Ok - What would you change about SCI?

05 January 2010, 06:10

Chiming in late on this:

Let me state that I am currently not and never have been a member of SCI. But having read the threads here I would like to have in input.

Ethics Panel
I do not believe that there should be a sitting ethics committee. But there should be the process that would allow the executive board to quickly assemble an ethics committee to review and make suggestions on how to handle a specific issue. This would allow the board to chose those persons who may have knowledge or talents specific to the job at hand. Once their job is complete, the committee is disolved. The panel should be a police force trying to protect the world.

Conservation Organizations
There are almost too many organizations to count with virtually every big game and fowl have their own 501c(3)'s. While most "big guys" like SCI may have a conservation element to their mission, the amount of money doing the most good for conservation pales when compared to the likes of DU, RMEF, and Wild Turkey Federation. Of course I am open to being corrected on this. But the question must be asked, what good is protecting hunting if you have no place to hunt?

My biggest gripe with SCI is their insistance in coming to Dallas, booking the same venue as DSC and having a clause put their contract with the convention center barring DSC from exhibiting in the convention center in 2013. As you can imagine, this has caused concern to not only DSC, but the Houston Safari club as well. There has existed a fairly amicable show circuit running from Dallas to Houston to Vegas for many years. Larry, you say you do not know what this is about. Since you seem to be wearing the SCI cheerleading skirt with associtated pompoms, perhaps you can call and ask them.

05 January 2010, 07:57

Larry Sellers

Caretake - FYI, I don't wear skirts, use pom poms and am not a cheerleader. You must have me mistaken for someone on the NFL sidelines?

The references you make to Ducks Unlimited, RMEF and National Wild Turkey Federation are for one, ALL "Federations" and species specific. They are all habitat preservation based, and do nothing to fight for hunters and hunters rights or fishermens for that matter. Simply not their agenda. I seriously doubt that the above groups spend more money on Conservation than SCI?

SCI on the other hand supports and does a lot of work in Conservation and with out any doubt are the largest group out there supporting hunters and hunters rights Worldwide. There is simply no comparison with SCI to those you mentioned. It's an apples/oranges at best. DSC and HSC are in a like situation with SCI on what their agendas are and where their monies are spent.

"The panel should be a police force trying to protect the world"?? Maybe Obama would be interested in this group?

I will try and get a "feel" for the SCI move to Dallas when I am at the Convention at Reno as it's one of my concerns as well.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

05 January 2010, 08:40

jdollar

quote:
Originally posted by llamapacker:
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

SO I GUESS IT'S KIND OF LIKE INCOME TAXES. WE ARE BETTER OFF SENDING OUR MONEY TO WASHINGTON AND LETTING THEM DECIDE WHERE IT SHOULD BE SPENT INSTEAD OF KEEPING IT LOCALLY FOR USE LOCALLY??? SURE, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

05 January 2010, 23:56

llamapacker

Larry,

You really haven't done your homework on RMEF. While clearly much of their funding is for habitat projects,etc., they do spend a substantial amount of money funding hunter / hunting issues. No, they don't get involved in every hunting regulation change in each state, as they shouldn't. I've been involved with RMEF since the 80's, and while they began to lose their focus a few years back, this organization has returned to its roots with the new President. This is far from a "green" organization, and even a cursory review of the Bugle magazine in the last year will show you just a few of their "hunter" initiatives. Running funding through state-level RMEF committees does much to reduce apparent waste and pet projects.

Larry, continuing to insist that I "had a problem" with the local chapter, or somehow didn't get my pet project funded, misses the point. (I never even tried to get a project funded through a local chapter.) I've had the good fortune to move a couple times in my life to different states, and was over the years a member of three different SCI chapters. One was pretty decent, or at least I wasn't looking closely at the time. As I have learned more about SCI, and their chapter structure (done my homework), it has been apparent that I can't support this group. None of the chapters I have belonged to have ever been involved in "hunter / hunting" lobbying, even at the state level. Only the small percentage sent to HQ could concievably have been applied to these causes. Just try to get a list of funded projects from your local chapter for the past few years, and most would have their eyes opened. Some, of course, only see what they want to see.

Bill

06 January 2010, 00:16

Gerrypeters375

Leopardtrack said it all for me. Entirely apart from the fact that there is something unpleasant about the fact that hunters should be awarded "trophies" because they killed a certain kind of species (goats, sheep or whatever) in some kind of "clean sweep", the whole idea of awarding "trophy cups" in such cases is like rewarding for the sheer killing of an animal in quantities - and, yes, I expect a lot of flak. I just ask that my attackers remember that this is an example of why hunters are attacked in the non hunting world. (As to my own hunting credentials - I was raised by a father who taught me that a gentleman never gives references for himself)

06 January 2010, 08:55

Saeed

quote:
SCI on the other hand supports and does a lot of work in Conservation and with out any doubt are the largest group out there supporting hunters and hunters rights Worldwide.

Larry,

Despite a number of us asking on several times in the past, to see what actually SCI has done in Africa, we have not gotten many answers.

The best I can remember were a few occasions where SCI has "donated" less than $60,000 to African causes in several years.

If you are aware of any of their work, please enlighten us.

06 January 2010, 23:01

Bwana Nderobo

I am seriously considering NOT renewing my membership. The orgavization seems to have an air of snobbery about it lately, and thats not me. Anyone feel DSC is a better, more productive organization?

07 January 2010, 01:30

SteveGl

Saeed, do a little more research. SCI is involved in a lot more than that.

There is no comparison between SCI and the DSC - and any attempt to put the DSC on the same level as SCI is a joke. SCI is an international organization of unparralleled importance. The influence of the DSC (while growing) barely reaches beyond Texas.

And the DSC is developing its own brand of snobbery. Just read the recent posts.

Fire away.

07 January 2010, 02:53

dogcat

SteveG1,
Please provide facts about SCI. I have had a tough time coming up with the numbers. I am an SCI member but it seems John Jackson's (Conservations Force) guys are doing a lot more to fight for hunter's "rights". We are all in this together adn would like to see SCI take on more "on the ground" projects versus giving awards to each other.

07 January 2010, 03:09

David Hulme

quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
SCI on the other hand supports and does a lot of work in Conservation and with out any doubt are the largest group out there supporting hunters and hunters rights Worldwide.

Larry,

Despite a number of us asking on several times in the past, to see what actually SCI has done in Africa, we have not gotten many answers.

The best I can remember were a few occasions where SCI has "donated" less than $60,000 to African causes in several years.

If you are aware of any of their work, please enlighten us.

Many, many examples of SCI's good works have been posted here on the many threads concerning that organization. Here is another. Not such a huge deal in terms of money I suppose, but SCI sponsors a never-ending flow of conservation courses and camps for local Zim children at the RIFA camp in the RIFA hunting area, close to Chirundu. They do this in conjunction with the Zimbabwe Hunters Association. SCI should be commended for this - the future of our wildlife is in the hands of our children. SCI are not perfect, I'm sure, but the truth is that they do do more for hunting than any other organization. Pull your hair out over it, but nobody can escape that truth. I don't know why we are constantly asked to come up with what SCI has done for African hunting when so many people have posted so much info detailing exactly what they have done. And what they continue to do.

Cheers, David

07 January 2010, 03:14

465H&H

David,

Is the Rifa work paid for by the local SCI Chapter or the National org?

465H&H

07 January 2010, 03:20

David Hulme

465,

I have no idea sir. When we passed through RIFA on the Borderline walk, we were the guests of Mr Dave Winhall, the resident RIFA guide/PH. He told me that SCI sponsored the education program. I will try to find out more.

Dave

07 January 2010, 03:44

SteveGl

quote:
Originally posted by dogcat:
SteveG1,
Please provide facts about SCI. I have had a tough time coming up with the numbers. I am an SCI member but it seems John Jackson's (Conservations Force) guys are doing a lot more to fight for hunter's "rights". We are all in this together adn would like to see SCI take on more "on the ground" projects versus giving awards to each other.

No doubt Conservation Force does as much or more for hunter's rights. My use of the word unparralleled was wrong. But I was attempting to distinguish between SCI and the DSC.

Do your own comparison:

SCI Foundation: http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/

Conservation Force Projects: http://www.conservationforce.org/projects.html

DSC: http://www.biggame.org/index.p...=view&id=10&Itemid=4

07 January 2010, 10:14

Matt Graham

The constant anti-SCI bleatings on here make me sick to the gut... no wonder the anti hunting forces are having so much success in many areas ... hunters cant even get behind the largest international organisation, made up almost entirely of other hunters.

07 January 2010, 10:49

shakari

Matt,

Mate, Isn't that the wrong way round?

Surely it should be the largest international organisation, made up almost entirely of other hunters that should be getting behind their membership to support them and their hunting.

Seems to me they instead spend most of their time screwing people and companies out of every dollar they can squeeze out of them and doing a lot of upper echelon mutual back slapping.

07 January 2010, 11:15

Matt Graham

quote:
Originally posted by shakari:
Matt,

Mate, Isn't that the wrong way round?

Surely it should be the largest international organisation, made up almost entirely of other hunters that should be getting behind their membership to support them and their hunting.

Seems to me they instead spend most of their time screwing people and companies out of every dollar they can squeeze out of them and doing a lot of upper echelon mutual back slapping.

FFS Steve - it's a hunting CLUB - a sum total of it's members!!! The board of directors are representatives of the members and elected by THEM. Do you think when a new director is elected they have to swear some oath to fuck the hunting world over???

07 January 2010, 12:35

shakari

Matt,

It's a helluva hunting club mate. It must have the largest membership, budget and hunting show in the world...... and a terrific clubhouse!

Are directors elected by the members or someone else?

I was a member for some years and don't ever remember being asked to vote on anything, let alone the leadership.

I wasn't suggesting the directors are out to f**k the membership up at all and I didn't say that. However, I do think a large part of money and effort etc could be better directed to suitable projects etc.

As I've said previously, (IMO) the ethics committee issue also needs to be addressed with some urgency. I find it hard to believe that a company that has escaped numerous complaints and must be one of the largest donators of all time, but has a lawyer who 'shares the same name' as the President Elect, can be quite as kosher as the ethics committee appear to believe.

However, my main point in my previous post was that it's the association that should be backing up and/or supporting their members rather than the other way around.

For example, they're very big on inner and outer circle awards, dodgy titles and cups etc for their upper echelons, taking money from ordinary members to put their names in the trophy record book and making obscene profits from donations etc etc etc....... but they haven't exactly resolved the issue of Elephant import from Moz..... In fact, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't even addressed the matter at all.

That particular issue has been going on for something like 20 years. Mozambique is given a CITES quota just like many other countries and yet USF&WS continue to block imports...... to me, that's an ideal issue for them to challenge in court and with the elected representatives.

It's often claimed SCI are largely a lobbying organisation that protects the interests of their members.... if that's the case, why are they not lobbying and launching a legal challenge against USF&WS to allow their members to import Elephant trophies that have a perfectly legitimate CITES quota?

I'm not suggesting they're all bad. Ordinary members are the salt of the earth and the association does do some good such as partially financing the giant sable project but I do believe they could achieve considerably more if they wanted to.