WOw- if even half of this is true, it makes me want to reconsider joining SCI...

And, is C.J. McElroy that bad? I've heard of many SCI bigwigs messed up in game law issues- I'd expect the opposite to be true of a conservation organization...
SCI FAQ Link

Safari Club International: Frequently Asked Questions

The Humane Society of the United States

What is Safari Club International?

SCI is an international organization catering to the interests of trophy hunters. Though SCI claims to be filled with conservationists, its members are primarily interested in killing the most and the biggest animals to mount as trophies, become listed in SCI record books, and win awards.

When was SCI founded?

SCI was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Tucson, Ariz.

Who founded SCI?

SCI was founded by trophy hunter C.J. McElroy, who claimed to be the greatest trophy hunter in the world. McElroy hunted in nearly fifty countries, on six continents. He killed nearly 400 trophy animals that appear in SCI's record book, including animals who are now endangered and can no longer be hunted.

McElroy was forced to resign in 1988. Bill Quimby, a past President of SCI, writes in his book "Safari Club International" that there were rumors among hunters that McElroy "ignored hunting laws," that McElroy was even accused of killing a Rocky Mountain bighorn ram in a national park, and that his "ideas of sportsmanship and ethics simply were different from those of hunters who came along later."

What does SCI do?

SCI mainly lobbies for the right to hunt as many species as possible, regardless of their endangered status, and seeks to roll back protections of many protected species.

SCI's so-called humanitarian and conservation-minded projects serve as attempts to whitewash their image.

Do all hunters support SCI?

No. Most don't favor killing animals, particularly rare and endangered species, strictly to be used as a trophy.

Others oppose killing animals within fenced enclosures. The Boone and Crockett Club and the Pope and Young Club refuse to allow animals shot on captive hunts to be included in their record books. But thousands of animals in SCI's record books were shot on captive hunts.

Is SCI composed of your "average" hunter?

No. The average SCI member boasts an annual income of more than $100,000—only six percent of hunters make this much money—and owns 11 rifles, six shotguns, five handguns and a bow. Two thirds of SCI members spend more than a month hunting each year and a quarter of members spend more than 50 days hunting.



SCI ignores the concept of "fair chase" that many traditional hunters believe in.

What is the SCI record book of trophy animals?

SCI scores animals based on the size of their antlers, horns, tusks or skull. Their record books enable members to brag to the rest of the trophy hunting community that they killed the most and the biggest animals.

Does SCI allow animals shot in captive hunts to be included in its trophy record books?

Yes. SCI allows fenced animals shot on hunting ranches to be listed.

Some hunting groups, including the Boone & Crockett Club and the Pope & Young Club, refuse to allow animals shot on captive hunts to be included in their record books.

Does SCI allow endangered species to be included in its trophy record book?

Yes. SCI allows endangered species to be included in its record book, including the addax, African cheetah, African leopard and black rhinoceros.

Does SCI reward hunters for killing trophy animals?

Yes. Hunters compete to kill the largest animals, or those with the biggest horns or antlers.

Most awards are centered around killing a particular set of animals. For example, shooting five of 12 record-class bears makes the member eligible for the "Bears of the World" award, or 79 record-class African species means eligibility for the "Trophy Animals of Africa" award at the diamond level.

Awards are presented with great fanfare at SCI's annual convention where the hunters receive elaborate trophies.

Why does SCI lobby to remove animals from the "threatened" or "endangered" lists under the ESA?

SCI seems to believe that threatened and endangered species receive far too much protection and, in a twisted bit of logic, they believe they can conserve animals by killing them.

In 1979, SCI sought permission to kill and import more than 1,000 endangered African animals for trophies. Their request was denied.

SCI lobbied to ensure that the African elephant was listed as "threatened" instead of "endangered" so that the animal could be hunted. SCI also helped relax protections that were granted to the:

bontebok
cheetah
white rhino
mountain zebra
red, black and Kafue lechwe
African leopard
argali sheep
markhor
crocodile
hippo
African lion
cougar
lynx
wolf
grizzly bear
SCI even went to court in support of hunting endangered antelope species on captive hunts and sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, demanding that several species be reclassified.

Updated June 10, 2011

Oh boy.....

Do you actually think HSUS is going to provide unbiased, accurate facts about ANY pro-hunting organization?

I like the way anti-hunting groups enjoy twisting the "endangered species" line.. I wonder how many more species would be endangered or better yet, EXTINCT if it wasn't for Trophy Hunting giving them value to the local populations... Can you say "Black Wildebeest"?

Was CJ McElroy a trophy hunter? Yes - as are many of us and we pump MILLIONS of dollars back into wildlife conservation all over the world!

There are always aspects of every organizations that people may not agree with but that does not mean we should not support the organization.

I will be in Tuscon next week at the SCI Annual Board Meeting!

What is SCI?

SCI is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting conservation worldwide.
• SCI is a 501(c)4 hunter advocacy organization.
• Since 1979, SCI has spent nearly $300 million on hunter advocacy and wildlife conservation.
• Since 2000 alone, SCI has spent $140 million protecting the freedom to hunt via state and federal policy advocacy, litigation
& education.
• SCI’s Washington, DC office includes attorneys and wildlife biologists working 24/7 on behalf of all hunters and retains
effective lobbyists.
• SCI-PAC is the largest hunter-driven Political Action Committee that supports only pro-sportsmen candidates.
SCIF funds and manages worldwide programs dedicated to wildlife conservation, outdoor education and
humanitarian services.
• SCIF is a 501(c)3 charitable non-profit organization.
• Since 2000, SCIF has delivered $47 million in conservation, wildlife education, and humanitarian services.
• SCIF spends about $5 million annually to promote science-based conservation through wildlife research, capacity building in
governments, youth and teacher education, and humanitarian programs that show the importance of hunters in society.
• SCIF has donated more than 1.5 million pounds of venison via the Sportsmen Against Hunger program since 2003.
• SCIF showcases conservation & hunting at its Int’l Wildlife Museum.
• SCIF has delivered nearly 800 SafariCare Blue Bags to needy villagers, orphans, schools and clinics since 2005.
• SCIF has treated more than 700 disabled hunters to assisted hunting experiences.
• Additional SCIF humanitarian programs include Sensory Safari and SafariWish.
SCI CSF* Research Arms Hunters
with this Fact document of key statistics and talking points
• There are about 18.6 million hunters in the U.S. A large percentage don’t hunt in a given year and are not counted as
licensed hunters that year. About 1.6 million youths under 16 and some others are not required to buy a license.
• Hunter spending supports about 600,000 jobs. That’s more people than McDonald’s employs.
• Federal excise taxes on some hunting equipment, plus hunting license revenue, have helped bring back dozens of species,
including swans, bighorn sheep, elk, ducks, wild turkeys and white-tailed deer. In 1900 there were less than 100,000 turkeys
in the U.S. vs. 7 million today.
Economic Impact
• Spending by hunters and anglers generates more revenue than Microsoft, Google, eBay and Yahoo combined.
• SCI members & other hunters spend $24.9 billion/yr.
• The average hunter spends 18 days afield and $1,992/yr. on hunting.
• Bowhunters spend $674 million on bows & arrows.
• Hunters spend $2.1 billion just for food/drinks on hunting trips.
• Hunters buy duck stamps that have generated more than $700 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System to purchase
more than 5 million acres of wildlife habitat. This helps all species and is available to all citizens.
Voting Power of SCI Members & Other Hunters
• 73% of Americans approve of hunting.
• Only 10% think hunting should be illegal.
• Hunters are among the most influential of all groups.
• Politicians and governments that invest in access, habitat and programs in support of hunting, receive more in return via tax
revenue, jobs, tourism and other economic benefits.
• More people hunt than play tennis, ski or watch ABC & NBC nightly news.
Hunters & Anglers Combined
• 8 of 10 vote based on a candidate’s position on our issues.
• Twice as many people hunt and fish than follow NASCAR.
• If the $76 billion spent on hunting and fishing were a country’s Gross Domestic Product, that “Nation of Sportsmen’s”
GDP would rank 57th out of the 181 countries of the world.
*SCI helps fund Cong. Sportsmen’s Foundation’s Economic Impact Study
14-Oct-09

One would wonder why any hunter would look at the most viral antihunting site on the net. But never the less, you can choose to join or not. Myself , I am a member, but choose not to list most of my trophies in their book. A well known writer once wrote this his trophies whether book or not were still his trophies. I share that opinion. As to high fenced, most concessions in South Africa are high fenced. There are other countries that are totally wild and open. I suggest you try one of these. SCI does keep me abreast of political events that can affect the future of hunting. I suggest you go to their site and read what they have to say rather than the ushs site with their rabid political antihunting agenda. Hmm, I smell a rat.

Eyeman,

How true! I would expect the hunting gods to strike me down if I actually clicked on the HSUS web site!!!

Like yourself, I do not place any of my trophies in the record book but many of my FRIENDS do.. and not only in SCI's records books - RW, B&C, etc....

Thanks guys. Actually, their website ranked high in Google search when I searched for C.J McElroy and SCI hunting...

I was surprised by their Q&A.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of truth in the HSUS FAQ answers. Just look around this website. I have a beautiful trophy room, not as impressive as many, and lacking in any DG. But I have absolutely no interest in the biggest, or even the baddest of trophies.

But I do have a deep and abiding interest in having the opportunity to hunt the African bush, to experience the sights, sound and smells of Africa, to talk and laugh with the local peoples, and to do whatever I can to ensure that those opportunities remain for future generations.

As much as I have defended SCI over the years, I do think that they have their priorities a little screwed up.

::

quote:

Originally posted by Hunter54:
in a twisted bit of logic, they believe they can conserve animals by killing them.

This is a perfect example of how the bunny hugers twist things using childish logic. After all, every five year old can tell you that if you kill an animal there in now one less of that animal. Unfortunatly that five year old, along with the peta/husd member, can't see the big picture.

I have had great success getting people who are on the fence when it comes to hunting to understand that sport hunting is beneficial to the survival of a species, especially animals in the third world. But those who have already been brain-washed are much harder to convert.

I have the required number of firearms but I no longer own a bow. Does my wife's bow count?
Reading that kind of crap is like talking to the protesters at the convention. There is no reason or logic involved and they certainly don't want to entertain the facts.

The SCI demographics report published as part of the reasoning for advertisers to purchase space in SCI publications does state that the average SCI member has an income of $100k or more along with other similar information. Advertisers obviously want to to know the target audience is what they are looking to market to..

No doubt the anti-hunters scour the SCI website to glean any information they can twist to aid them in their mission of misinforming the public.

100k or more? That is a husband and wife that each make $50,000.00 a year - while times are difficult for many right now, that is not an uncommon income level here in Ohio....

Do we need a TROLL ALERT?

And BTW C.J.'Mac'McElroy passed away in 2002. In his later life he told me he never imagined SCI becoming as big as it was, and that was over 10 years ago!

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Hunter54:
in a twisted bit of logic, they believe they can conserve animals by killing them.

This is a perfect example of how the bunny hugers twist things using childish logic. After all, every five year old can tell you that if you kill an animal there in now one less of that animal. Unfortunatly that five year old, along with the peta/husd member, can't see the big picture.

I have had great success getting people who are on the fence when it comes to hunting to understand that sport hunting is beneficial to the survival of a species, especially animals in the third world. But those who have already been brain-washed are much harder to convert.

On a Discovery Channel show a physicist made the statement about a deer in the woods should be more afraid of a land developer than a hunter. The show wasn't about hunting but at least this guy gets it.

HSUS = immature bullshit

HSUS = Bullshit + Big $$$$

JA hit that nail on the head. Those kitty cat and puppy dog ads you see on TV rake in millions for HSUS, and they can out scam better than Don King signed a new fighter. For only $19 per month YOU can save all these poor, crying, begging, starving, pitiful creatures. But the fine print doesn't tell you that only 10% of their $400 million dollar budget actually goes to animal shelters. HSUS is no longer its namesake. It absorbed Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals etc. We are fighting them and their minions over the wolf issue as I type this, but we will be shooting wolves less than two weeks. Join SCI, NRA, DSC any of the big hitters (not the small hunting clubs who only make money for themselves). We need to fight, because it will never end...ever. They want our guns, an end to all hunting and fishing, and to make you a sheeple of their way of life. LDK

quote:

Originally posted by L. David Keith: But the fine print doesn't tell you that only 10% of their $400 million dollar budget actually goes to animal shelters.

L.David Keith,
You are spot on about the fine print but, too kind as to the actual percentage sent to the shelters.
In 2008 ( the most recent year for which data was available at the time) HSUS devoted less than one-half of one percent of its budget to directly funding hands-on pet shelters.(four/fifths of one percent in 2009) http://humanewatch.org/index.p...fths_of_one_percent/
To me, that says it all.
HSUS = money grubbing scum.

Thanks Ty, happy to be corrected I couldn't agree more, yet the mindless zombie's stand in line to get a tote bag and HSUS jacket.

Yes, I didn't take it any other way, and my thanks was sincere Anti hunting groups don't want us to know anything about their business. They fear we will expose them. Cheers, David

About the dogs and cats. Hsus does not support any of the no kill shelters I deal with. They have no problem with euthanasia it seems. In fact I dont know of any sheltors that they support around here at all.

That HSUS post has been on the internet at least seven or eight years. It is full of glaring errors, starting with listing me as a "past president of SCI" and quoting out of context from my book about the club's history. I gave up trying to get HSUS to correct it years ago.

Bill Quimby

Does anyone believe HSUS cares about ethical hunting? Whether game is hunted within fences or in the wild? Would it make a difference to them if we only hunted for food, and threw away the horns/antlers/tusks/skins? Absolutely not! They try and manipulate us into believing they have an interest in only stopping borderline ethics and killing for trophy and or awards. Bull $hit! They want hunting, trapping, collecting..all of it gone forever. These Lemmings think the animals of the world can manage themselves, and suddenly their populations will rebound into the millions. What ignorant sheeple buy into HSUS and all their copycat minions. Oh their leaders are smart...oh yes, all the way to the bank. Jim Baker had nothing on these class A scam artists.

Guys Hunter54 is a troll.

Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies,

Whether or not Guy54 is a troll or not, the options are evident. As hunters, and preservers of our historic rights as gun owners, environmentalists, and conservationalists, we have a battle ahead of us.

For the most part the public is mis-informed regarding the taking of game; either as a means of species control, crop control, livestock control, or the balance of nature in general.

It is our job (specifically the SCI, NRA, BSA,
EPA, the Dept. of Interior, and The President) and many others to impress upon the masses the critical ties between hunting and our native culture, historic traditions, and sustenation as a society.

To allow any species of wildlife to dominate or overcome any other species without man's direct involvement is the antithesis of what our governmental goals for the protection and development of wildlife has been defined.

Hunters are an integral part of game preservation, game control, predator control, and environmentalism that is required to make the system work as a whole.

SCI does a piss poor job of expressing these values, and the proof of this is astounding.

I am a member of SCI, and I try to be involved locally as needed. But my heart is not always in it because of their denial of unethical dealings and for their refusal to stand up for the little man hunter in America.

Who reallly gives a **** about the measurements of a so-called trophy, or one's ability to enter into the record books for trophys taken. Quite honestly, not many SCI members. All they see are overtly rich folks who can spend their way into the record books.

The vision of the American citizen / American hunter is quickly vanishing. It's all about money now. And that's a shame.

I sell alot of double rifles, yet, I never look down upon the weekend hunter who uses whatever he or she has available to hunt with. I usually try to incorporate my ethics upon them regarding the taking of game, and how they do it is up to them.


We as hunters,and as the SCI in general, need to be more aware of the world around us so that we can scientifically and morally address the argumemts against we hunters. Otherwise, we are weak, and will be defeated. (What famous oriental stretegist sited those same thoughts?)


Trophies and penis size is of little importance. The SCI needs to get back to basics. I have been on again and off again with both SCI and NRA for years because of their lack of focus of the issues at hand.

The two organizaitions that should most reflect our values and defend our rights are mis-guided and at a loss for what America wants and needs to hear.

We aren't concerned about the size of your rack or the dollars in your bank account. We want you to scientifically and morally support our hunting rights for generations to come, so that organizations like the Humane Society of American has no valid voice, whatsoever.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of truth in the HSUS FAQ answers. Just look around this website.

...........

As much as I have defended SCI over the years, I do think that they have their priorities a little screwed up

Maybe you could send some observations to HSUS in order that they update their pages??

MDSTEWART: Well said! I could not agree with you more. The comparatively recent emphasis on trophy size will be the death of our heritage.

MATT GRAHAM: If you can find someone at HSUS who will listen to any hunter's observations, more power to you. If there is such a person, please tell her that I never served as president of Safari Club International and that I do not appreciate her organization's selective quoting from my book to further its anti-hunting agenda.

Bill Quimby

Bill,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell the whole SCI record book thing is purely a money maker for them.

As someone who used to work for SCI, I would suspect you have a better idea of how the internals of the organization work than I.

To the rest of the peanut gallery-

I see some value in the book as a way of looking at where the trophies are produced, and if you get your ego stroked by getting your name in it, well you will do that "somehow" regardless. The biggest complaint I see with folks in regards to the SCI books is that they are "too easy" to get in to. Really, this seems somewhat counter intuitive that this would be a downfall for the record book than say, Pope and Young or Rowland Ward, or Boone and Crockett which are "more exclusive."

Now, I don't think it would be a bad idea to modify the SCI book to make the trophies be fully mature. For example, have a mandate that a field photo be sent in of the bosses, and the "keeper of the chronicles" have to verify that the buff is mature, but that's a separate argument, and may well make the SCI book superior to the alternative that has cow buff in it... And the "estate" categories at least keep some folks from trying to weasel their fenced hunt animals into the regular books.

The various circle/slam awards are basically awards for collectors- which is all a display gun show is, but none of us seem to have objections to that, or the 4H stock competitions at the various county or state fairs? All of this stuff requires some degree of "pay to play" if at different levels.

If its all "penis measuring," wouldn't the difficult books just mean the syndrome is worse, and more expensive/exclusive and more pressure to cheat to get in to?

I can understand the various viewpoints on it being a problem as far as more trophy type hunting versus just hunting, but that always existed. With the proliferation of the whitetail what it is, getting "a deer" is pretty easy- yet that used to be the "competition" in deer hunting- who always got their deer- regardless of size- or who could get their deer the fastest, etc. Being a kid in hunting camp 35 years ago, I remember those being the types of booze fueled "discussions" amongst the elders then. Now its who got the "best" deer- with some saying age, some saying horn size, and some saying "tender meat."

Its human nature to want to excel at whatever we do, and this is all that the issue is here. Unfortunately, we have a more public way of expressing the camp debates, which is probably more acrimonious than deer camp, as most are pretty anonymous on the internet, and frankly some say stuff here that would end lifelong friendships if they did it in person, and automatically get a "don't come back" at deer camp...

During the 16 years I was defacto editor and then actually editor-in-name of the SCI record books, I never saw or heard anyone in authority refer to them as a money-maker, or even consider them to be such.

They were launched by club founder C.J. McElroy because he disagreed with the measuring systems of Boone & Crockett, Rowland Ward and the CIC. There also was no worldwide record book at the time, so Mac started "his" own.

He disliked B&C's giving points for "air" (width) and deducting points for non-symmetry, and he thought RW's method of measuring only the longest horn was downright dumb. As for the CIC, he couldn't understand why or how points would be awarded for things as esoteric as "beauty."

It wasn't until after Mac was fired that a president ordered the SCI Trophy Records Committee to adopt a system for antlered game that was similar to B&C's. In fact, it is identical except there are no deductions for non-symmetry.

Mac purposely made minimums low in the first books so that there would be entries in every category. As the books grew, there were various attempts to raise minimum scores, but each was met by loud opposition from outfitters and members.

The Inner Circles/Grand Slams/etc., are something else. Mac designed them to play on the egos of members for one reason, and that was to raise funds for other programs. His idea for across-the-shoulder sashes (borrowed from the CIC), went over like a lead balloon, and sashes soon were dropped. The pins, plaques, rings and trophies, however, are popular with -- as you said -- members who are collectors. You only have to look at the club's annual awards issue of Safari Magazine to see this.

Bill Quimby