Last year at the SCI convention in Reno, one of the very prominent exhibitors and donors to SCI (from South Africa) was accused by Zimbabwe professional hunters of conducting illegal hunts in Zimbabwe on seized private ranches. There are other companies, both from South Africa and from Zimbabwe that have had the same accusation made against them.



The last I heard, SCI claimed it could not take action against companies conducting illegal hunts in Zimbabwe because it did not have "proof". That sounded like a very lame excuse since SCI receives significant revenue from at least one of the companies in question. I have also heard (but have not verified) that some of the persons accused of engaging in illegal hunts in Zimbabwe has U.S. State Department sanctions levied against them, which would seem to be proof enough.



SCI's board knows the situation in Zimbabwe and they are fully aware that there is illegal hunting going on and that the game on some illegally seized private land is being wiped out.



In addition, American clients who go on those illegal hunts are now being investigated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Those investigations could lead to felony prosecutions of both the outfitter and the client under the Lacey Act.



So I wonder whether SCI will allow companies engaged in that practice to exhibit at the SCI convention in Reno, or whether SCI will take a pricipled and ethical stance and put a stop to it. Will SCI continue to turn a blind eye to conduct that is illegal both in Zimbabwe and in the U.S.?

I spent Aug & Sep of this year in the Matetsi area and know for a fact SCI had an investigator fly in to Victoria Falls and this person interviewed most of the parties to this "dispute" over several days. This included landowners (deed holders) and "squatters". After this testimony was taken I have not the foggiest notion what was done with it but you can be sure SCI KNOWS the situation and chooses to do nothing at this time if ever.

Jim,



If I understand your post, you agree that SCI knows about the illegal hunts being sold by some of their exhibitors, and you know the identity of at least one such SCI exhibitor, but SCI is waiting for more "proof" from a government agency. SCI has ethics rules. Why not follow them? And why ask and SCI member to take over the SCI function?



SCI should lead by example instead of just cashing the checks.

Brett,

I do know him, and we correspond. I am also following the Fundira situation which is in the legal system now in Zim and RSA. SCI can act after the applicable governments do, but it does not have its own investigatory powers or capabilities. The Ethics Committee only acts on the formal inputs of others for example, and both sides are invited to provide input.

500grains,

The Ethics process within SCI can proceed after the involved governments do their thing in this case. The basic SCI ethics procedure is a complaint goes to the Ethics Committee which assigns it to members. Input is solicited, and if warranted a conclusion and recommendtion is reached. This goes to the SCI Executive Committee and then to the full SCI Board for approval.

Here you are asking SCI to act because you want them to act. As an SCI member, you can file an ethics complaint. Have you done so?

jim

Jim,

I have not filed any ethics complaint. Would it do any good since you tell me SCI is not going to take action on these illegal hunts?

Also, has anyone complained to SCI about this?

I don't have a dog in this fight, although I would suspect that for various reasons SCI will not refuse to allow them a stand.......but I wonder if by doing so, SCI can be seen as doing business with a company that has illegal dealings with Zimbabwe and can they then be prosecuted under the Lacey Act? .........and even if that is the case, will anyone have the balls to prosecute.

I don't personally have a lot of time for SCI anymore, but nor do I wish them any harm and I would like to know what the answer is to this.

With all the reports concerning companies involved in illict activites in Zimbabwe, including an investigation by the Fish and Wildlife service, should'nt someone take a proactive approach and do a thorough investigation?

Imagine the harm to one's reputation if a close business partner is found to be in violation of a State Department decree or other federal law.

The bylaws of the SCI allow for disciplinary action, for:

(d) misconduct that has a materially adverse effect upon the purposes or reputation of
SCI or the SCI Foundation;

Any member in good standing can file a complaint with the Ethnics Committee against the violating member.

500 grains is right, soar with eagles don't hide with the ostrich.

Jim,

The quote below was posted by Gayana in a thread about the Makuti concession a short time back. I believe you know him personally. Have you or anyone at SCI followed up with Gayana (or Zim Parks or Zim courts) regarding Fundira serving jail time for dealings with OOA? That alone seems enough to ban them (OOA) from the SCI show.

"Fundira sold the hunting to Out of Africa in the first year he had the concession. Realised it wasn't to his benefit and sub-contracted to other local safari operations including Russ Broom. For his pains in having OoA as a "partner" for one year he got to spend two months in the Harare Hilton - 7 course dinners you know ( One spoon of corn meal and six cabage leaves). For the first two years of his operation parks were getting fully shafted. He paid no fee for getting the concession (HHK paid 500 million for Chete with half the quota) and was only paying 10% of the trophy fees. This year he has paid the full trophy fees and a small concession fee. In part this is the reason that the parks officer in charge of the area earns US$140 per month! and the game scouts who often risk their lives to deal with armed poachers take home US$40 per month (and have resorted to extorting money from many PH's)."

Best regards;
Brett