Anthony,

Incidentally, you accuse me of (in your words) "bashing agains SCI as a whole"

You might like to re-read my posts because I haven't done that. - In fact, I've repeatedly said we must be sure not to do that very thing.

The nature of the blog beast is in fact that some people fail to read and comprehend relatively simple statements and consequently then misunderstand etc.

Steve , please reread my post. I did not say I was on the ethics commity, I said i was on the board of directors.Again...the board of directors are the presidents of the chapters, the ethics commity is something entirely different. please read the post carefully Again. If there were other charges leavied against OOA we"the BOD" did not hear about them. If you know or have some pesrsonal facts that there were other charges at a different time brought to SCI then I as a BOD at the time did not hear them.

I think were you are confused is with the baord of directors...which makes all major decisions in SCI, and the ethics commity, that comprises of 12 to 15 people. As for complaints about OOA in violation of Zim law, we"the BOD " heard no such complained filed with SCI. And yes Steve your out of touch with the way SCI works, you can vote...join a chapter and get informed, SCI needs you and people like you on board.
As for members voteing on the BOD, AGAIN please carefully read the post again...maybe twice.
To become a voteing member you need to belong to a chapter... nothing else, for reasons stated. Does anyone else not get this. As for posting information from SCI web site I see not the need or have the inclination to kcik this horse.Take a deep breath and carefully READ what I Have posted. Once more the Board of Directors are regular members..chapter members.They are the presidents of the chapters and decide on every office held in SCI, from the President on national to the regional reps.
You as a chapter member decides on chapter presidents ;IE you vote counts.
I've done all I can to explain this, hope you understand.

If you are not Bashing SCI as a whole then I apologize. But I did not misunderstand your comments.. nor do I think anyone else here has either.

quote:

I think were you are confused is with the baord of directors...which makes all major decisions in SCI, and the ethics commity, that comprises of 12 to 15 people. As for complaints about OOA in violation of Zim law, we"the BOD " heard no such complained filed with SCI.

Actually I was speaking with someone today that is currently on the ethics committee and from what he said no complaints were filed. He wanted action taken against OOA but no one that had problem hunts with OOA would file a complaint due to fear of losing their trophies. He also told me that SCI is taking a big black eye over the issues with OOA and that is rightfully so.

quote:

Originally posted by maxart:
Steve , please reread my post. I did not say I was on the ethics commity, I said i was on the board of directors.Again...the board of directors are the presidents of the chapters, the ethics commity is something entirely different. please read the post carefully Again. If there were other charges leavied against OOA we"the BOD" did not hear about them. If you know or have some pesrsonal facts that there were other charges at a different time brought to SCI then I as a BOD at the time did not hear them.

I think were you are confused is with the baord of directors...which makes all major decisions in SCI, and the ethics commity, that comprises of 12 to 15 people. As for complaints about OOA in violation of Zim law, we"the BOD " heard no such complained filed with SCI. And yes Steve your out of touch with the way SCI works, you can vote...join a chapter and get informed, SCI needs you and people like you on board.
As for members voteing on the BOD, AGAIN please carefully read the post again...maybe twice.
To become a voteing member you need to belong to a chapter... nothing else, for reasons stated. Does anyone else not get this. As for posting information from SCI web site I see not the need or have the inclination to kcik this horse.Take a deep breath and carefully READ what I Have posted. Once more the Board of Directors are regular members..chapter members.They are the presidents of the chapters and decide on every office held in SCI, from the President on national to the regional reps.
You as a chapter member decides on chapter presidents ;IE you vote counts.
I've done all I can to explain this, hope you understand.

If you don't sit on the EC and the EC are sworn to silence then how is it you thought the OoA defence (for a better word) was dubious but the majority thought otherwise and rejected the complaint?

Also how about answering my question (that I've asked twice) about the other complaints?

However, if you are on the BoD, can you tell us if the ordinary members get to propose who goes on the BoD and do they get a direct vote on it? - Because guys here who are ordinary members say that doesn't happen. I aslo note your reluctance to post links to prove youe point about these election issues.

Bearing in mind the obvious reluctance of SCI management to comment publicly on this current issue or indeed anything to do with OoA or other controversial subjects over the years, I'm very surprised a member of the BoD should suddenly spring up and make personal posts.

I'd have thought if ever there was a time for official press releases from one spokesperson only, this would be it.

While I'm at it. As you do sit on the BoD and as you do feel confident enough to post on this subject at this delicate time, can you tell us if the BoD have discussed if many BoD have hunted with OoA (I understand several DoD members have) in the past and if resignations have been discussed/considered or not and if so, what was the outcome? Also, have you ever hunted with OoA and what were your experiences?

To say nothing of can you tell us if the BoD is/has considered if they're planning to take any further action on this issue.

Hmmm

OH MY FREAKING GOD Steve

You didn't go back and read it did you.

I'm done

quote:

Originally posted by David Culpepper:
Actually I was speaking with someone today that is currently on the ethics committee and from what he said no complaints were filed. He wanted action taken against OOA but no one that had problem hunts with OOA would file a complaint due to fear of losing their trophies. He also told me that SCI is taking a big black eye over the issues with OOA and that is rightfully so.

David,

Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn't ever been a single complaint to the ethics ctte about OoA?

Damn that's nearly as funny as SCI doing more for African hunting than any other organisation.

FWIW, I know people who complained and had no worries about their trophies because they went home before they shot any and others who complained about not getting their trophies.

quote:

Originally posted by maxart:
OH MY FREAKING GOD Steve

You didn't go back and read it did you.

I'm done

I didn't have to re-read it because I quoted you before you edited your comments...... but as you have yet again failed to answer any of my very pertinent questions, I'll just say goodbye and

quote:

Damn that's nearly as funny as SCI doing more for African hunting than any other organisation.

Steve,

Just out of curiosity, who do you think does more for African hunting? PHASA maybe?

So many times the SCI detractors on this site have asked for evidence of what SCI does for African hunting, and so many times other chaps have posted conclusive evidence of SCI's contribution to African hunting....All we have to do is dig up countless old SCI posts to prove this. Hell, even I have posted evidence of SCI funded bush education/conservation camps for children here in Zim - an ongoing program. Nothing major, but certainly a contribution to African hunting. Other chaps who are more in the know have posted many examples of what SCI does for African hunting, including figures. Why do some guys keep on hammering away at this when we have been there already? Not suggesting you do, of course - heaven forbid! But there are those who just won't ever let their anti-SCI rant rest, no matter how much positive evidence is posted. So why do those people care so much? Why don't they start their own hunting organization if they feel so strongly about how bad SCI is?

Nobody is trying to defend OOA's conduct or that of the bigwigs in SCI who sheltered/defended them. But the 'bash SCI in general because I have nothing better to do' bullshit has become more pathetic than the inner circle's 'mine is bigger than yours' bullshit.

maxart, thanks for the SCI info, very interesting.

Cheers David

Goodnight, I think this would be a good time to inspect my inner eyelids for cracks!

Dave,

I really don't want this to degenerate into a SCI bashing thread so won't go into how much they make from African hunting in comparison to how much they spend on it.

However, one who has done CONSIDERABLY MORE is John Jackson of Conservation Force. I doubt he gets even 1% of the appreciation he deserves.

For example, there will eventually come a time when US hunters can import Moz elephant & ethiopian leopard products and it'll all be thanks to JJ....... and I'll bet very few will even think to thank him for his efforts!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Dave,

I really don't want this to degenerate into a SCI bashing thread

That makes a change.

As for how much SCI gives to African hunting vs how much they make from it, there is no contest. Please consider how many African safaris are booked annually at the SCI convention. Think about how much money is generated for African hunting from the convention alone......Quick, wake up Saeed and tell him you are stumped for an answer!

I guess I'll stay up a bit longer.

Dave,

You're right. I'm usually more than happy to take the corporation to task but y'know this is about the poaching which (IMO) is even more damaging to the African hunting industry than SCI as a whole. Which is why I'd prefer to keep the focus on the issue at hand.

I'm always happy to chime in on a separate thread if you want to start one.

G'night for now.

quote:

Originally posted by maxart:
The way ethics of bylaws violations are handled in SCI...The EC investigates the "possible" ethics violation...because you are inocent untill proven guily in the US... brings their findings and recomendations to the Board of Directors which are the presidents of some 198 chapters,at one of the three annual meetings or by video confrence during those meetings if the chapter cannot send a representitive. All 198 hear the charges and the rebutle and then all 198 vote in a closed session. All mebers are sworn not to discuss what is talked about in the closed meeting, not even to other SCI members...for liable reasons...under the threat of violation of bilaws and subject to expultion. The commity makes the findings and decision known in the Safari Times news paper to all members.Chapters donnot police SCI or other members ,all they can do is file an ethics breach with the EC. An SCI member can and does vote on officers in SCI.you join a local chapter and get involved. You can vote these eliteist out!
Hope this helps straighten out some of the confution on how the EC really works

If the Ethics Commitee controls the incoming information and presents what it feels is pertinent to the BOD there is no way that the board can be sure of how many complaints were filed and what evidence was presented to the EC.

Who appoints and oversees the EC?
What is the composition of the EC?
In the EC are all the members able to see all the complaints and evidence?

Can't we digress a little? There are about 6 OOA poaching threads on the go as it is....

BTW, regarding the huge amount of loot SCI generates for African hunting and Africa in general at the convention, I know I am right, no need to start another thread. That show alone feeds the families of many people and pumps God knows how much money into African conservation.

Goodnight then, Dave

Frank,very valid and well thought questions. If the EC does not bring all the cards to the table, then the Board cannot act for sure. for that to happen though the whole commity would have to sit on information and man I can't hardley believe that would happen...I hope?
The Executive Commity oversees the ethics commity which is comprised of the elected officials of national;IE the president, vice president and so on.I donot and have not ever sat on the commities so I'm not sure what info they are privy to. The commity posotion are applied for by any chapter member. you can aply for a commity when those chairs become available and the existing chair looks at the aplicants and determins if they have some expeience or benefit to the commity. I have never tried to get on the Ethics commity because it primarily is comprised of lawers...Go figure.
I know were you are going with this and your 100% right. If the Ethics commity got complaints and did not bring it to the BOD then we could not act on those complaints. Did that happen...I hope not. But it could have with the existing leadership.
I donot currently sit on the BOD as one of the 198 preasidents of a chapter, as chapter president typicaly have a two year term.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by David Culpepper:
Actually I was speaking with someone today that is currently on the ethics committee and from what he said no complaints were filed. He wanted action taken against OOA but no one that had problem hunts with OOA would file a complaint due to fear of losing their trophies. He also told me that SCI is taking a big black eye over the issues with OOA and that is rightfully so.

David,

Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn't ever been a single complaint to the ethics ctte about OoA?

Damn that's nearly as funny as SCI doing more for African hunting than any other organisation.

FWIW, I know people who complained and had no worries about their trophies because they went home before they shot any and others who complained about not getting their trophies.

He could have been talking about complaints since he has been on the EC which he has only been on a relatively short time.

I would like to say as for my local chapter, which my friend is a past president, that OOA was only a donator and a repenstive to once about 10 years ago. A group of about 9 people went on the donated hunt and did have some issues with OOA which I was told about them not wanting to shoot a blesbok that was in an enclosure of about the size of an acre. Since then OOA was not allowed to donate or be present at my local chapter's banquet.

All can say what they want about SCI.

I am not even all that connected and I knew they (OoA) were bad news for a LOOOOONNNNGGG TIME.

Now...they are rhino poachers...fecal excrement!!!

And SCI was taking up for them.

quote:

Originally posted by maxart:
The way ethics of bylaws violations are handled in SCI...The EC investigates the "possible" ethics violation...because you are inocent untill proven guily in the US... brings their findings and recomendations to the Board of Directors which are the presidents of some 198 chapters,at one of the three annual meetings or by video confrence during those meetings if the chapter cannot send a representitive. All 198 hear the charges and the rebutle and then all 198 vote in a closed session. All mebers are sworn not to discuss what is talked about in the closed meeting, not even to other SCI members...for liable reasons...under the threat of violation of bilaws and subject to expultion. The commity makes the findings and decision known in the Safari Times news paper to all members.Chapters donnot police SCI or other members ,all they can do is file an ethics breach with the EC. An SCI member can and does vote on officers in SCI.you join a local chapter and get involved. You can vote these eliteist out!
Hope this helps straighten out some of the confution on how the EC really works

so national members like me have NO VOTE AND NO SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS!! well that certainly seems fair. i guess one man(or woman)- one vote is outdated. if the NRA, WITH MILLIONS OF MEMBERS, CAN HOLD NATIONAL OFFICER ELECTIONS, WHY CAN'T SCI, WITH THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS?

Knowing something and proving it as you would for a court of law are two entirely different things. Should they be? I dont think so but that dosnt change anything. No formal complaints equals no investigation. That dosnt mean it dosnt stink to high heaven. The problem and the solution is there is a due process that needs to be followed. My problem with SCI and their handling of OOA is apparent. With so much rumour, innuendo, and questionable events should it have taken formal complaints? I dont think so. The organization should have taken it upon themselves to do some due dilligence on the matter. Second, there is certainly an appearance of conflict of interest on the part of Mr Anderson. As such he should recuse himself from the situation. The ethics committee was gutted awhile back and has no real independent power IMO. Why the need for all the secrrecy? To protect from liable? Really? The resgt of the membership isnt reliable or smart enough to deal with the situation? If you make a statement based on your on judgment maybe. All we really want to know is what was the accusation and was it found to be accurate? We will make our own decisions thank you very much. This entire process needs to be made transparent for all the membership not just the few at the top. Oh, and the last time I checked the truth was an absolute defense against liable.

Last these people are poachers and need to be burned out like the vermin they are. That also includes anyone who knowingly facilitated,enabled, defended or in any other way helped them. IF THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO BURN DOWN THE HOUSE THEN SO BE IT!!

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Damn that's nearly as funny as SCI doing more for African hunting than any other organisation.

Steve,

Just out of curiosity, who do you think does more for African hunting? PHASA maybe?

So many times the SCI detractors on this site have asked for evidence of what SCI does for African hunting, and so many times other chaps have posted conclusive evidence of SCI's contribution to African hunting....All we have to do is dig up countless old SCI posts to prove this. Hell, even I have posted evidence of SCI funded bush education/conservation camps for children here in Zim - an ongoing program. Nothing major, but certainly a contribution to African hunting. Other chaps who are more in the know have posted many examples of what SCI does for African hunting, including figures. Why do some guys keep on hammering away at this when we have been there already? Not suggesting you do, of course - heaven forbid! But there are those who just won't ever let their anti-SCI rant rest, no matter how much positive evidence is posted. So why do those people care so much? Why don't they start their own hunting organization if they feel so strongly about how bad SCI is?

Nobody is trying to defend OOA's conduct or that of the bigwigs in SCI who sheltered/defended them. But the 'bash SCI in general because I have nothing better to do' bullshit has become more pathetic than the inner circle's 'mine is bigger than yours' bullshit.

maxart, thanks for the SCI info, very interesting.

Cheers David

Goodnight, I think this would be a good time to inspect my inner eyelids for cracks!

Well put and could not have said it better myself.

Anthony,

Welcome to the Forum, and thank you for this explanation.

Like Steve, I am still at odds of understanding how has the ethics committee has managed NOT to find fault with what Out of Africa has been doing?

Is there a link we can read about controversies the ethics committee has acted on?

It seems very hard to believe that Out of Africa has had so many complaints about it, while from your post I understand that there has only been one to the ethics committee.

May be all the other complaints have been stopped long before they got to the ethics committee?

If so, may be it is time someone at SCI could try to find out why this has happened?

quote:

Nothing major, but certainly a contribution to African hunting

David,

I have actually tried to total what SCI - from whatever source I can find - the amount SCI actually puts into Africa.

The most I could find was around $60k for a humber of years.

If you ctually know of any specific programs, I would appreciate it if you can give us the details here.

I honestly would like to know.

It just seems whatever SCI gives back to Africa is so small in comparison to what they get ouit of it themselves.

Jdollar, you do have the right to vote as a national member...a national chapter member. you have the Norther San Juaquin Valley Chapter just north of merced, which I am a member of.We'ed love to have you. Join the chapter and you can either take an office or make sure your president votes the way your chapter wants him too in your behalf at the bod meetings.I am a national member just like you and it would be great if SCI could send out enough information on all the candidates and all the issues to all members so they could make a reasonable and informed decision on how or who to vote for.
Mabey if SCI spent less money on all the "My trophy's are better than yor trophy's" awards and banquets they could do that
But I am confidend our president...Paul Roen, votes exactly the way we want him to or he's out.


Hey Mike, I agree 100%. You know how I feel about the way things are right now.It's not just Kevin, its the almost everyone that holds a position of power in SCI. The secret meetings an non transparency is sickening.they have driven almost everone decent out. But it will come around...Wait here it comes . hopefully this dispicable conection with the pigs on trial will shock SCI into getting things back on track and empty the halls of the "Good ol'e boy's club.
But we can't give up on SCI because of the current leadership,we take it back. When you get rats in your house you don't burn it down, you poison them and clean up the stinking carcases.
Anthony

Saeed,et al,

SCI cannot initiate any action without a member complaint. Anyone who is NOT a member has no standing to do so. Once the groen_ _ (can't spell their name) resigned they were like an ex-girlfriend. You simply do not matter to them any more as of that relationship ending point.

They have never said that they were a conservation fund raising organization.

They are basically a records keeping group and a mutual admiration society as I said before.

They are also NOT a non-profit organization, to the best of my knowledge.

Take two minutes, call them on the phone and ask them what it is that they exist for.

Rich

quote:

Take two minutes, call them on the phone and ask them what it is that they exist for.

...."To further the ethical practices and fellowship of those who hunt big game; to work for the conservation".......

Thanks Saeed, I sat on the BOD for just two years, and a couple more as proxy. In that time there was just the one coopritive complaint. meaning it was a group of peple that complained about the same event.
I have no idea if there were any after i was no longer on the board, and with the way things are run now I doubt you will ever find out.
There is no web link that would give you information on what complaints the EC gets,and I have never been on the Ethics commity so i'm not going to comment on how they do things. I can only speak to on how the BOD works, which makes the decisions on information the EC brings forward. Now I don't know if there were any more complaints brought to th EC, but none were brought to the BOD, the body of SCI. You can find all the decisions made against people or company's in every issue of the safari time newspaper or back issues.

Regards Anthony

Rich, SCI is a 501c4 npo.Which is a non profit. There is also, SCIF 501c3 which cannot lobby politicly,and SCIPAC which is the political teeth of SCI.
But they do generate quite abit of money

Anthony

Torching the place and people involveved would be very effective and cleansing. Poisoning becomes a different issue. It would need to be something poetic for the crime. Then of course someone would have to decide to be judge jury and executioner. Better have all the facts exactly right at that point. Something simple, slow, painfull, and without antidote. Something like the larvae from the south african bush beetle. Just remember this becomes an up close and personal act that once done cant be stopped. There is no unringing that bell. I dont like poisons because of the indiscriminate nature of them. Better the symbolic fire cleanssing the organization. All of this is hypothetical of course but is intended to make one ask just how far things need to change to set things right? I will leave those questions to the smarter minds out there. I am not afraid to damage the organizaation in some ways if it gets things right. What is needed most here is open, did I say open dialogue between the upper echelon of SCI and the rest of the membership. If there isnt I predict the anger levels of the membership will continue to rise to a point where the good ol boys will end up loosing control of it all.

Just think how good the organisation could become and how much good it could do if it can change it's direction and lose it's my dick is bigger than yours attitudes.

As long as no-one throws the baby out with the bath water SCI just could turn into a seriously good force for ethical hunting worldwide.

I reckon it'll need a few resignations (probably inevitable anyway) from the upper echelons for that to happen though.

SCI - like any mega organisation will have its short falls and bad apples , but let us not forget SCI does more for global hunting than any other organisation on the planet and one would be very niaeve not to know this - good bad or indifferent.
I , like most outfitters can bore you till the cows come home about lack of communication etc but bottom line - African big game would be in seriuos trouble if it was not for SCI.
The structures are there for you to make a difference - how many times do we serve on committees and hear members ask what does the club/organisation do for them, and it may be old news - but its what can you do for SCI to make it better that counts. Action speaks better than words.
And trust me here from Libby Grimes through the ranks they will tell you they have had their fair share of words from me - but in the bigger picture its a drop in the Ocean of Global Hunting issues.
SCI is our world platform on hunting issues - lets not bash down its pillars but build it up to be the wonderfull organization it can be.
When we fight amongst ourselves we are helping the anti hunters achieve their objectives - lets save our energy to fight them - take this energy to anti hunting forums such as Lion Aid and Lions for Africa , Alan Bunn and John Hunt are doing great work there.

I agree - SCI CAN be a major POSITIVE force in the hunting industry - IF they loose their egotistical inner circle, them and us attitude !
PHASA is having their annual get together and AGM in Johannesburg next month - there will be some high ranking SCI members attending our gathering. Listening to the talk that is doing the rounds - SCI is in for a torrid time from our members of how they have allowed the OoA fiasco to continue to sully our industry - especially when they were warned on numerous occasions by various African bodies of what is going on with regards to OoA - and in the light that OoA has been banned as a member of PHASA since 2006 !!!!

Here is an example of "how much is SCI contributing to Africa and African hunting"?

Thanks to the fact there is an SCI, with thousands of Members and the fact they produce the largest Sporting Show around, lots of help ($$) goes "directly" to Africa thanks to their generosity.

Case in point. I personally know of just over $60,000 USD that went directly to Africa and African hunting just last year. Me and two friends hunted Mozambique last year and due strictly to SCI and it's Convention, that provides the venue for African Outfitters and poetential African hunters, to get together, that is what was contributed to the cause.

Money was spent with two African airlines, two Lodges for three nights stay, daily rates helped the African outfitter and his staff of 20+ Africans, trophy fee money was split between the African outfitter and the African Government of Mozambique, miscellaneou $$ spent on food stuffs, African Art, etc.

All of the above was due to one simple fact, SCI. If not for the existence of SCI, their structure of Chapters, and the awesome Convention zero of these dollars would have been spent in AFRICA, PERIOD. We three are but a drop in the bucket when compared to the hundres of hunts booked and taken by SCI Members because SCI provides through their Convention the opportunity to do so. This fact alone provides several million dollars a year directly to Africa and strictly because of SCI I would imagine,

So Steve and Saaed in particular and others here as well, you simply have no grounds to complain that SCI does very little for Africa through their tremendous efforts. Please show me any other organization that comes to within even a fraction of this if you will. Not hearsay, not hype, just names and dollars contributed please.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Oh my good friend Mark, "egotisical inner circle" do you in the safari industry really understand and appreciate the millions - not hundereds or thousands - of dollars that inner circle has contributed to the hunting industry, not just the African hunting industry (Yes I know this is the African Big Game Hunting page). Why are so many people ready to jump all over these people as a group just because of a few bad apples. Man I personaly loved that there are rich people willing to spend the big bucks for what ever reason. I really don't care if a guy or gal jumps on a plane at a moments notice to hunt what ever.

God give this thing a rest!

I'll still see you in Dallas, maybe keep Thur dinner available like last year.

Larry,

I honestly would like to be able to agree with you but I simply can't see any logic in your argument.

As I see it, SCI don't do a bloody thing out of generosity. What they do do, is run a show that extorts money (that they can ill afford) out of the African hunting industry and makes SCI a shitload of money.

Believe me, Africa is easily strong enough to sell itself without the aid of the convention and in fact, did so for many years before SCI came along. - Hell, it even managed to develop a very healthy hunting industry before the internet came along.

I reckon Mark's comment just above yours is dead right. They could be so good if they get rid of the my dick is bigger than yours mentality and I'll add if they also abandoned the donation scheme that the vast majority of operators will tell you in private conversation they truly abhor.

The fact that so few say it in public is a good indication of how SCI has got so many of them running scared so they won't tell you the truth.

I'll make you a promise though. If SCI introduces true democracy in the election of their top levels, abandons the inner circle bollocks and drops the donation scheme, I'll (re) join....... if they'll have me!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Here is one ordinary member that shakari seems to not have much time for, Thank God!

Ain't that the truth!

But PLEASE don't interpret that as an invitation for you to send me one of your insane rambling PMs. They only get deleted anyway, so do both of us a favour and don't waste your time.....

Steve,

I hope I am still allowed to send you MY insane rambling PM's...Just sayin...

Jeff

Larry,

People like you and me are the ones supporting the African hunting industry.

In fact, what SCI does by forcing outfitters and PHs to "donate" hunts, and then sell them at the convention, actually makes it difficult for them to sell other hunts.

And who gets the money?

SCI.

And each time we ask what SCI has actually given back to Africa, we get the run around.

At a very conservative estimate, I would imagine I have spent several million dollars hunting Africa.

And SCI had absolutely nothing to do with.

Just imagine all the hunters who hunt Africa without going to the convention.

They are the ones supporting Africa.

I think SCI is has gotten themselves confused if they think there would be no one hunting Africa if it wasn't for their convention.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

I hope I am still allowed to send you MY insane rambling PM's...Just sayin...

Jeff

Jeff, your ones are always very welcome!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I think SCI is has gotten themselves confused if they think there would be no one hunting Africa if it wasn't for their convention.

Pretty Much sums up hundreds of posts correctly.

Thanks Steve...

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I think SCI is has gotten themselves confused if they think there would be no one hunting Africa if it wasn't for their convention.

Pretty Much sums up hundreds of posts correctly.

Thanks Steve...

Jeff

The problem is a lot of exhibitors have fallen for the same con trick.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saeed:
I think SCI is has gotten themselves confused if they think there would be no one hunting Africa if it wasn't for their convention.

Pretty Much sums up hundreds of posts correctly.

Thanks Steve...

Jeff

The problem is a lot of exhibitors have fallen for the same con trick. [/QUOT

Hello again Steve,

I know a number of self-made men who may be a bit peeved with that comment. In fact, they wouldn't be peeved, they'd laugh long and loud. Those men and others make up the foundation of the African hunting industry and have profited for many years by allowing SCI to 'con' them year after year at the convention....

Saeed, I don't think SCI are confused at all re the very important role they play for African hunting and hunting in general. To suggest they think people would stop hunting Africa if it weren't for them is ridiculous. Do you think they are children? Of course they know people would hunt with or without them, duh....They also know that nobody else has the ability to reach as many hunters as they do and bring so many together on an annual basis. To generate millions upon millions of dollars which directly or indirectly benefits hunting and conservation in dozens upon dozens of countries.....

I have no specifics on the education camps. All I know is that hundreds of Zimbabwean children are being educated annually as to the importance of hunting as a conservation tool and the value of wildlife. This is a continuous exercise carried out by the Zim hunters association in RIFA safari area and it is sponsored by SCI. Maybe Martin Pieters or someone with more knowledge can fill us in some more....I just came across one of these classes whilst passing through RIFA and know what I know from a conversation with the resident guide.

I concur with all who have said SCI has done a lot of good and could do much more. And I also agree that they need to get rid of the rotten apples.

Good day to you gentlemen, Dave