THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM HUNTING FORUMS

Merry Christmas to our Accurate Reloading Members

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  African Big Game Hunting    SCI financial, mission reports on internet

Moderators: Saeed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
SCI financial, mission reports on internet
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
Picture of billrquimby
posted
These three websites may answer a few of the questions some AR members have asked about Safari Club International and the Safari Club International Foundation.

http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt...ional.html#revenue_a

http://www.bbb.org/charity-rev...on-in-tucson-az-8628

http://www.scisouthafrica.org/

Much of the club's activities in Africa are buried in the last site so be sure to click on "mission & objectives" and remember that the stated mission of SCI's South African office is to "collaborate and liaise with SCIF on conservation project and activities in Africa."

To me, this means that SCIF finances additional projects in Africa that do not officially involve SCI.

Unfortunately, I could not find how much money SCI and SCIF spend in Africa annually, but it obviously is many times the $60,000 that has been quoted frequently on this forum.

I found it interesting that the club's convention ("special events") now represents only 45% of total revenues. Funds from dues, publications, awards programs and other sources now exceed the money the show brings in. That's a major change from when I retired as publications director nearly twelve years ago.

Also unlike what has been said on this forum in the past, SCI's and SCIF's administrative and fund-raising costs, including salaries, appear to be a lot lower than similar organizations.

Bill Quimby
 
Posts: 2633 | Location: tucson and greer arizona | Registered: 02 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Bill, put on your flack jacket!
 
Posts: 5338 | Location: Bedford, Pa. USA | Registered: 23 February 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
A lot of people do not understand that financial statements are prepared in compliance with authoritative standards established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Those are the rules of the land. Period end of story . If SCI prepared financials any other way they would not get what is known as a qualified opinion from their auditors. That is a really bad thing in this country. A REALLY bad thing.

It doesn't matter what A reader of the financials may want to see. The statements have to follow the standards .

Those bitching about the financials are simply not informed.
 
Posts: 12159 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: 26 January 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of shakari
posted Hide Post
Bill,

Thanks for posting that.

I see lots of interesting info there, including a donation or some kind of other aid to the Lion Breeders Association that gave me a bit of a smile. Wink ....... but I still don't see any actual (relevent) figures with regard to what they spend in Africa?

I appreciate there might be some there and I've just missed them so if anyone else can find them, I'd be grateful if they could direct me to them.

I have to say, it's good to see even that amount of info posted but would be interested to know if it's publication is new and in response to recent events or is older info that has suddenly come to light?






 
Posts: 12415 | Registered: 01 July 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of shakari
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by larryshores:
A lot of people do not understand that financial statements are prepared in compliance with authoritative standards established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Those are the rules of the land. Period end of story . If SCI prepared financials any other way they would not get what is known as a qualified opinion from their auditors. That is a really bad thing in this country. A REALLY bad thing.

It doesn't matter what A reader of the financials may want to see. The statements have to follow the standards .

Those bitching about the financials are simply not informed.


Larry,

I'm sure everyone understands that financial statements submitted to Government have to fit a certain criteria...... that much is bloody obvious but surely, there's nothing to prevent the corporation from publishing further, more informative/helpful figures for the further information of their members and the general public?

I know I've posted the link below several times before, but that organisation can publish full details of ALL their donations for almost three decades and surely, if they can do it, why can't other organisations such as SCI do the same thing?

http://www.grandcharity.org/da..._19822009_apr_10.pdf

It appears to me the general public aren't informed (as you say) but not in the way you mean. Wink






 
Posts: 12415 | Registered: 01 July 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of A7Dave
posted Hide Post
Probably unrelated to this post, but SCI is spending money to support the upstart "Tea Party" Republican candidate for US Senate in Alaska, Joe Miller. Why SCI should waste money to support this guy is beyond me.

Miller beat the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, in the primary due to a combination of anti-Washington sentiment, an off season primary, and inflammatory ballot initiatives. Murkowski is a solid NRA, pro hunting legislator. Miller is a blank slate who has never had a private sector job to speak of, but is receiving huge amounts of out of state campaign money.

Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate in the general election and will probably win. She lost to Miller by only 1500 votes in a thinly attended August primary.

SCI should concentrate on lobbying for legislation, and not support political candidates for office - it will come back to haunt them, and for me personally, it is one more reason that I don't support them. SCI, STAY OUT OF ALASKA POLITICS.


Dave
 
Posts: 928 | Location: AKexpat | Registered: 27 October 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Grumulkin
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by shakari:
I still don't see any actual (relevent) figures with regard to what they spend in Africa?


Why does it matter what they spend in Africa? I believe SCI's mission mainly relates to preserving hunting and firearms rights in the U.S.A. The thing that preserves hunting rights in Africa is mostly money from hunters and the activities of local African hunting organizations.
 
Posts: 2911 | Location: Ohio, U.S.A. | Registered: 31 March 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of shakari
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grumulkin:
Why does it matter what they spend in Africa? I believe SCI's mission mainly relates to preserving hunting and firearms rights in the U.S.A. The thing that preserves hunting rights in Africa is mostly money from hunters and the activities of local African hunting organizations.


I see your point but I was referring to the oft repeated claim that they do so very much for Africa and African hunting...... but let's return to the point you make for a moment.

If they do so much for (in your words) "preserving hunting and firearms rights in the U.S.A". Perhaps you can tell me why US hunters have been unable to import Mozambican elephant products for the last 3 decades or so, despite that country having perfectly valid CITES quota for the species?

Or perhaps you can tell me why USF&WS BOAST on their website that they've never allowed an Ethiopian leopard trophy to be imported into the USA? And again, Ethiopia has perfectly valid CITES quota for the species.

These issues are being addressed but by John Jackson of Conservation Force and when the time eventually comes when USF&WS eventually cave in, it'll him you guys have to thank rather than anyone else.

The more I find out about JJ & CF, the more astounded I am that he achieves so much with so little and for so little thanks........ I reckon you guys ought to thank your lucky stars he's around! tu2

ADDED

It's always the same thing with the debates on this subject.......They rumble on for yonks and then ALWAYS stall because of lack of figures and/or the subject of the upper echelons and ethics committee etc. Frowner






 
Posts: 12415 | Registered: 01 July 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of billrquimby
posted Hide Post
quote:
Probably unrelated to this post, but SCI is spending money to support the upstart "Tea Party" Republican candidate for US Senate in Alaska, Joe Miller. Why SCI should waste money to support this guy is beyond me.


Dave: Political contributions would not go through SCI or SCIF, but through the SCI Political Action Committee (SCIPAC). If I remember correctly, federal law requires it to raise its own funds through individual donations and not from the two other organizations.

quote:
I have to say, it's good to see even that amount of info posted but would be interested to know if it's publication is new and in response to recent events or is older info that has suddenly come to light?


Steve: It's not new and "recent events" had nothing to do with it. Websites get their information from forms SCI/SCIF are required to file. As for John Jackson, it is absolutely true that he accomplishes much with little and our world would be considerably worse off without him and what he does. That said, do not underestimate SCI's efforts and many successes in protecting hunters' rights or SCIF's conservation programs. It cannot be disputed that American hunters continue to have the ability to import their lion, elephant, leopard, white rhino and bontebok trophies from certain countries, for example, because of SCI. Much of that is due to the groundwork that John laid when he was SCI's president, to be sure.

Bill Quimby
 
Posts: 2633 | Location: tucson and greer arizona | Registered: 02 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of billrquimby
posted Hide Post
http://www.safariclubfoundatio...06/SCIF_2005_990.pdf

This is the IRS form 990 that SCIF filed in 2006, the latest I could find. It includes a list of grants and scholarships that it funded that year, but does not list individual programs or expenditures on other continents.

Bill Quimby
 
Posts: 2633 | Location: tucson and greer arizona | Registered: 02 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of billrquimby
posted Hide Post
.
 
Posts: 2633 | Location: tucson and greer arizona | Registered: 02 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Mike_Dettorre
posted Hide Post
Bill,

Actually FY2008 is available on their website.

When evaluating the financials one should really look at SCI and SCIF combined because the board of directors has about a 90% overlap and obout 30% of SCI"s revenues are donated to SCIF.

Here are some key figures in my opinion:

SCI’s FY 2008 financials from their website

http://www.scifirstforhunters.....09_SCI_FORM_990.pdf

SCI Foundation 2008 financials from their website

http://www.safariclubfoundatio...09_SCIF_FORM_990.pdf


SCI generated net donations and revenues of $14.05M

SCI donated $4.42M to the SCI Foundation

SCI Foundations had net donations and revenue of $5.32M in other words it generated an incremental $.9M

Therefore the combined revenues and donations were $14.95M

SCI Salary, Benefits, Pensions, and Payroll Taxes were $5.0M

SCI Foundation Salary, Benefits, Pensions, and Payroll Taxes were $1.8M

SCI Office Expenses (not including rent and IT) were $.95M

SCI Foundation Office Expenses (not including rent and IT) were $.4M

Combined Salary, Benefits, Pensions, and Payroll Taxes and Office Expenses were $8.15M or 55% of donations and revenues.


Mike

Legistine actu quod scripsi?

Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.




What I have learned on AR, since 2001:
1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken.
2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps.
3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges.
4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down.
5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine.
6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle.
7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions.
8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA.
9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not.
10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact.
11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores.
12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence.
13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances.
 
Posts: 10181 | Location: Loving retirement in Boise, ID | Registered: 16 December 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of BrettAKSCI
posted Hide Post
Hmmm.....interesting oppinions. Although this is probably best left for the PF I thought it needed some attention where ever it was.

quote:
Originally posted by A7Dave:
Probably unrelated to this post, but SCI is spending money to support the upstart "Tea Party" Republican candidate for US Senate in Alaska, Joe Miller. Why SCI should waste money to support this guy is beyond me.

Well I can understand your point that if Murkowski wins you would allienate yourself with her. As for supporting Joe I can see a lot of reasons why. He's a gun owner and dyed in the wool hunter....as is his family. He's an NRA and SCI poster boy....so actually it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Lisa is by no means anti gun or hunting, but Miller has a personal vested interest that she does not.

Miller beat the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, in the primary due to a combination of anti-Washington sentiment, an off season primary, and inflammatory ballot initiatives. Murkowski is a solid NRA, pro hunting legislator. Miller is a blank slate who has never had a private sector job to speak of, but is receiving huge amounts of out of state campaign money.

Everyone gets huge amounts of out of state money. That's the nature of our political world these days. As for him beating Lisa there are a few more reasons you left out. She was given here job through nepatism although she retained it as an incumbent. She also had a few votes that didn't sit well with some. As well this is my personal opinion and many agree she may disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but she isn't the kind to throw her body in front of the train. Miller is. IE the healthcare legislation. Yeah she was against it and voted against it, but I don't see her going out of her way to stop it now. Miller WILL!!! As to never working in the private sector I'm not sure where you get your info from he worked for a firm out of law school for several years and then after leaving his judgeships went back to his private firm where he is now. Being a state judge, federal judge, and decorated army officer from the Gulf War aren't private sector, but I wouldn't exactly count those as strikes against a person. Perhaps we see things differently.

Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate in the general election and will probably win. She lost to Miller by only 1500 votes in a thinly attended August primary.

She may very well win as it's a very tight election, but saying it's probable is speculative at best. Who really knows. As for Murkowski I don't envy her one bit. The polls are pretty much neck in neck, but the problem is when voters go to vote they don't get Murkowski, Miller, or McAdams which they do in the polls. They get Miller, McAdams, or Write In_____________. It's just not the same and I'm pretty darn sure that will translate into a few percentage points less than the polling indicates.

SCI should concentrate on lobbying for legislation, and not support political candidates for office - it will come back to haunt them, and for me personally, it is one more reason that I don't support them. SCI, STAY OUT OF ALASKA POLITICS.

How do you think you get political advocates? By supporting them! That's how it works. Guess what PETA, HSUS, and the Brady Campaign are doing the same damn thing. If SCI and the NRA stay out anti gun and hunting organizations will be only too happy to fill the void. I've lobbied before. Have you? When you go to their office they want to know a couple things. Are you a constituent? Do you support them and have you in the past? What do you want? What do you want them to do about it? That's how it is.

As a final note I voted for Lisa in the primary over Miller. I've met her and lobbied her in DC on a number of occasions. If she wins it won't be the end of the world. I'm sure she'll vote how I want her to 90% of the time and that's good, but she won't be a major force for change in the political tone of Washington. She isn't going to turn things upside down and quite frankly I think that's what HAS TO HAPPEN!!! What really stuck in my craw about her was the write in campaign. This wasn't about what's best for Alaska or America. This was about what's best for Lisa Murkowski. I say that because she took a tremendous chance that she would split the conservative vote and get McAdams (D) into office. There was NO WAY for her to know what would happen until she did it. She took that chance for her and not anyone else and quite frankly that pisses me off! I would have gladly supported her against Begich for the other senate seat, but not now. She'll never get my vote on anything again as long as there's another choice. As for Joe Miller I had the pleasure of meeting the man and speaking to him after the primary and was thuroughly impressed with his presence and positions on every issue he covered. Joe is the ONLY politican/political candidate I've ever spoke with that actually answers your questions in full. NONE of them do that and I've met a bunch of senators and reps! If you doubt me try to ask Begich for an answer to well........anything! Miller is a West Point grad, US Army office with a bronze star from the Gulf War, Yale Law School grad, State Judge, Federal Judge, Owner of his own law firm, family man, outdoorsman, ardent constitutionalist, and Christian. I'm not sure what's not to like. There's a lot of BS about his positions on issues, but they've been grossly distorted. Like he's against unemployment. Not true. He's agianst the federal government having anything to do with it and thinks the states should run it. Somehow that's been turned into Joe being against any social programs. The truth is he's for states running their own business not the federal government and privatizing when you can rather than purpetuating the federal teat. Another outright lie is that he's going to get rid of all federal funding to Alaska and drop many Alaskans on their faces. Not true at all. He realises that much like our nation's dependence on foriegn oil our state's dependence on federal funds puts it at terrible risk if something happens. His idea is to improve Alaska's economy, so we can ween off federal funds and be self regulating and sufficient. To me that's a good thing. Again...what's not to like?


Brett


DRSS
Life Member SCI
Life Member NRA
Life Member WSF

Rhyme of the Sheep Hunter
May fordings never be too deep, And alders not too thick; May rock slides never be too steep And ridges not too slick.
And may your bullets shoot as swell As Fred Bear's arrow's flew; And may your nose work just as well As Jack O'Connor's too.
May winds be never at your tail When stalking down the steep; May bears be never on your trail When packing out your sheep.
May the hundred pounds upon you Not make you break or trip; And may the plane in which you flew Await you at the strip.
-Seth Peterson
 
Posts: 4551 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 21 February 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of BrettAKSCI
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Combined Salary, Benefits, Pensions, and Payroll Taxes and Office Expenses were $8.15M or 55% of donations and revenues.


I think it goes without saying that the larger the % of money that goes into the group's stated purpose the better, but does anyone have any idea what's a good %? I personally have no idea what's good and I'd imagine most of the rest of us on here don't know either. That said I suppose I'd rather have 55% of 15mil spent on administrative costs rather than 10% of 1mil becuase they don't have enough support staff to raise 15mil. Just a thought.

Brett


DRSS
Life Member SCI
Life Member NRA
Life Member WSF

Rhyme of the Sheep Hunter
May fordings never be too deep, And alders not too thick; May rock slides never be too steep And ridges not too slick.
And may your bullets shoot as swell As Fred Bear's arrow's flew; And may your nose work just as well As Jack O'Connor's too.
May winds be never at your tail When stalking down the steep; May bears be never on your trail When packing out your sheep.
May the hundred pounds upon you Not make you break or trip; And may the plane in which you flew Await you at the strip.
-Seth Peterson
 
Posts: 4551 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 21 February 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Just an " FYI "

I did a little websurfing & found an interesting article:

http://academics.ajula.edu/Con...?CID=1138&u=2445&t=0
Student Theses > 2000- > 2002 > Allocating and Reporting Nonprofit Spending
Efficiency Versus Effectiveness
The previously reviewed data and research demonstrate that donors expect nonprofits to spend 85% of their resources on programming as well as the concept that nonprofit success involves nonprofit spending on organizational capacity and fundraising investment. Even if nonprofits perform as desired by the donating public and spend 85% of their resources on programming, does that mean that their programs are effective? Is the 85% spending successful in carrying out and accomplishing the intended mission of the organization? Effectiveness is also essential when evaluating nonprofit success. "

PAPI
popcorn
 
Posts: 432 | Location: California | Registered: 01 August 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Mike_Dettorre
posted Hide Post
Brett,

You bring up an important point about "stated purpose" in the non profit world the stated purpose of a non profit is referred to as Program Services.

We have to look at both the type of expenditures and how they are categorized as Program Services, General Management, or Funding Raising Expenses.

As an example, let us say that I am the Director of a non profit entity and the stated purpose is hunter education. Let us say that I get paid an outrageous salary $200k a year for 20 hours a week of work. If I spend 90% of my 20 hours a week on hunter education the non profit will categorize $180k of my salary as being Program Services; i.e., directly related to the mission statement. So that looks pretty good, 90% spent on the mission statement but that doesn't alleviate the fact that my salary was $200k a year for 20 hours work a week.

The other issue that determines whether the numbers are "good or bad" is how an organization markets itself and then what the actual numbers tell us.

If an organization told me they were all about promoting the game of baseball, teaching the game of baseball, protecting the game of baseball for the future, recording the history of baseball, and they love to get together and go to baseball games. I might not care that 55% was spent on salaries and office expense.

However, if the same organization kept telling me over and over how much they are doing to make sure that under privileged kids will get to continue to play baseball and how they are always building baseball diamonds for kids and I found out they spent 55% on salaries and office expense, I would be disappointed.


Mike

Legistine actu quod scripsi?

Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.




What I have learned on AR, since 2001:
1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken.
2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps.
3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges.
4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down.
5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine.
6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle.
7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions.
8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA.
9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not.
10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact.
11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores.
12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence.
13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances.
 
Posts: 10181 | Location: Loving retirement in Boise, ID | Registered: 16 December 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Hmmm.....interesting oppinions. Although this is probably best left for the PF I thought it needed some attention where ever it was.

quote:
Originally posted by A7Dave:
Probably unrelated to this post, but SCI is spending money to support the upstart "Tea Party" Republican candidate for US Senate in Alaska, Joe Miller. Why SCI should waste money to support this guy is beyond me.

Well I can understand your point that if Murkowski wins you would allienate yourself with her. As for supporting Joe I can see a lot of reasons why. He's a gun owner and dyed in the wool hunter....as is his family. He's an NRA and SCI poster boy....so actually it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Lisa is by no means anti gun or hunting, but Miller has a personal vested interest that she does not.

Miller beat the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, in the primary due to a combination of anti-Washington sentiment, an off season primary, and inflammatory ballot initiatives. Murkowski is a solid NRA, pro hunting legislator. Miller is a blank slate who has never had a private sector job to speak of, but is receiving huge amounts of out of state campaign money.

Everyone gets huge amounts of out of state money. That's the nature of our political world these days. As for him beating Lisa there are a few more reasons you left out. She was given here job through nepatism although she retained it as an incumbent. She also had a few votes that didn't sit well with some. As well this is my personal opinion and many agree she may disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but she isn't the kind to throw her body in front of the train. Miller is. IE the healthcare legislation. Yeah she was against it and voted against it, but I don't see her going out of her way to stop it now. Miller WILL!!! As to never working in the private sector I'm not sure where you get your info from he worked for a firm out of law school for several years and then after leaving his judgeships went back to his private firm where he is now. Being a state judge, federal judge, and decorated army officer from the Gulf War aren't private sector, but I wouldn't exactly count those as strikes against a person. Perhaps we see things differently.

Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate in the general election and will probably win. She lost to Miller by only 1500 votes in a thinly attended August primary.

She may very well win as it's a very tight election, but saying it's probable is speculative at best. Who really knows. As for Murkowski I don't envy her one bit. The polls are pretty much neck in neck, but the problem is when voters go to vote they don't get Murkowski, Miller, or McAdams which they do in the polls. They get Miller, McAdams, or Write In_____________. It's just not the same and I'm pretty darn sure that will translate into a few percentage points less than the polling indicates.

SCI should concentrate on lobbying for legislation, and not support political candidates for office - it will come back to haunt them, and for me personally, it is one more reason that I don't support them. SCI, STAY OUT OF ALASKA POLITICS.

How do you think you get political advocates? By supporting them! That's how it works. Guess what PETA, HSUS, and the Brady Campaign are doing the same damn thing. If SCI and the NRA stay out anti gun and hunting organizations will be only too happy to fill the void. I've lobbied before. Have you? When you go to their office they want to know a couple things. Are you a constituent? Do you support them and have you in the past? What do you want? What do you want them to do about it? That's how it is.

As a final note I voted for Lisa in the primary over Miller. I've met her and lobbied her in DC on a number of occasions. If she wins it won't be the end of the world. I'm sure she'll vote how I want her to 90% of the time and that's good, but she won't be a major force for change in the political tone of Washington. She isn't going to turn things upside down and quite frankly I think that's what HAS TO HAPPEN!!! What really stuck in my craw about her was the write in campaign. This wasn't about what's best for Alaska or America. This was about what's best for Lisa Murkowski. I say that because she took a tremendous chance that she would split the conservative vote and get McAdams (D) into office. There was NO WAY for her to know what would happen until she did it. She took that chance for her and not anyone else and quite frankly that pisses me off! I would have gladly supported her against Begich for the other senate seat, but not now. She'll never get my vote on anything again as long as there's another choice. As for Joe Miller I had the pleasure of meeting the man and speaking to him after the primary and was thuroughly impressed with his presence and positions on every issue he covered. Joe is the ONLY politican/political candidate I've ever spoke with that actually answers your questions in full. NONE of them do that and I've met a bunch of senators and reps! If you doubt me try to ask Begich for an answer to well........anything! Miller is a West Point grad, US Army office with a bronze star from the Gulf War, Yale Law School grad, State Judge, Federal Judge, Owner of his own law firm, family man, outdoorsman, ardent constitutionalist, and Christian. I'm not sure what's not to like. There's a lot of BS about his positions on issues, but they've been grossly distorted. Like he's against unemployment. Not true. He's agianst the federal government having anything to do with it and thinks the states should run it. Somehow that's been turned into Joe being against any social programs. The truth is he's for states running their own business not the federal government and privatizing when you can rather than purpetuating the federal teat. Another outright lie is that he's going to get rid of all federal funding to Alaska and drop many Alaskans on their faces. Not true at all. He realises that much like or nation's dependence on foriegn oil our state's dependence on federal funds puts it at terrible risk if something happens. His idea is to improve Alaska's economy, so we can ween off federal funds and be self regulating and sufficient. To me that's a good thing. Again...what's not to like?


Brett


Brett,

What you said is what I would have, but you beat me to the punch. The WSJ had a few stories on this race as well.

Maybe I am prejudiced, but this country needs more political leaders that have been in combat and less professional politicians. Has Murkowski served?

One thing not mentioned so far in this thread: Murkowski vowed to drop out if Miller beat her. So much for her word...

Murkowski? Is Alaska a democracy or a monarchy?

Beat Navy.


Don't Ever Book a Hunt with Jeff Blair
http://forums.accuratereloadin...821061151#2821061151

 
Posts: 7583 | Location: Arizona and off grid in CO | Registered: 28 July 2004Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Sevenxbjt
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Combined Salary, Benefits, Pensions, and Payroll Taxes and Office Expenses were $8.15M or 55% of donations and revenues.


I think it goes without saying that the larger the % of money that goes into the group's stated purpose the better, but does anyone have any idea what's a good %? I personally have no idea what's good and I'd imagine most of the rest of us on here don't know either. That said I suppose I'd rather have 55% of 15mil spent on administrative costs rather than 10% of 1mil becuase they don't have enough support staff to raise 15mil. Just a thought.

Brett


Brett, like you I don't know much about what the "norm" is. I will say that the administrative costs of 8.15 is as much or maybe even a little more than another organization I belong to that maintains a national board, a DC office, has a national convention, a PAC arm, monthly magazine, puts millions into "in the field" projects and studies etc, etc, that brings in 50 million plus in revenues through producer membership, industry contribution and other standard channels. Within said organization there is a clause that administrative costs cannot exceed 15% of budget without being reviewed and approved by the board and a majority of the general membership. Now I honestly don't know that that makes SCI's percentage really bad or the other organization's really good, or just makes them better BS'ers than SCI.
Playing devils' advocate, to a certain extent maybe some of the costs of running a national organization are fixed and would not respond in kind as revenues increase. I tend to doubt it, but I'm not qualified to say for sure.
 
Posts: 1851 | Registered: 12 May 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of billrquimby
posted Hide Post
This is from the Charity Navigator website:

Highly Rated Charities Performing Similar Types of Work
Name..........................................................Overall Score.......Overall Rating
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation - MT....................66.52.............Four Stars
Ducks Unlimited - TN ..........................................63.86.............Four Stars
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation - OH..........62.69..............Four Stars
Safari Club International Foundation - AZ ............62.67.............Four Stars
Trout Unlimited - VA............................................60.95.............Four Stars
Ruffed Grouse Society - PA...................................60.13.............Four Stars
International Game Fish Assn - FL .......................59.69...........Three Stars
United Anglers of Southern California - CA............55.20............Three Stars

More on this website:

http://www.charitynavigator.or...h.summary&orgid=8553

According to a letter I found from the CEO of Charity Navigator that SCIF had posted separately on the internet, “Only 13% of the charities we rate have received at least 3 consecutive 4-star evaluations, indicating that Safari Club International Foundation consistently executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way, and outperforms most other charities in America. This ‘exceptional’ designation from Charity Navigator differentiates Safari Club International Foundation from its peers and demonstrates to the public it is worthy of their trust.”

Bill Quimby
 
Posts: 2633 | Location: tucson and greer arizona | Registered: 02 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of BrettAKSCI
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Brett,

What you said is what I would have, but you beat me to the punch. The WSJ had a few stories on this race as well.

Maybe I am prejudiced, but this country needs more political leaders that have been in combat and less professional politicians. Has Murkowski served?

One thing not mentioned so far in this thread: Murkowski vowed to drop out if Miller beat her. So much for her word...

Murkowski? Is Alaska a democracy or a monarchy?

Beat Navy.


She hasn't served to my knowledge. I would agree that all else being equal military experience is good. If I ever run at some point I would hope my lack of military experience wouldn't keep me from success. We'll see. Murkowski is definitely a professional politician.....hence the write in campaign. Miller as I've stated is most certainly not a pro and certainly doesn't act like it....thank God! One might think monarchy with the Murkowski legacy. However Palin booted the old man and time will shortly tell if Miller is able to boot Lisa. We'll see. Quite frankly after her display with the write in I wouldn't even vote her in for dog catcher. On a positive note our other senator Mark Begich is sealing his legacy as a one term senator along with piss poor mayor and slimy politician. I WOULD have looked for Murkowski to take his spot, but now I'm thinking Dan Sullivan our current mayor of Anchorage. He's actually had the testicular fortitude to clean up the huge deficit Begich left unbeknownst to anyone before leaving for the senate. He had to do some unpopular things to balance the bugdet, but to his credit he did them and we'll be the better for it. Hopefully he can take the same iniciative to the other senate seat.

Brett


DRSS
Life Member SCI
Life Member NRA
Life Member WSF

Rhyme of the Sheep Hunter
May fordings never be too deep, And alders not too thick; May rock slides never be too steep And ridges not too slick.
And may your bullets shoot as swell As Fred Bear's arrow's flew; And may your nose work just as well As Jack O'Connor's too.
May winds be never at your tail When stalking down the steep; May bears be never on your trail When packing out your sheep.
May the hundred pounds upon you Not make you break or trip; And may the plane in which you flew Await you at the strip.
-Seth Peterson
 
Posts: 4551 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 21 February 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Mike_Dettorre
posted Hide Post
Bill,

I have talked to the folks at the Charity Navigator and they readily admit that they do not have the ability to rate how prudent the expenditures are but only rate on the classification of the expenditures.

My example above regarding salaries is a prime example of the problem. A non profit can waste a ton of money but if the wastefulness is related to the mission statement then all looks good.

SCI could buy Mont Blanc pens @ $500 a piece but if they are used to take notes at meetings regarding hunter education then the Charity Navigator site would score them high for having a large percentage of expenses related to Program Services.


Mike

Legistine actu quod scripsi?

Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.




What I have learned on AR, since 2001:
1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken.
2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps.
3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges.
4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down.
5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine.
6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle.
7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions.
8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA.
9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not.
10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact.
11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores.
12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence.
13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances.
 
Posts: 10181 | Location: Loving retirement in Boise, ID | Registered: 16 December 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of shakari
posted Hide Post
About halfway down here: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/.../conf_gupta_day2.pdf

Talks of around 80% of (different) NGOs income spent on their programmes, 18% spent on administration costs and 2% on fundraising.

As I've said before though, none of this means anything without considerably more detailed but easy to understand relevent figures from the corporation themselves.

I have to say, that even if a large percentage of income is swallowed up in admin costs etc, that wouldn't particularly worry me if what's left was spent on really good causes rather than wasted on pointless projects as often/usually happens with many NGOs.

However, looking at those figures did make me realise that I'd never realised how many (presumably full time) staff SCI must have.






 
Posts: 12415 | Registered: 01 July 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by shakari:


However, looking at those figures did make me realise that I'd never realised how many (presumably full time) staff SCI must have.
Even though its been pointed out to you numerous times!!!!!!!!!!


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of billrquimby
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Graham:
quote:
Originally posted by shakari:


However, looking at those figures did make me realise that I'd never realised how many (presumably full time) staff SCI must have.
Even though its been pointed out to you numerous times!!!!!!!!!!


There probably aren't as many actual employees as the websites imply. SCI and SCIF pays portions of the salaries of some, depending upon the percentage of their time spent on work for either group, or at least that was true a dozen years ago.
Bill Quimby
 
Posts: 2633 | Location: tucson and greer arizona | Registered: 02 February 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of shakari
posted Hide Post
Matt,

Big is one thing....... US$8.15 worth of big is mucking fassive!

Although I suppose it must take an awful lot of people to keep all those cups, plaques, plates and trophies nice and shiny and clean!

animal animal animal






 
Posts: 12415 | Registered: 01 July 2002Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
I see lots of interesting info there, including a donation or some kind of other aid to the Lion Breeders Association that gave me a bit of a smile. ....... but I still don't see any actual (relevent) figures with regard to what they spend in Africa?


Steve,

Would you publish details of your figure if you were an ugly 500 pounds whore?


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69702 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
Thanks, Bill, for posting this.

For all of its many faults, SCI does plenty of good for the cause of African hunting. More than nearly any other NGO one could name.

This thread proves, however, that there are none so blind as those who will not see.


Mike

Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer.
 
Posts: 13834 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  African Big Game Hunting    SCI financial, mission reports on internet

Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia