faults of the DSC?

I hope I am not banned from the boards for these comments.

I can point to habitat bought and restored by Ducks Unlimited for the benefit of hunting and hunters.

Same with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Flocks of turkeys now exist where they did not before thanks to the restocking efforts of the Wild Turkey Federation.

I help support a school and hospice in South Africa established by a well known interior designer.

There was a TV show a while back where a soccer ball was stuffed into a nifty looking SCI bag and flew over by a client.

So how about it SCI, there must be more than meets the eye. Please educate me on the positive impacts of this organization.

Thanks

"odie - As a proud American, I didn't get the impression anyone was bashing America. You say they are not perfect, well I think that was what some (me included) are pointing out. According to you, we should just accept every imperfection. Liberals are not perfect to me either, but I won't get over it. Grow up yourself!"

When you have to lie to make a point you didn't really have much of a point.

First, I said Americans not America.

SCI bad
Capstick bad
Sullivan bad

Second, I didn't said accept imperfections but is there any organization that could meet the fantasies of this collective (rhetorical). Perhaps you should take the advice or Marx (Groucho), "I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member".

Sorry you little ego got in such an uproar.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
British by birth and English by the grace of God.

I crossed into East Berlin one time through Checkpoint Charlie many years ago. The Guard was a British Soldier. I told I was surprised that a British Soldier was standing to post at what I thought was an American crossing.

"I'm not Bri'ish," he said. "I'm Sco'ish."