Any thread that includes SCI ends up with one group bashing SCI and another group defending them.

I am a yearly member, go to the convention, have been to Lobby Day twice. I also know SCI is an imperfect organization, however realize they do a lot of good work.

If you could change one thing about SCI, what would you change and why?

I would like to see a much better effort informing members of current legislation at the Federal and State levels.

A weekly email with updates on pending legislation with direct links to your Congressman or Senator with a pre-written letter concerning the bill would be great.

Since SCI purports itself to be international maybe it could even include information for our non-US members.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
I would like to see a much better effort informing members of current legislation at the Federal and State levels.

A weekly email with updates on pending legislation with direct links to your Congressman or Senator with a pre-written letter concerning the bill would be great.

Since SCI purports itself to be international maybe it could even include information for our non-US members.

This would be a major step in the right direction. Help in organizing "grass roots" efforts ala NRA with updated legislation news, the Congressional links, and form letters.

I'm in agreement with you Mike. It's an imperfect organization made up of imperfect people. It will only get better through participation by people with the mindset to make it better. Sitting on the sidelines and bitching does nothing to steer the ship.

As a Member Based organization, they should not simply do better at "informing members" IMO, but soliciting input and prioritizing distributions of member funds based on collaborative and transparent process.
We all get the Sponsor emails and advertising but when did anyone ever get a consistent message about topics like:
1) Financials: revenue in and from where ie Convention, new members/annual membership, private donations
2) Distributions: what are the priorities? How much going to Litigation, habitat or poaching protection.
3) specific publicity and education programs to combat Anti Hunting campaigns and misinformation campaigns
4) Youth recruitment and education for future generations of Hunters
5) input from constituency on threats and opportunities perhaps in two categories...Professionals (outfitters etc) and Recreational (hunters and consumers..also the people paying the majority of revenue and funds)
6) surveys? They are free and they are easy.... Why not put them out quarterly?
7) industry's data.... Publicize important data and specifics on the value hunters and fisherman contribute bot directly and indirectly world wide.... Sponsor and publish studies and reports for the good of the whole

There are literally ENDLESS PROACTIVE things that can be done with effort and vision...if the current leadership cannot display this and demonstrate to the constituency, then they clearly need a change in leadership.

They need a full time, competent and successful, empowered executive director that is accountable to the board but able to largely operate autonomously from the board (think of the NRA model with Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox). So long as the organization is subject to the whims of each incoming non-executive president that serves a one year term it will never be an organization able to accomplish much.

There has been an endless line of suggestions on how SCI can be improved.

It won't happen without a complete attitude change.

The fiasco last year when they tried to get into competition with those who have been supporting them for years proves how far out of touch they are.

quote:

The fiasco last year when they tried to get into competition with those who have been supporting them for years proves how far out of touch they are.

Saeed can you explain a little more in detail? I would really like to see more involvement engaging the members. Maybe have a pre-written form letter and I just need to enter my name and email address and it's sent for me. Similar to how NRA does their member alerts.

I'd also like to see where the money is going. I don't have to see individual staff salaries but I would like to see $X went to ABC project in Texas, Maine, etc.

Work as close as possible with NRA and adopt their Modus Operandi
MJines said it exactly right

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

The fiasco last year when they tried to get into competition with those who have been supporting them for years proves how far out of touch they are.

Saeed can you explain a little more in detail? I would really like to see more involvement engaging the members. Maybe have a pre-written form letter and I just need to enter my name and email address and it's sent for me. Similar to how NRA does their member alerts.

I'd also like to see where the money is going. I don't have to see individual staff salaries but I would like to see $X went to ABC project in Texas, Maine, etc.

Last year, they set up their own outfitting company - to compete with every single outfitter.

The same outfitters and exhibitors who are blackmailed into "donating" hunts and money just to be able to be at the show.

Do a search here, there has been plenty of that posted here.

Every time they have a new man at the top, we hear the same stories.

That "changes" are coming.

They never do.

The same just keeps coming from that stink hole called "SCI HEADQUARTERS".

From what I have understood so far, SCI can improve by

1. Getting rid of the National structure as it stands - make a new democratic structure that represents all members
2. Have open elections for National with Chapter and National members voting
3. Transparency of funds raised and used
4. Get rid of the Inner Circle
5. Get rid of Weatherby award
6. Use the money from these wards for actual conservation work on the ground - like Andrew Baldry's area or similar - around the world

Two things in my mind would really help-

As Mike said, a more membership based leadership structure as the NRA does- membership voting for a board of directors or what not, with a executive that runs things with a longer term contract.

More transparency to the membership with what they are doing with funds.

And, OK a third... a more transparent system for the "ethics committee." I would name complainant, defendant, what the complaint is, and findings in the official organs. Only things that wouldn't be listed would be something that was dismissed for cause or the equivalent (and that should get the complainant booted...)

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
From what I have understood so far, SCI can improve by

1. Getting rid of the National structure as it stands - make a new democratic structure that represents all members
2. Have open elections for National with Chapter and National members voting
3. Transparency of funds raised and used
4. Get rid of the Inner Circle
5. Get rid of Weatherby award
6. Use the money from these wards for actual conservation work on the ground - like Andrew Baldry's area or similar - around the world

are you even a member? Or have ever been? You write so much nonsense.

For starters what does the weatherby award have to do with SCI?

Matt,

That darn Dallas Safari Club will have to quit hosting/working with the dastardly Weatherby Foundation and distance their selves from the award.

Hate to say it, but I think these calls for democracy, more representative governance, greater member participation in how things are run, etc. are the problem not the solution. As I am able to glean, SCI's problem now is that it has too many chiefs. Too many directors and the like that want to have a voice in running the organization and setting the organization's priorities. When you have too many hands in the pie, nothing gets done. There are too many conflicting priorities, hidden agendas and the like so that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. It leaves the organization with an uninspiring and tepid agenda that is poorly executed.

What they need is a strong hand on the tiller. Someone who is empowered to set a course with input from the board and steer that course without having to stroke a bunch of well-heeled board member egos. Someone who can take bold actions without worrying that his knees are going to be taken out from under him. So long as the organization is one being run by committee change will be difficult to effect and it will be slow and extremely incremental. There is a good reason that successful businesses are not run in this manner . . . they would never be successful.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
... So long as the organization is one being run by committee change will be difficult to effect and it will be slow and extremely incremental. There is a good reason that successful businesses are not run in this manner . . . they would never be successful.

Right on, Mike!

Bill Quimby

I am a member of SCI & have been for several years now. I am definitely not a basher nor a cheerleader, just someone waiting for them to get their act together.
Right now, IMHO, it is a mostly a "HEY LOOK AT ME" bunch.
I believe it could be something extraordinary under the right leadership.

The contrast between how SCI and the NRA are organized and managed could not be starker. When you think of the NRA leadership, you immediately think of their full time staff like LaPierre and Cox. They clearly run the show and are the face of the organization. When you think of SCI leadership, you immediately think, who in the hell is in charge. Go to the SCI website and click About, then click Officers and Directors. You get a list of folks that are all unpaid, at best part-time club members. Anyone heard of Phil DeLone? Anyone think DeLone is LaPierre? Hell, he is not even listed as part of the leadership team on the website. The organization is organized and operated in a manner completely different from the NRA and DSC. It is no surprise given their organizational structure that they are ineffective. Until they address this fundamental organizational issue, dealing with the other issues noted on this thread is little more than eyewash.

I would change the self adulation that seeps through the very pores of the "club" . The entire business of selling and promoting "participation trophies" to themselves and encouraging the shooting of animals in non-natural environments needs to stop.
I would suggest they adopt the Boome and Crockett model or the Rowland and Ward model.

When folks say that SCI has done and/or is doing good things for the international hunting community, I would like for them to list all their achievements.

From personal experience working with several African NGOs and government bodies responsible for maintaining hunting rights no where does the name "SCI" come into the discussion. If they are doing useful things in Africa, it sure seems to be a secret.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
When folks say that SCI has done and/or is doing good things for the international hunting community, I would like for them to list all their achievements.

From personal experience working with several African NGOs and government bodies responsible for maintaining hunting rights no where does the name "SCI" come into the discussion. If they are doing useful things in Africa, it sure seems to be a secret.

I have been asking this for years.

No answers have ever come out.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
When folks say that SCI has done and/or is doing good things for the international hunting community, I would like for them to list all their achievements.

From personal experience working with several African NGOs and government bodies responsible for maintaining hunting rights no where does the name "SCI" come into the discussion. If they are doing useful things in Africa, it sure seems to be a secret.

I have been asking this for years.

No answers have ever come out.

Saeed, you've been given example after example but it makes no difference as that would get in the way of your agenda.

Just another stinking AR topic that's been beaten into a pulp.

Here is a link to one of SCI's latest successful efforts on behalf hunters:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...561039012#9561039012

SCI is NOT primarily a "project based" organization but rather a "litigation" or "lobby" based organization, attempting to affect legal issues confronting international hunters ... not so much drilling bore holes and pumping water for elephants and other "on the ground" projects of that nature. Some they win, others they don't.

That said, much improvement to the organization is needed, as some have detailed on this thread. What I find humorous however is the comments that "SCI needs to do this or that" when in reality, SCI isn't a nebulous entity, but an organization made up of real people. Real substantive change will only be realized when those very people who are suggesting change participate and get themselves into positions of power within the organization and MAKE THOSE CHANGES! Hopefully, the new president will be of that ilk.

BTW Saeed, any comments regarding the Emirates Airlines trophy carriage embargo? You're awfully quick to cast stones at SCI. Evidently, many here believe you to have some considerable influence with Emirates but we haven't heard a word from you, despite numerous threads making inquiry?

Please refresh my memory of WHAT SCI has done for us in Africa??

All we hear is lip service, but no results.

So go ahead and list what they had done so far.

I actually tried to do a google on this very subject, and got very little of what SCI has spent on African conservation.

Todd, I work on the other end when it comes to government issues involving hunting, anti poaching, tourism, and international investment. I can tell you that in the past three years working in three countries with many government and NGO's that SCI's name has never been a part of any discussion and their $$$ has ever been even mentioned when it comes to conservation/hunting investment as it sure never appears on any reports.

I've never even met an SCI representative in Africa before. I am not saying that SCI does not have offices and representatives in RSA, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and/or Tanzania, it's just I have never encountered one anywhere.

So if SCI is doing amazing work in Africa on any governmental level, I would love to see it.

Personally all SCI needs to do is change their mission statement to something like this - "We take your dues to make you feel better about game conservation." But to claim that they are the leader or even a player in international game conservation and hunting rights is disingenuous at best. They may pick a fight here and there, but that's all I have ever seen.

Opus:

Read what Todd just wrote.

Saeed,

Just proved my point again. I did list the latest achievement by SCI. No comment however on that one, eh? That's why I say it's a issue with you.


BTW, any comments on Emirates?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Opus:

Read what Todd just wrote.

It's a lost cause with these guys Larry. They ask for examples, you give them one, and they don't even read it!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
When folks say that SCI has done and/or is doing good things for the international hunting community, I would like for them to list all their achievements.

From personal experience working with several African NGOs and government bodies responsible for maintaining hunting rights no where does the name "SCI" come into the discussion. If they are doing useful things in Africa, it sure seems to be a secret.

I have been asking this for years.

No answers have ever come out.

Saeed, you've been given example after example but it makes no difference as that would get in the way of your agenda.

Just another stinking AR topic that's been beaten into a pulp.

Here is a link to one of SCI's latest successful efforts on behalf hunters:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...561039012#9561039012

SCI is NOT primarily a "project based" organization but rather a "litigation" or "lobby" based organization, attempting to affect legal issues confronting international hunters ... not so much drilling bore holes and pumping water for elephants and other "on the ground" projects of that nature. Some they win, others they don't.

That said, much improvement to the organization is needed, as some have detailed on this thread. What I find humorous however is the comments that "SCI needs to do this or that" when in reality, SCI isn't a nebulous entity, but an organization made up of real people. Real substantive change will only be realized when those very people who are suggesting change participate and get themselves into positions of power within the organization and MAKE THOSE CHANGES! Hopefully, the new president will be of that ilk.

BTW Saeed, any comments regarding the Emirates Airlines trophy carriage embargo? You're awfully quick to cast stones at SCI. Evidently, many here believe you to have some considerable influence with Emirates but we haven't heard a word from you, despite numerous threads making inquiry?

Last time there was a problem with lions SCI took an opposite view to the rest of those trying to defend lion hunting.

I have absolutely no relationship with Emirates Airline.

I use them as a passenger, just like the rest of you.

And for the past few years, I have been using sea freight to bring my trophies back - after having endless problems with other airlines.

SCI squeezes every penny from African outfitters and PHs, and pays back one fat ZERO!

So where is the money going??

And as you claim that SCI is lobbying on behalf of hunters, why are they not involved in over turning a number of airlines who have decided not to carry hunting trophies??

Normal lip service from the SCI cheerleaders, and no substance whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Opus:

Read what Todd just wrote.

Larry, if you are pointing to SCI's clarification of Delta's position on transporting hunting trophies as a "win" I would like to point out that Delta never said it was banning the transportation of hunting trophies to begin with.

That's sorta like a liberal's interpretation of "savings" as not overspending as much as you projected overspending.

Maybe I am missing something...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Opus:

Read what Todd just wrote.

Larry, if you are pointing to SCI's clarification of Delta's position on transporting hunting trophies as a "win" I would like to point out that Delta never said it was banning the transportation of hunting trophies to begin with.

That's sorta like a liberal's interpretation of "savings" as not overspending as much as you projected overspending.

Maybe I am missing something...

Yes, indeed you are missing something.

The following is part of what Todd wrote:

SCI is NOT primarily a "project based" organization but rather a "litigation" or "lobby" based organization, attempting to affect legal issues confronting international hunters ... not so much drilling bore holes and pumping water for elephants and other "on the ground" projects of that nature. Some they win, others they don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Opus:

Read what Todd just wrote.

Larry, if you are pointing to SCI clarification of Delta's position on transporting hunting trophies as a "win" I would like to point out that Delta never said it was banning the transportation of hunting trophies to begin with.

Maybe I am missing something...

Yep! Agreed!

None of the other airlines that recently banned trophy transportation had said they were banning it either ... until they did. SCI was instrumental in preventing Delta joining in on the band wagon, which would have been the easy and "trendy" thing to do.

See, that's the problem. It's loose / loose discussing SCI involvement most of the time here on AR. Firstly, AGAIN, SCI is lobby based, focusing on preserving hunter's RIGHTS to travel and hunt, not necessarily performing "on the ground" projects as some here expect. As I understand it, the U.S. provides the majority of international hunters traveling to Africa and booking safaris. Is this an accurate statement? If our RIGHT to travel and hunt Africa is infringed, such as by the recent ivory ban on importation from Zim and Tanz, that will have a negative impact on the conservation through hunting concept, will it not? Has the ivory ban already had a negative effect on same? Currently, SCI has failed to win that particular fight but it isn't over.

If all the airlines that service Africa and the U.S. decide against carrying trophy shipments, do you think that will have an effect on the conservation through hunting concept by discouraging hunters to go in the first place, knowing it will be ever more difficult to get their trophies home? Why do you think the antis are pushing the airlines to embargo trophy shipments in the first place. It's an incremental affront to our rights since they know they can't get a total ban on hunting overnight. So they take a bit here and a bit there. SCI is attempting to stand in the gap and prevent these erosions, more so than building pans and the like in the remote lands.

Can things be done better and more efficiently? Absolutely! But only if those willing and capable of getting involved on the national level do so instead of just beating a dead horse subject here on AR.

Then I am sure somewhere they have listed all the court cases and/or injunctions they have filed, won and lost. Along with their legal costs associated with all their litigation.

In regards to lobbying, sorry that's just a euphemism for lunch and dinner expense.

Seems to me that if SCI was interested in protecting hunting rights in Africa for instance, they would have one or more offices there with representatives working with the various NGO's and government ministers. After all, there are dozens of NGO's doing exactly that - a handful fighting for the protection of hunting rights and most fighting against it. Hate to tell you this, but the anti-hunting groups are infinitely better organized, represented and of course funded. And SCI as best I can tell is a no-show to the party.

But I will be happy to extend an invitation to the SCI representative in Namibia - I have a meeting with MET and WWF the last week of the month to discuss the coordination of anti-poaching efforts on four Conservancies (3.5 million acres +/-) in the Etosha area, would love to have SCI as part of that meeting along with a commitment to assist financially.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Then I am sure somewhere they have listed all the court cases and/or injunctions they have filed, won and lost. Along with their legal costs associated with all their litigation.

In regards to lobbying, sorry that's just a euphemism for lunch and dinner expense.

Seems to me that if SCI was interested in protecting hunting rights in Africa for instance, they would have one or more offices there with representatives working with the various NGO's and government ministers. After all, there are dozens of NGO's doing exactly that - a handful fighting for the protection of hunting rights and most fighting against it. Hate to tell you this, but the anti-hunter groups are infinitely better organized, represented and of course funded.

How many business deals and political agreements are made on the golf course? Lobbying is a HUGE part of how deals get done these days ... for better or worse, but it's the current power game being played.

Here is an example for you: Ever heard of HSUS (Humane Society of the United States)? Think they run animal shelters and the like? Or do they just lobby the governmental powers that be to impose restrictions against hunters, ranchers, zoos, and any other parties to animal activities? Have they been effective lately, or have they just had a bunch of expensive lunches and dinners? lol

Todd, who exactly is SCI wining and dining and have you ever seen the tab for all the wining and dining???

Methinks you're kidding yourself...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Then I am sure somewhere they have listed all the court cases and/or injunctions they have filed, won and lost. Along with their legal costs associated with all their litigation.

In regards to lobbying, sorry that's just a euphemism for lunch and dinner expense.

Seems to me that if SCI was interested in protecting hunting rights in Africa for instance, they would have one or more offices there with representatives working with the various NGO's and government ministers. After all, there are dozens of NGO's doing exactly that - a handful fighting for the protection of hunting rights and most fighting against it. Hate to tell you this, but the anti-hunting groups are infinitely better organized, represented and of course funded. And SCI as best I can tell is a no-show to the party.

But I will be happy to extend an invitation to the SCI representative in Namibia - I have a meeting with MET and WWF the last week of the month to discuss the coordination of anti-poaching efforts on four Conservancies (3.5 million acres +/-) in the Etosha area, would love to have SCI as part of that meeting along with a commitment to assist financially.

Wow. Is that what you think lobbying is? Perhaps you should dig a bit deeper into that matter.

I have done a fair amount of lobbying in my career, mostly on the state level . Some has been Federal. Exactly ZERO has taken place on a golf course or at dinner.

Without real lobbying , hunting as we know it is dead.

Great. How much money has SCI invested into lobbying and who exactly have they been leaning on?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
When folks say that SCI has done and/or is doing good things for the international hunting community, I would like for them to list all their achievements.

From personal experience working with several African NGOs and government bodies responsible for maintaining hunting rights no where does the name "SCI" come into the discussion. If they are doing useful things in Africa, it sure seems to be a secret.

I have been asking this for years.

No answers have ever come out.

Saeed, you've been given example after example but it makes no difference as that would get in the way of your agenda.

Just another stinking AR topic that's been beaten into a pulp.

Here is a link to one of SCI's latest successful efforts on behalf hunters:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...561039012#9561039012

SCI is NOT primarily a "project based" organization but rather a "litigation" or "lobby" based organization, attempting to affect legal issues confronting international hunters ... not so much drilling bore holes and pumping water for elephants and other "on the ground" projects of that nature. Some they win, others they don't.

That said, much improvement to the organization is needed, as some have detailed on this thread. What I find humorous however is the comments that "SCI needs to do this or that" when in reality, SCI isn't a nebulous entity, but an organization made up of real people. Real substantive change will only be realized when those very people who are suggesting change participate and get themselves into positions of power within the organization and MAKE THOSE CHANGES! Hopefully, the new president will be of that ilk.

BTW Saeed, any comments regarding the Emirates Airlines trophy carriage embargo? You're awfully quick to cast stones at SCI. Evidently, many here believe you to have some considerable influence with Emirates but we haven't heard a word from you, despite numerous threads making inquiry?

Last time there was a problem with lions SCI took an opposite view to the rest of those trying to defend lion hunting.

I have absolutely no relationship with Emirates Airline.

I use them as a passenger, just like the rest of you.

And for the past few years, I have been using sea freight to bring my trophies back - after having endless problems with other airlines.

SCI squeezes every penny from African outfitters and PHs, and pays back one fat ZERO!

So where is the money going??

And as you claim that SCI is lobbying on behalf of hunters, why are they not involved in over turning a number of airlines who have decided not to carry hunting trophies??



Normal lip service from the SCI cheerleaders, and no substance whatsoever.

Talk about lip service! You're a life member, obviously capable of being in a position of influence, but would rather bitch and complain than use that influence to make a positive change. Your strong objections to the organization however are not enough to make you resign from your life member position.

Regarding squeezing every penny from African outfitters and paying back one fat ZERO, are you by any chance referring to the conventions? Have you ever attended an SCI convention Saeed? If not, are you just going on second and third hand information? To the best of my knowledge, no one at SCI FORCES any PH or Outfitter to participate at any level. However, if they choose to do so, they pay the price of admittance to the largest audience of likely safari participants anywhere.

Question, if participation in the SCI convention returned a fat ZERO as you say, why do the outfitters pay the price to participate? Are you saying the participants are poor businessmen? One and all? Advertising has a price, whether it be a magazine ad, TV spot, or putting up a booth in a huge room full of motivated and capable safari goers!

But, what's new here? We've been down this road at least a couple of hundred times haven't we Saeed?



Thanks for finally clarifying on the Emirates issue however. Seems you aren't as important in that regard as many here assumed you were!

Carry on. I'm done with this

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Great. How much money has SCI invested into lobbying and who exactly have they been leaning on?

Do you really think that I have their records memorized in my head?

Have you ever heard of their Washington office? Have you ever been to Lobby Day?

By the way, how did you learn so much about US lobbying from Namibia?

My sincere hope for SCI is that it radically changes the path that it has been on and refocuses its efforts on game conservation and preserving access to hunting areas.

I would support that in a heartbeat.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:


None of the other airlines that recently banned trophy transportation had said they were banning it either ... until they did. SCI was instrumental in preventing Delta joining in on the band wagon, which would have been the easy and "trendy" thing to do.

What proof do you have that SCI was so involved with Delta's decision. Enquiring minds want to know.......

You do not want to know because in your limited view of the world nothing good could come from SCI. I know the guys involved. No doubt they helped.

What is completely comical is saying SCI did nothing because Delta never instituted a ban. Ever give any thought about being proactive. Had Delta placed a ban the same people would have criticized SCI for not being proactive.

Opus if you are serious about SCI involvement PM me your real name and contact. I am just a yearly regular yearly SCI member, but if you have a worthwhile project I will help any way I can through SCI. No idea if the conservancy you referenced is private or if SCI will fund efforts on private land but we can ask.