A View to a Kill: How Safari Club Int'l Works to Weaken ESA Protections


Gerald & Buff Corse, California Academy of Science
By Michael Satchell

What weighs 21 pounds, contains 2,560 pages, and lists thousands of names and numbers? It's not the New York City telephone directory, but here's a hint: Its listings run from Addax to Zebra.

The answer is Safari Club International's three-volume compendium of trophy hunters who are immortalized in this record book for doing nothing more than killing animals-an entire alphabet of animals-to win SCI awards competitions. The catalog is a macabre scorecard detailing who shot what animal, where and when. Thousands and thousands of animals, covering more than 1,100 species, are figuratively buried between the covers here.

You can learn, for example, that in 1910 in the Sudan, Theodore Roosevelt killed a rhino whose horns measured 24 4/8 inches and 7 4/8 inches, scoring 67 1/8 points to make the former U.S. president the No.1 hunter of Northern white rhino. Or that one Marc Pechenart shot an elephant in the Central African Republic in June 1970, earning a score of 302 points for the biggest pachyderm. The animal's left tusk weighed 154 pounds and the right 148 pounds.

With its photographs of grinning hunters posing with lifeless animals and its meticulous rankings for the biggest tusks, horns, antlers, skulls and bodies, the SCI record book perfectly encapsulates what trophy hunting is all about: killing for killing's sake. The book lays bare the hunters' obsessions: a craving to shoot the largest animal, a desire to kill the most animals and rack up SCI awards, or a fetish to bring home the animal's head and hang it on the wall.

The mother of all these obsessions, though, is the awards competition. SCI members shoot prescribed lists of animals to win so-called Grand Slam and Inner Circle titles. There's the Africa Big Five, (leopard, elephant, lion, rhino, and buffalo); the North American Twenty Nine (all species of bear, bison, sheep, moose, caribou, and deer); and the Antlered Game of the Americas, among many other contests.

To complete all 29 award categories, a hunter must kill a minimum of 322 separate species and sub-species-enough to populate an entire zoo. This is an extremely expensive and lengthy task, and many SCI members take the quick and easy route. They shoot captive animals in canned hunts, both in the United States and overseas, and some engage in other unethical conduct like shooting animals over bait, from vehicles, with spotlights, or on the periphery of national parks.

Wayne Pacelle, HSUS senior vice president for communications and government affairs, captures the essence of SCI members and their motivation:

"It's a perverse and destructive subculture," he says. "Thousands of animals suffer and die for the amusement of wealthy elites who have the means to pursue any form of recreation, but choose to shoot the world's rarest and most beautiful animals. There's no societal value to the exercise, just a selfish all-consuming mentality of killing, collecting, and showing off trophies. They know the price of every animal, but the value of none."

High-Powered Rifles

It's easy to parody and criticize Safari Club International, but it's a mistake to underestimate the club's power and influence on shaping policies that are detrimental to wildlife-and beneficial to those members who stand tall over freshly killed animals in the SCI record books.

Since it was founded in 1971, the Tucson-based non-profit has grown to some 40,000 trophy collectors. More than half boast an annual income of more than $100,000 (compared to 6% of hunters nationwide). The average member owns 11 rifles, six shotguns, five handguns and a bow. Two-thirds spend about one month hunting each year, and a quarter of the members more than 50 days.

The club contributes large sums to mostly Republican candidates and, not surprisingly, has been able to ingratiate itself with various administrations, most notably the Bush Administration, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). With the help of friendly members of Congress and officials in USFWS, SCI has consistently attempted to navigate around the intent of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and import once-banned trophies of endangered and threatened wildlife. Sometimes, the club has succeeded, sometimes not.

The latest example of SCI's growing influence in Washington is the Bush Administration's initiative to "save" the world's endangered species by killing or selling them, and then using the revenues as an incentive for poor countries to improve their conservation efforts. This scheme to protect rare wildlife is a formula for disaster. It will reverse 30 years of ESA protections for hundreds of exotic creatures who are heading for, or teetering on, the brink of extinction.

The proposal, which conveniently dovetails with SCI's agenda, offers several examples of how wildlife can be exploited for profit. It suggests imports, such as wild-caught Asian elephants for circuses and zoos, Morelet's crocodile skins for luxury leather items like shoes and handbags, and Asian bonytongue tropical fish to supply the aquarium trade. American trophy hunters could shoot and import trophies of straight-horned markhor, a rare goat found in Pakistan, and then head north on a quickie expedition to nail Canadian wood bison.

These are only examples. If approved, the proposal portends open season on many disappearing species, particularly large mammals, the so-called charismatic megafauna. It would also be a huge incentive for poaching and smuggling. Imagine how much rich trophy hunters would offer China to shoot giant pandas-arguably the world's most beloved animal-if they were allowed to import their stuffed remains. Picture furriers importing the hides of endangered snow leopards to swathe the ethically challenged. And now that pet tigers have earned a bad rap, might cheetahs become the newest rage among exotic pet owners?

For three decades and under strict controls, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed only a few rare animals, such as pandas, to be brought in for scientific research and breeding. Until SCI began to push its agenda in Congress and at the Interior Department, USFWS very rarely approved the importation of endangered-species trophies. Now, the agency is proposing not only to ease those trophy import restrictions but also to allow the import of live animals for entertainment (or the pet trade) and the import of skins and hides for luxury apparel.

Such a plan goes against USFWS's historic rationale, which quite correctly notes that fostering a commercial market for disappearing wildlife will inevitably hasten its demise.

No Trickle-Down Economics

Encouraging the sale and import of heads, hides, and live animals to enhance survival efforts in the wild may sound logical-until you examine the sorry history of other purported "sustainable" wildlife-use programs. The record shows that few of the dollars trickle down to benefit either wildlife or local people in the impoverished range states because corrupt officials inevitably divert the money.

During the 1990s, in a well-intentioned-but-misguided conservation effort, the U.S. government spent more than $12 million to underwrite sustainable wildlife-use programs in Zimbabwe. The idea was to give local people the opportunity to raise money for community projects by selling hunting permits for African elephants. The program ended up subsidizing trophy hunting, and little of their trophy fees reached the villages.

USFWS's new endangered species proposal doesn't offer much hope to alter this historical course. Despite agency assurances, the plan isn't the product of careful scientific assessment or innovative thinking. It's driven, in large part, by the working relationship between the Bush Administration and SCI, and by the administration's apparent hostility toward the Endangered Species Act.

SCI's membership includes former President George Herbert Walker Bush, who has lobbied the government of Botswana on the group's behalf to lift the ban on killing the nation's dwindling lion population. What's more, President George W. Bush appointed Matthew J. Hogan, SCI's former Government Affairs Manager, as one of the two current deputy directors of USFWS-a classic example of the fox guarding the hen house. Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, in turn, has worked to weaken the ESA, from abandoning federal efforts to restore grizzlies in Idaho to undermining a key provision that allows citizens to sue the government to speed up protection of imperiled species.

Aiming High...Shooting Low

SCI got off to a shaky start during its early forays into Washington politics. In 1979, when the organization was not even a decade old, it sought government approval to circumvent the spirit of the law and import an astonishing 1,125 trophies of 40 animals on the endangered species list. They included gorillas, cheetahs, tigers, orangutans, and snow leopards.

With a straight face, SCI said its goal was "scientific research&incentive for propagation&survival of the species." There was one small problem. The trophies weren't dead yet. The prospect of permitting the wholesale slaughter of more than 1,000 rare animals was a bit too much, even for USFWS, and the request was denied.

As its lobbying became more sophisticated, SCI began pouring money into national political campaigns. Since the 1998 election cycle, it has contributed $596,696 to Republican candidates and $92,500 to Democrats. Not coincidentally, Congressional Republicans have made repeated attempts to amend and weaken the ESA, while USFWS, turning its back on decades of precedents, has proposed to allow hunters to import trophies of endangered animals killed in the wild. These import easements are critical to one of SCI's true aims.

All those pictures in the SCI record books, and in the club's glossy magazines like Safari and Hunt Forever, are a form of pornography to the blood sports crowd. Would-be big-game hunters can pore over photos of triumphant and sated trophy collectors holding up the head of a dead ungulate by its horns or standing atop the hulk of a dead elephant or posing with a dead leopard draped around his neck. But like all pornography, the image is never enough. The hunter eventually wants a taste of the real thing. And, of course, he must have a trophy to savor the experience.

As former SCI president John J. Jackson III once wrote: "A trophy of any species attests that its owner has been somewhere and done something, that he has exercised skilled persistence and discrimination in the agile feat of overcoming, outwitting, and reducing game to possession."

Trophy collectors may rhapsodize about their spiritual love for the quarry, the hunter's path to self-actualization, the thrill of the chase, the test of manhood, and other such philosophical jabberwocky. But at the end of the day, and after a $65,000 safari, the only thing that matters is hanging that head on the wall-and the rarer the animal, the better it feels.

An example: Kenneth E. Behring, who donated $100 million to have the Smithsonian memorialize him with the Behring Family Hall of Mammals on the Washington D.C. Mall, went to Kazakhstan in 1997 and paid the government enough to allow him to shoot a Kara Tau argali sheep.

The animal, even SCI acknowledges, is critically endangered; the species is listed on CITES Appendix I and can not be imported into the United States as a trophy without the help of a museum. Behring, who like all SCI members, regards himself as a conservationist, killed his Kara Tau argali when only 100 remained and shipped it to a Canadian taxidermist. The Smithsonian then petitioned USFWS for an import permit, but withdrew the request in the storm of negative publicity that followed.

But Behring isn't the only SCI member with questionable ethics. Back when Teddy Roosevelt was laying waste to Africa's wildlife, hunting may have embraced those mythic elements that SCI still loves to invoke: a Hemingway-esque mantra of danger, romance, bravery, and the thrill of slaying the beast.

On today's safari, however, the customer is coddled in luxury tent camps, replete with flush toilets, hot showers and gourmet dining. All he (or she) has to do is shell out tens of thousands of dollars, pull the trigger when instructed, and pose for the money shot. He doesn't even get blood on his hands. A professional guide stalks the target, lines up the shot, tells the client when to take it, acts as a backup shooter if the animal is wounded, and supervises the gutting, skinning and decapitation.

And that's in the wild. From South Africa to New Zealand to Texas, many of these trophy collectors shoot captive animals in canned hunts staged in fenced paddocks on game ranches, a practice the Boone and Crockett Club calls "unfair and unsportsmanlike." The animals are habituated to humans and are shot at feeding stations, salt licks and watering holes. The "spirit of fair chase," supposedly enshrined in SCI's code of ethics, is conveniently ignored.

SCI's highly flexible "fair chase" code also urges members to "comply with all game laws and demonstrate abiding respect for game, habitat and property." That admonition regularly falls on deaf ears.

In 1998, several top SCI leaders, including Behring and then-president Alfred Donau, reportedly went on a wildlife killing spree in Mozambique. According to a published report, they left animals wounded and dying and shot elephants in alleged violation of national law. Other SCI members have been convicted of killing endangered species and trying to smuggle them into the U.S.

Wealthy hunters, including SCI members, have also been caught in federal tax scams. In one celebrated case, a museum in Raleigh, North Carolina, gave trophy hunters the title of "associate curator," which helped them persuade foreign officials to grant permits to shoot rare animals. Hunters went on to donate low-value trophies to the museum and receive wildly inflated appraisals, which were then deducted from their federal taxes. In some cases, the mounts were reacquired by the donors. Before authorities busted the ring, the museum took in 1,800 specimens and valued them at a whopping $8.4 million. At SCI's 1999 annual convention, members were offered a document titled Secrets of Tax Deductible Hunting, advising them to declare their home trophy rooms as museums, call themselves curators, and "donate your record-book animal for the mouthwatering tax deduction."

Incidents like these fuel the club's negative image. Most Americans are largely ambivalent about hunting wild animals for food, but polls show strong public opposition to killing exotic animals for fun, competition, and bragging rights. To counter this perception and burnish its reputation, the club donates meat to food banks, stages "sensory safaris" where the vision-impaired can touch and feel stuffed animals, and arranges hunting for the disabled.

To Matthew Scully, author of the highly acclaimed book Dominion, such window dressing is humbug. "They practice a socially conscious sadism here," Scully writes. "Ethics at the Safari Club is ordered libertinism, like teaching cannibals to use a table napkin and not take the last portion."

Michael Satchell is a senior consultant for The HSUS.

What a complete ASS.

typical pansy liberal clap trap

Sign me up for the giant panda hunt

At least WE have the outer circle.

What this guy conveniently ignores (or doesn't even realize), anti-ranting aside, is that with or without trophy hunting, wild animals have to die. He needs to take a trip with me to certain areas I know and take a look at the environment damage brought about by various overpopulated species, and how that damage adversely affects other species. Too many elephants = too little browse and the collapse of other browser populations. Too may baboons = no ground nesting birds. The concept of sustainable utilization has to be so obvious to anyone with even an iota of sense, that the fact that a debate exists seems absurd. Are people really this misinformed? What a tragedy for wildlife the world over. Thank God SCI exists. Someone needs to explain to this guy what SCI has done for wildlife populations in the world since its inception. I cannot do that, much as I would like to. Is there anyone out there qualified enough to take on this guy? Would it even be worth it?

Let's drop this blow monkey in the middle of Zambia and let him pet his way out. As if he doesn't have an agenda. As usual, blame it all on the President and the Republicans. Now where's my Crocodile Go-Go boots?

Lots of words, not a lot of facts. Last I checked there were a lot more Rhino's around then 100 years ago, in fact there are a lot more of everything around then 100 years ago. Why is there more land available for wild animals?

And what about CITES? Just try and get around it... boom straight to jail.

This is just a bunch of drivel.

The HSUS and Wayne Pacelle are at the tip of the spear so to speak of the anti-hunting, animal rights groups. What this article tells me is that they are concerned that groups like SCI are having an impact and are in fact getting the ear of governments and others with "the facts" and their shrill rhetoric may not be as effective as it once was. Although it is easy to see the warped logic and lack of facts in a piece like this, don't take it lightly. These people are as fanatical about their position as the most extreme terrorists in the world and will stop at nothing and do and say virtually anything they believe advances their agenda. Equating hunting with pornography is an example of tactics of demonization that these folks practice daily. We as sportsmen and hunters cannot simply dismiss these types of attacks, but must counter them with facts and logic at every opportunity and in every available venue.

gee an prof from commiefornia - what a shock

Talk about biased drivel. What was the article written for, a fund raising letter for the HSUS. As someone who has done battle with Wayne and the HSUS in their backyard here in Maryland, never under estimate the allure of the propoganda. There are a lot of clueless take an article like that and consider it gospel.

With that said, they have been taken some hits the last years with the organized efforts of SCI, US Sportsmens Alliance, Congressional Sportsmens Fonndation, NRA, and associated state organizations.

You know you are doing something when the opposition starts calling you our in public.

Record books are proof that throphy quality did not deteriorated over the years.

Trophy hunting is about hunting old mature male animals, which is passed breeding age. Taking them out have no effect on wildlife. If wildlife had no value, the whole of Africa and other regions would have been farms. Very few crop and cattle farmers will tolerate herbivores on their land, they are shot at sight. Without herbivores there will be no predators.

Fact is if it were not for hunters, that are willing to pay big $ to hunt, conservation would not exist. Eco tourism do more damage to the wildlife than a 100 hunters.

Will we ever be able to get sense in this guy, forget it, he got a pre programed FU brain.

We must make sure that we educate our children and there friends about our hunting heritage. After all hunting is the oldest sport in the world.

I still wonder how the bunny huggers will teach predators to become herbivores.

Words of wisdom EB. Excellent message. And yes, we should all take it very seriously. That's exactly why I joined SCI and am changing my NRA life membership to Endowment. Personally, I didn't join these organizations to promote my personal agenda or to give myself a ticket to hunt anything. I believe in our Constitution (and we are blessed to have one), the 2nd Amendment and the right and privilege to hunt. I also respect those who choose to hunt with a camera, but I do not try to ram my views down their throat by spreading any and every lie I can conceive. It's all about money. HSUS is no different. How many of their top officials work for free? How many millions of dollars world wide support their agenda? Instead of spending it on law suits and illegal terrorism, why not put it directly into wildlife conservation. Money and power: Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I once had a "lady" chastise me for exhibiting a Leopard I had mounted at an outdoor show. She went on and on about how evil hunting was. Finally she asked me: "Am I making you mad?" I replied, "No, your making me laugh." She had absolutely no clue about wildlife, especially the life cycle of Leopards, their habitat or status in their homeland. LDK

Right on the money Jaco, EB and L. David Keith.

quote:

On today's safari, however, the customer is coddled in luxury tent camps, replete with flush toilets, hot showers and gourmet dining. All he (or she) has to do is shell out tens of thousands of dollars, pull the trigger when instructed, and pose for the money shot. He doesn't even get blood on his hands. A professional guide stalks the target, lines up the shot, tells the client when to take it, acts as a backup shooter if the animal is wounded, and supervises the gutting, skinning and decapitation.

Any comments about this quote?

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

On today's safari, however, the customer is coddled in luxury tent camps, replete with flush toilets, hot showers and gourmet dining. All he (or she) has to do is shell out tens of thousands of dollars, pull the trigger when instructed, and pose for the money shot. He doesn't even get blood on his hands. A professional guide stalks the target, lines up the shot, tells the client when to take it, acts as a backup shooter if the animal is wounded, and supervises the gutting, skinning and decapitation.

Any comments about this quote?

He forgot to mention shooting from the truck.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

On today's safari, however, the customer is coddled in luxury tent camps, replete with flush toilets, hot showers and gourmet dining. All he (or she) has to do is shell out tens of thousands of dollars, pull the trigger when instructed, and pose for the money shot. He doesn't even get blood on his hands. A professional guide stalks the target, lines up the shot, tells the client when to take it, acts as a backup shooter if the animal is wounded, and supervises the gutting, skinning and decapitation.

Any comments about this quote?

He forgot to mention shooting from the truck.

I find it sad that the days of being able to do "solo" safaris are almost totally gone.

Using an outfitter sure makes it easier, and is great for the first, or first few safaris, but there is no longer or next to no choice for doing it oneself.

Zimbabwe hunt auctions have become ridiculously expensive for someone not doing a Zim$ forex fiddle, and Cameroon fro example, the ability to speak French is probably a necessity.

I have acquaintances whom used to buy at the auctions and about the only safaris they did were more or less self guided. But I think it is history for them as well.

quote:

Michael Satchell is a senior consultant for The HSUS.

I saw the above and stopped reading.

All these orgenizations are run by complete hypocrites!

The same thinking that calls for killing polar bear cubs because it's not natural:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/wor...dule&icc=picbox&ct=5

All these animalrights dummies remind of the peace protestors in the late 60's and early 70's in that if you don't subscribe to their point of view, they'll make you come around to their way of thinking by yelling at you and getting in your face. Didn't work for me, closer they got, the better hold I had on 'em with a Kubotan.

For lies to have power they must contain significant elements of truth. Critical self-examination makes us stronger in our convictions. The guy who wrote this is a very good liar.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
I find it sad that the days of being able to do "solo" safaris are almost totally gone.

Using an outfitter sure makes it easier, and is great for the first, or first few safaris, but there is no longer or next to no choice for doing it oneself.

Zimbabwe hunt auctions have become ridiculously expensive for someone not doing a Zim$ forex fiddle, and Cameroon fro example, the ability to speak French is probably a necessity.

I have acquaintances whom used to buy at the auctions and about the only safaris they did were more or less self guided. But I think it is history for them as well.

As recently as 10 years ago you could buy animals and concessions in Zim for hunting by yourself.

In the 80's Zambia was a place where an individual could go and hunt by himself if he could get hold of a vehicle. You could camp out by yourself or get a few helpers and live it up a bit.

Modern African Hunters are spoiled and miss so much of what Africa is about. The camps and other accesories have ruined what used to be a grand experiance.

Hunters who can go to Alaska by themseves for Moose and Caribou are seemingly afraid to take a piss in Africa without 2 PHs, a Game Scout, Tracker and Skinner to hold their shriveld up pee pee.

Watching some of the DVDs that come through here makes it look like you need 10 armed men, shooting sticks, a 10 power scope, a videographer, two 'Crusers and a shot of teststerone every morning to just go into the Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

Watching some of the DVDs that come through here makes it look like you need 10 armed men, shooting sticks, a 10 power scope, a videographer, two 'Crusers and a shot of teststerone every morning to just go into the Bush.

And a professional photographer to capture the bedspread, tire tread pattern, and other crucial safari details of which fond memories are made.

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:
...it look like you need 10 armed men, shooting sticks, a 10 power scope, a videographer, two 'Crusers and a shot of teststerone every morning to just go into the Bush.

Are those things part of the daily rate or is there an additional expense for all that? I mean, could you save some money if you had only 5 armed men, a mono-stick, a 5x scope, a videographer who still used 8mm and only needed 1 cruiser?

In all seriousness I get, and agree with, what you are saying...

Brian

This is a classic attack piece, full of moral outrage, but with no more than a couple of threads of truth in the whole thing. The remainder is made up of arguments from false premises, exaggerations and outright lies.

But as Bill/Oregon has said, the danger of this kind of thing is that this guy is a good liar and a polished propagandist.

There is just barely enough of the truth in this piece to make the remaining fabric of lies convincing to the uninformed.

I would like to know where this tripe was published. Even if it showed up only in the HSUS newsletter, we hunters cannot and should not allow it to go unchallenged.

"My mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts!" This guy certainly has no room for facts in his arguments. Someone already called him a liar but I don't believe that. I think he really believes this crap. This is a typical "I know everything and everyone needs to do as I say" left wing attitude. No mention of the money generated by hunting and fishing that go back into conservation. No mention of real numbers as far as species preservation and habitat protection goes. It is all sprinkled wi9th enough half truths to get your attention. Yes hunting in Africa particularly has become luxurious in many cases. Yes almost no one can hunt on their own without a PH these days. No mention though that the law requires a professional hunter in most situations. That is a benefit to the local economy not me. I would much rather do it myself if allowed. That is why I like hunting in Alaska so much Are there some egotistical ass's in SCI? Yes there are like any organization. However the majority of the people I have met are great and would be welcome in my camp anytime. I wonder how much this guy spends and if any at all really gets to conservation in the end each year. I also take issue with his idea that working hard and making a good living is somehow wrong. I grew up with little and after serving in the military to get my VA benefits put myself through college and graduate school. Almost 30 years later I am still paying off loans. I wonder what he makes a year spouting all this crap? People like this really piss me off! It fosters that sense of entitlement that is a big problem with the world today IMHO. As long as I am on a roll let us talk about the record book. I have not met one person that really gives a damn about it. Many of us have entered animals in either the international or the local versions. Why? It is because it generates money for the organization. Money that is well used for conservation. I must admit though that it also serves a political purpose as well. The book is nice as a reference of sizes etc but just to see my name in print? Who cares! I apologize for my ranting but this one really angered me. I guess it is because there are many who do not know the truth and will believe this crap.

Typical liberal media - "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good Anti-Hunting Story"