Require penis measurements of for every hunter who wants his name in the book.

Mike -YOU can do just that. Don't enter anything in the book and you don't pay a cent. Your attitude isn't the only one out there, so let others do as they wish. As someone else said, for SCI it's a money maker, they make money so they can fund all the good programs and lobbying they do. If you don't believe, go elsewhere.

Most all hunting organizations are somewhat "record book" oriented. SCI; RW; Pope and Young; Boone and Crockett and most every State has a record book as well. I don't put things in record books much, but I sure as hell don't have anything against those who do. You said you haven't looked at it recently, I have, it's a great place to find "hot spots" for the specific animal I choose to hunt. Mike,these books are not just for "glory seekers" they provide lots of additional info for anyone willing to have a look, but I guess you are above that??

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Stop the Record Book from being a revenue generator and stop all the sill awards.

I haven't looked at it recently, but if I recall correctly SCI charges a fee for every animal you want to enter into the record book and has created silly categories of awards.

The standards are so low that any "B" quality animal makes it; hence, they have corrupted and abused to record book.

They have taken it from an accounting of the largest animal of the species takedn to a "how many times can I get my name listed" in the book contest for how many categories of awards.

I did belong to SCI for a few years, mostly to learn about the African hunting "scene." I quit after I began to learn about some of the things complained about in this and previous threads: "donated" hunts being held back from auction by local chapter leadership, "donations" required by SCI as part of an exhibitor's fee to be at the convention, not barring unethical outfitters from the convention, etc. I also quit because I discovered I could find the information I was looking for from African Hunter, African Sporting Gazette, and-- best of all-- this site. The final straw for me was when I discovered that SCI really does not do nearly as much as it could (especially given the extremely wealthy and politically-connected people who make up the higher echelons of its membership) to lobby governments on behalf of hunters and conservation. So, instead I donate my time and money to organizations that I feel do a heck of a lot more for conservation: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation. SCI strikes me as being a co-op or club with its main purpose being to help its leadership find and obtain discounted or even free hunts around the world. If you want to be part of it, that's your business, but it's just not for me.

This does not directly answer the question posed by Ross but I would like to say a couple of things concerning SCI. First I think it is a great organization. I don't like everything about it but I don't like everything about my dearest friends either.

As for the record book as Larry said nobody has to enter anything. I do enter my trophies if they make the upper end of the records. If someone thinks that's egotistical I'm fine with that. If someone comes to my house and asks about the plaque under a mount I don't mind telling them that it placed X in the record book. I make no apology for shooting a big whatever and telling people about it. Part of being a sportman in my mind is being able to share your successes or failures with other sportman. I'm extremely happy when I see that another hunter has acheived his goal whether it be a first deer or a Mountain Nyala. The SCI record book to me is a sharing of achievements between sportsman.

The SCI record book is much more than just a record of dead animals it is a valuable research tool and if your not using it in your safari planning your missing the boat. An example might be if your desire is for a big kudu (don't tell me you'd be just as happy with a dink)a little time with the SCI record book will soon reveal where historically the big ones have come from.

The convention is expensive for exhibitors but it must be worth it considering the amount of operators that attend each year. I know it's important to my business. What other venue gives safari/hunt operators the kind of exposure that the SCI convention does and where can hunters go to face to face with so many venders?

Love it or not SCI is extremely important in the hunting business and benefits us all so get on board and do yourself some good.

Mark

To get back to the original premise here:

I would like to have a bit more openness in the organization. I really have no clue how the various powers that be get elected to the important positions. Having an open election of officials rather than the presumptive vote of chapter presidents, without having the information being open to the membership bothers me. It has seemed to me that by and large the national higher-ups are rich folks (presumptively because they have the time and the money to donate to the organization), probably who have been successful at donating money to SCI. They should also post the vote as tabulated by a independent auditing firm.

I realize this is probably not real likely, but if it happened, it probably would not change much- look at the NRA board. Its a political connection and public persona thing. I mean, Ted Nugent as a responsible, level headed example of gun owners? I like the guy, but he does have a bit of "baggage". If SCI became a member voted board, you would likely see a number of the current board (big chapter muckety-mucks), a few popular PH's, and sports media folks like Boddington, etc. on the board, assuming they would be agreeable with serving.

With regards to the "Ethics Committee" This should be changed to have a set number of individuals on it, for example 9 (for purposes of arguement, they could choose whatever number they like)- of which a set number would be PH's (I would put 1 US, 1 African, and one at large hunter); 1 press member with the mandate that they CAN publish whatever they hear in the meetings, but don't have to; 2 members chosen by the org one a game scientist, and one a member of the current executive board (this would be the executive board's in, as they would have a choice here) and 3 members voted in from the membership as nominated by the organization. This group would have mandated term limits for all the folks who are elected (the scientist and the board member could be longer given the relative paucity of these folks). All decisions would be published in the journal as case, decision, and vote with names of who voted how.

The EC would thus be able to be pretty open about what they do, not be particularly susceptible to pressure from the fund raising part of the org and be very open to the membership. By having a journalist who could potentially expose bad behavior, both referrals to and decisions made would have a bit of a risk if you are seen to be using this for personal gain (ie a rival outfitter "turning in" a competitor to gain an advantage).

A final issue would be to have some sort of "noncompete clause" that insists that no member of the board, employee or EC could receive any compensation, benefit, or gift from any business or entity that has any connection (including exhibiting) for at a minimum 2 years before and 5 years after their involvement with SCI to be punishable by expulsion from the org and, if collectible double the value of any gift (mainly would be good from employees/paid positions) with the requirement of a waiver to examine this information. I would also mandate that employees and members not be allowed to utilize their position as a tax writeoff as a business expense (ie you cannot claim you were a SCI exec so your hunts were "fact finding")

If we did these three things, a lot of the other issues would be moot as they would get changed from within. Openness, accountability, and removal of any kind of financial advantage would solve all but the ego thing, and I doubt anyone could get rid of that in a position of authority.

Larry,

You are correct there is more than my opinion.

However, there is generally a limited number of interpretations of the English language.

Reading the operative phrase of the title:

"What would you change about SCI?"

I happen to be a strong believer in ATFQ.

So I posted what I would do to change SCI.

You are more than welcome to comment on my post or not comment on my post.

It seems a little silly to imply in a perjorative tone that my opinion is just 1 opinion when my opinion is being solicited.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Larry,

You are correct there is more than my opinion.

However, there is generally a limited number of interpreations of the English language.

Reading the operative phrase of the title:

"What would you change about SCI?"

I happen to be a strong believer in ATFQ.

So I posted what I would do to change SCI.

You are more than welcome to comment on my post or not comment on my post.

It seems a little silly to imply in a perjorative tone that my opinion is just 1 opinion when my opinion is being solicited.

Sorry Mike, have to ask what is ATFQ?

FWIW, I agree with Shakari and Mike that the standards are so low that the book as a "record" book is silly.

If I shot something really special, sure I would enter it in something, for completely self serving reasons. But when everyone put 7 of 10 animals from a two week safari in then I think the entry standards might be a little low.

Someone commented earlier about 95% of revenue coming from 5% of people. That just sounds like everything in life to me. Of course I agree it is distasteful to suggest that the other "average" members like myself are unimportant, and wouldn't mind seeing that mindset change. I just don't find it suprising that the good old boy system is employed, it was in any other club of any size I've ever belonged to (and I'll be honest enough to admit I found it the most aggravating the times I was on the wrong side of it).

I just take the whole thing at face value, I pay my annual dues, get a magazine that is interesting to me and meet some nice folks at a local level. I never feel shorted because $65 or whatever I pay a year sounds reasonable enough if that is all I'm after. I'm sure that there are major problems in the higher circles, and I agree with most of you fellas here. That said, I'll take the Pepsi Challenge that nothing changes.

*Where can I learn about these "awards"? They do sound a little silly

Really as long as they don't get rid of Mike's girls in leather pants and leopard tops I'm good.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by tasco 74:
what the hell is SCI???????????????????????



LIFE IS SHORT.....

Safari Club International

oh ok i really can't join unless you can make it safari club IOWA..........

OH AND NOBODY IS GOING TO MEASURE MY PENIS...............

LIFE IS SHORT.....

So what pro-hunting organization out there is better that I should join? Minus the warts that come with any organization with 30-40K members...what group out there promotes hunting (world-wide) better than SCI? Please advise and I'll join up first thing in the morning.

Yes, I'm a member (Life)of SCI. I'm a chapter grunt that does the menial tasks that have to be done. Never been to Reno nor do I approve of some of crap that goes on (please name me a similar type/size organization that doesn't have such stuff).

Okay, let's take the 'Accurate Reloading Organization'. Is there some disention that goes on within this group? How much positive stuff goes on here? How many school teachers is A-R sending to AWLS school? How many disabled vets is the A-R community sending off on various hunts around the world? How many trophy/hero shots are posted here? Are there some aloof people here? Some that have done some un-ethical things? Are some of us here to get some better deals on hunts? Or perhaps to further their bookings? Just how many 'booking agents' do we have advancing their cause here?

Use the same measuring stick folks.

Justin,

ATFQ = Answer the F*cking Question.

For those that may be challenged by reading comprehension (Justin not referring to you)

The key words in the title of the post are "would", "you", and "change".

"Would" as opposed to "should". "Should" implies a judgment of good vs. bad, "would" does not.

"You" as opposed to "they", of course meaning the poster in this case me and not someone else.

"change" only means a modification from the current state and does not indicate a positive or negative direction.

Had the post been entitled "How should they make a SCI better?" Larry's reply would have been a little more on point. Although, that title by implication does ask for an individuals opinion so Larry's post is still a little silly.

Now perhaps what Larry was really trying to say is:

"Mike your comments are stupid and you are just an opinionated, middle aged, balding fatman who thinks he is always right"

In which case, since Larry is entitled to his opinion, I would have replied "maybe and 4.5 out of 5".

SCI is a good group, all things considered. I am a life member.

Yet, much of what they do produces results that I find repugnant.

Still, much of what they do is positive and supportive of the hunting that we all do and love.

In my view, the repugnant aspects comprise their promotion of competition in what is not and should not be a competitive endeavor, their failure to police themselves by expelling wrongdoers and their failure properly to castigate the hunting of put and take tame game animals.

In other words, their lack of "official" appreciation and recognition that hunting is much, much different than a mere shooting contest with awards and recogniton as the aims.

The positive aspects of SCI are their many lobbying, funding and other supportive efforts designed to perpetuate, and actually resulting in the continuation of, the sustainable hunting of wild game animals the world over.

For me, the bottom line is that I will hold my nose and remain a life member - while reserving all the while my right to dissociate myself from others similarly situated, and to complain about them and their activities - until nature deprives me of life member status.

Which I hope will be several decades hence.

Gents, i agree with some of the first posts. I am a life memeber of SCI because of the vast information i can get about world wide hunting,BUT as was stated i think the the award system has become about a bank balance rather than the effort as i could never in million year afford most of these hunts do to the added "trend"when all i would like to the chance to hunt animals with fare charges.That aside I am also dissapointed by the fact that everything they fight for concerns mostly the USA. I say this because i can not import leopard or Elephant into Australia and i see all the support that is being sent towards the polar bear issue but i don't know of anything thats being done to help us Aussie's so i can save and hunt these animals with out fear of loosing them because of stupid ignorance on our governments behalf

Mike D - great response and comments. You are correct, I should have titled this "what would make SCI better". I thought about that, but "better" is very subjective and it is hard to please everyone, so I opted for what I did.

Now, as to pecker measurements - it depends on the measuring system, method and standards. It would make for a difficult club if the standard was so low, everyone was "in", but if the standard is too high, then no one wants to join. Also, according to my wife, the "trophy" is not always what it appears to be......

SCI = Socialite Counting Inches

I don't belong and won't belong

Dear Darkside

PRICELESS....

quote:

Originally posted by darkside:
SCI = Socialite Counting Inches

I don't belong and won't belong

you need add: + trophy wives (with breast implants)

Hey, what's wrong with implants? LOL

Would you rather have them sagging?

Implants behind a tight sweater = Good
Implants behind a high fence = Bad

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Hey, what's wrong with implants? LOL

Would you rather have them sagging?

no dried up saggers for me , please

I like them all, big, little, real or silicone!!!

Personally I think they should adopt a new dress code for the convention.. I think they should ban women over 50 from wearing skin tight leather pants. Save those for the 22 year olds!

Guys,

It seems that SCI and its membership are about as controversial as the decision to ban Mark Sullivan and his videos from the Convention. Personally, I agree with much of what has been proposed here. I also disagree with much of it.

The fact is though, we, as hunters, are much better off with SCI in existence, than we would be without it. I don't think that very many here would disagree with that statement.

I believe that the major problem with the organization is the size of its governing body. I believe that the Board has more than 200 members. It is difficult enough to get three people to agree on something--if you don't believe that, just read any number of threads on this forum. To get a decision out of 200 borders on the impossible.

Even SCI must realize that fact as they have established an Executive Board. I don't know how many members are on the EB, nor do I know how they are chosen, but they seem to be the decision makers. Even that doesn't work too well, as it take forever to get a decision on just about anything. I'd keep the EB, and get rid of the 200 + member board.

Another thing that I would change is to give the "Executive Director" some authority to run the organization on a day-to-day basis, and hire one with the gonads to do it! Many of the problems within the organization is the result of in-fighting between members of the staff. Each department tends to be its own autonomous unit, and often works against other departments. The staff is not a homogeneous organization, as it should be, but a splintered, self-centered one. They seem to work against each other far more than with each other.

Even with its problems, it is still the very best organization out there looking after the international interests of the hunter.

Tom

I have been following this, and the Sullivan thread with interest. For those that are interested, I have just posted a letter too AR, and SCI members in the NZ/Aussie section regarding ethical practices and a situation thats comming to a head in NZ which will be decided at the SCI show in January.
Here is a link http://forums.accuratereloadin...381093321#8381093321
Sorry for the short Hijack.

I am ok with pecker measurments as long as it is a 22 yr old female (added for clarity) in black leather and leopard print.

Mike,

can you clarify that a little for me? Female?

Personally, I think it takes an exceptional all natural woman over 30 to wear one size too small clothing. I don't think I have seen one yet at SCI Reno. But, in an attempt to be fair, I will continue my research in three weeks.

Rich

Rich,

Good point...female...precision is important in these matters.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Require penis measurements of for every hunter who wants his name in the book.

Would that be measured like simple horned antelopes (SCI Method 1 (length plus circumference)) or like wild sheep (SCI Method 11 (length plus four circumferences))?

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Require penis measurements of for every hunter who wants his name in the book.

Would that be measured like simple horned antelopes (SCI Method 1 (length plus circumference)) or like wild sheep (SCI Method 11 (length plus four circumferences))?

Will, good question. How is a rhino horn measured?

Maybe this thread should have been titled "OK -What as a SCI Member would you change about SCI"?? If you are not a SCI member then your comments really are moot and are of no real value. If you have genuine interests about how SCI should operate, then you would need to be a member to follow through with your suggestions and ideas. Da!! Spouting off on a forum as a non member about the subject is just that, spouting off. Feel free to do that if you wish, but when a comment is made, maybe the poster could use his/her SCI membership number so we all know which catagory you fall into??

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member - #6766

A lot of us have been members but are no longer because of some of SCI's actions. I think we do have the right to espouse our opinions on what SCI needs to do to get us back.

465H&H

Every hunter has the right to state his opinion of any hunting orgenization.

After all, don't SCI claim to protect our sport?

For the record, I am a Life Member of boh SCI and the NRA.

And I think the NRA is doing a lot more to support gun owners than SCI is doing to support hunting.

Larry,

What does being a member have to do with anything?

Most change is by external forces.

That is why bureaucracies generally don't change much.


Only considering member opinions doesn't support growth. Your comment is similar to a company saying we only want the opinions of our customers and don't want the opinion of people who evaluated our product and decided not to by our product.

Let's take two extreme examples.

Person A buys a membership to get into the show goes to the show for 1 day visits with outfitters and friends and throws the magazine away every month and never reads it and does nothing else.

Person B doesn't buy a membership but his neighbor gives him the magazine which he faitfully reads cover to cover, reads the SCI newspaper that his neighbor gives him, attends the local chapter meetings as a guest, and particpates in local chapter events as a guest.

Who is more knowledgeable?

Between the SCI website, the SCI magazine, and the SCI newspaper and talking to SCI members it is very easy to form a knowledgeable opinion of SCI.

Now lets look at the time element. If a person is a member and then doesn't renew is their opinion no longer informed? or is it only informed for a year? What if a person is a member for 20 years...how long afterwards is their opinion an informed opinion? What if no changes are made?

Nothing in this post asked do you think you can actually change SCI or even suggests that SCI would be open to change.

By definition all opinions are valid.

I have been a member off on and for 15 years.

Larry,

I don't think I have seen you suggest any changes to SCI in your posts.

What changes to SCI would you make?

Mike - there is not a lot I would change about SCI as most of my time is spent with Chapter work and attending the Convention and not worrying about running the day to day at SCI.

I would like to see the Convention extended to a five day affair. Most likely won't happen because of added cost and forcing the Exibitors to be there another whole day. Worked Sport shows myself for many years, so the extra day from their part would suck.

I would like to see some of the booths/exhibitors that are not really hunting/fising related be cut back some. Most likely won't happen as they pay the same rates for booth space as all the others.

I don't like the change of venue to Dallas, Texas for the Convention. Don't know what this is about, but don't like Texas much.

Record books, are no problem as is. It brings in a lot of funds needed for ongoing projects. Nobody has to participate unless the want to.

Ethics committee. The word "committee" says it all. It's up to them to do as they see fit. If you don't like what they do, get yourself on the "committee" or voice your opinion to a "committee" member and save your breath about it here on AR.

I would like to see SCI do even more in changing their image to hunting and hunters beyond just the Africa scene. The TV show and "First for Hunters" slogan has helped a lot, but there are still a lot of Sportman out there who still connect it with the "African elitist".

Booth/Exibitor charges seem to be a real
issue here, for at least two people anyway. Just isn't a problem. Nobody forces the vendors to pay and attend, it's their choice. So why whine and complain, when you can just choose not to attend if you don't think it is in your best interest to do so?

The Chapter scene is really the best there is out there. Unlike those at Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, who keep 100% of funds generated at local fundraisers, SCI lets the local Chapter retain 70% of funds for use on local projects.

"Feeding the Hungry" is a great project that feed thousands of folks each year and the "Blue Bag" program is a really special one that helps Members take much needed school and med supplies to those in Africa and other destinations Worldwide. Did that this year and it was quite worthwhile to say the least.

So I guess with all the positive things that are happening at SCI not really much I can complain about. My main complaint here, is about those who come on the forum and spout off without a clue as to what SCI is or does. But that is apparent on most all of the threads here, don't you know.

Happy New Year to all!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member - #6766

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:

Booth/Exibitor charges seem to be a real
issue here, for at least two people anyway. Just isn't a problem. Nobody forces the vendors to pay and attend, it's their choice. So why whine and complain, when you can just choose not to attend if you don't think it is in your best interest to do so?

My main complaint here, is about those who come on the forum and spout off without a clue as to what SCI is or does. But that is apparent on most all of the threads here, don't you know.

Happy New Year to all!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member - #6766

Larry,

with all due respect, I think the reason people feel they can express an opinion is probably something to do with the First Amendment and what it says about freedom of speech.

Regarding the ethics committee:

See here:

Debate also swirls around what many industry sources call the most controversial operator in Zimbabwe: Out of Africa Safaris. Founded by four former South African policemen and based in both South Africa and Overland Park, Kan., the company has done a brisk business taking a heavily American clientele to hunt on several ranches that, according to industry watchdogs in Zimbabwe, were seized by Zanu PF activists and independence war veterans. Critics, including the Zimbabwean Association of Tourism and Safari Operators, say that the group uses poorly trained hunting guides who, among other violations, sometimes endanger the lives of their clients and overhunt species in violation of the Zimbabwean government's hunting rules.

Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Authority banned Out of Africa last year from operating in the country. "This is an unscrupulous organization that doesn’t respect the environment and pursues unsustainable quotas," says David Coltart, the opposition leader. Conservationist Johnny Rodrigues calls the company the most "flagrant violator" of hunting regulations in Zimbabwe. Dawie Groenewald, one of the founding partners of Out of Africa, denies that his company has done anything ethically wrong and says that he has been slandered by white Zimbabwean hunters. "The white Zimbabweans hunting in Zim don't want anyone else coming in there to hunt - they hate South Africans coming to hunt in their kingdom," he told Newsweek. Out of Africa's attorney, Kevin Anderson , says that "these allegations about poaching and other illegal activities have been floating around for several years and they've never been substantiated." Anderson also says that Out of Africa recently decided to stop organizing hunts in Zimbabwe because "it's just become too difficult." Whatever the case, next week in Reno, Out of Africa will set up its usual booth at the SCI convention

Taken from:

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=13576

Now check the President Elect here:

http://www.scifirstforhunters....fficersAndDirectors/

Whether the two people are related, I have absolutely no idea but I'm sure you'll agree it doesn't look good at first glance huh?

Oh, and a very happy and prosperous New Year to you too!

Steve - I am not so sheltered that I don't think "deals are made", "favors are given" "dollars have power", "connections in the right places", are non existent. These things happen everyday in almost all situations, whether good or bad. Depends which side of the give and take you are on at the moment I guess.

The OoA thing seems odd and while I don't think they are "squeeky clean" in all cases, I truly don't think SCI would continue to condone this group if they were breaking laws. As far as them "donating" to SCI in return for special consideration above and beyond and asking SCI to turn their heads to anything illegal just doesn't fly. Since all exhibitors give "donations" to SCI, are they all suspects because of that practice or is it just OoA?


Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Larry,

I appreciate lots of companies donate but few donate that many hunts, few also have that particular lawyer who shares his name with someone who is President Elect and I think you'll find sits or sat on the ethics committee.

As for number of complaints, all you have to do is search here or on google to see the numerous complaints...... some of which incidentally, if true, could get their own/American members tied up with the Lacey Act!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Steve - I am not so sheltered that I don't think "deals are made", "favors are given" "dollars have power", "connections in the right places", are non existent. These things happen everyday in almost all situations, whether good or bad. Depends which side of the give and take you are on at the moment I guess.

The OoA thing seems odd and while I don't think they are "squeeky clean" in all cases, I truly don't think SCI would continue to condone this group if they were breaking laws. As far as them "donating" to SCI in return for special consideration above and beyond and asking SCI to turn their heads to anything illegal just doesn't fly. Since all exhibitors give "donations" to SCI, are they all suspects because of that practice or is it just OoA?
Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Larry,

Check here: http://forums.accuratereloadin...=860108975#860108975

and here: http://forums.accuratereloadin...=278105971#278105971

and bear in mind that any American who hunts on seized land could find himself in a sea of shit....... and then tell me people shouldn't be concerned about the situation in general and the ethics committee in particular.

Steve - I agree nobody should hunt "seized" or otherwise illegal lands anywhere in the World. Hunters should not contract with shaddy, unreliable, law breaking outfitters as well. That said, I don't think we can hold SCI to the task of being the "policeman" on these types of issues. Most of us are grown men and women and should be able to make our own decisions where and with whom we hunt. If we make the wrong choice then we face the consequences. Don't really see where it's SCI's job to look out for us.

If OoA is doing something illegal then shame on SCI for not holding them to task, if not then it's up to us to decided whether we want to support OoA or not.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Raise the SCI record book minumums way up. If 7 out of the 8 animals I shot on my first safari made the book, standards are lax.

I think they are lax on purpose.
It allows members to be 'record book hunters', high achievers of the sporting endevour, to be immoralized as great hunters and sportsmen and SCI has done that for you....

If it were more difficult to make the book I think more people would lose interest, save for the dedicated or lucky few.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:

The Chapter scene is really the best there is out there. Unlike those at Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, who keep 100% of funds generated at local fundraisers, SCI lets the local Chapter retain 70% of funds for use on local projects.
Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member - #6766

The attempt (above) to mischaracterize the funding model within the RMEF points out the greatest single issue with SCI - The chapters keep most of the funds they reaise. This money is frittered away (in many cases) on projects near and dear to the chapter power brokers, but often NOT in cooperation with the local game department or well researched projects. When chapter chairman "Larry" wants to fund a project in the area he hunts, that is where the money is spent, even when there are more desrving projects awaiting funding. The same goes for sending money oversees to the village where chairman "Larry" hunts. He is greasing the skids for is own trips in the future, not focusing on the most deserving projects..

Now contrast that with the RMEF model. Chapter raised funds are all sent to the national office. Individaul chapters submit project requests, and a state committee evalutes projects and requested funding from state and federal agencies. Dollars are prioiritized, often multiplied with federal and state funds, and the most critical projects addressed. "Pet" projects are rarely funded in this model, unless they truly rise to the standards. RMEF commits to a minimum of 50% of the money in each (elk) state returning to the state for funded projects. Most years, the states recieve more than 100% of the money they raise returned. (The non-elk states (Florida, etc.) subsidize projects out of state.) The 50% rule allows for certain very large and expensive projects to be funded within a given state on occassion. Overall, the RMEF puts the highest percentage of its funds back on the ground, doing the actual work for which they were raised.

SCI allows chapter officers to spend 70% of the money raised as they see fit. Much more of a club, and the officers love the clout they can buy with YOUR donated money. The remaining 30% which is sent to HQ funds the lobbying, etc., for which so many thump their chest and priase SCI. I don't feel that giving 30% of my donations to these efforts is proper stewardship of my money. I think damn few would be donating to local chapters if they realized there would be such little return on their money. (And that assumes the 30% is well managed at HQ.)

Chapters keeping the money is just another way for the elite in every chapter city to feel a little more self-important, and to control funds donated by others.

I always advise people do their homework on whatever charity they consider supporting. I have beloinged to SCI in the past, found them wanting, and no longer support them financially or in any way. I have come to believe they are doing more harm than good, and their model stands in the way of the formation of a truly effective international hunting organization. DSC is the best I have found to date that fits that model, and I readily support RMEF and MDF on the homefront.

Cheers!

Bill

Bill - Sorry you have such a "misguided" insight to both SCI and RMEF. I know you didn't get "your way" when involved with a SCI Chapter, but to make all the above statements as hypothetical assumtions really shows your true character. I guess your "pet" project was not funded by your local Chapter, huh? To assume ALL SCI Chapters, spend donated funds in a squandering fashion on "favorite", "pet" projects by their Board members is simply not the case. Please post some unworthy projects that fit this scenerio if you will?

RMEF is most likely the worst of the worst when it comes to supporting us hunters. As a "Foundation" they refuse to take a stand when it comes to "hunting/hunter" issues on a State or National level. Take a look at their membership rolls and you will see a lot of "anti" influence and that element is growing faster than the pro hunting element.

An example of their elitist attitudes and actions can be seen right here in New Mexico. A year or so ago they "bought" a very large ranch with exceptional elk hunting here in NM. And guess what, only the RMEF elite have hunted it. They do good work at increasing elk habitat (their elite also get the most benefit) by using your funds to do so. High dollar salaries for upper management, seems to eat up a lot of the donated dollars??

RMEF is a "Foundation" whose goals are maintaing and securing more elk habitat. They in no way shape or form are an organization that helps, promotes, or fights for hunters and hunting rights. They simply refuse to do this. This is not an opinion or some hypothetical assumtion it's simply how it is.

If you like what they are doing on the "habitat front" I say give them your support. But don't infer that they are in any way an organization that is helping support hunters rights.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member