Just received April Safari Times. Interesting article regarding the LIONS. Now the SCIF and SCI are brother sister org.. SCIF is the non political org ie charitable org. Without detail the SCIF has spent $47 million on conservation world wide since 2000. I don't know about others but I am impressed. I think one may be able read the article on line so I won't repeat it here. That being said they stated the Foundation is committed to lion comservation, year after year and considers the developement and implementation of the national lion management plans in all lion range a top priority. You, a member of SCI have been contributing to liom conservation and these regional and national workshops for the past 5 years. SCI is a major contributor to SCIF.

$47 million over 9 years is slightly over $5 million a year. I would want to know what their total revenues are and how the $47 million compares on a percentage basis. I would also want to know what their administrative costs (salaries, office space, etc.) are and how the $47 million compares on a percentage basis. I would also want to know what that $47 million is being spent on. Lastly, I would want to know how that $47 million has been spent over 9 years, ratably, all in 2000, all in 2009, etc. to understand whether the funding is relatively constant, increasing or tailing off. Then I might be impressed. Until then, $47 million is just a number without any perspective.

MJines, wow I wonder what would have happened if the $47 million had not been spent. To me the glass is half full. I guess you think the glass is half empty, just a mattter of prespective, eh.

On second thought you just won't believe anything SCI or SCIF says. The article said $47 million on conservation. It didn't say how much it cost to operate SCIF.

What does impress you? I guess it is like the trillions of useless spending the federal government is doing - with out the detail you are not impressed eh. You will just go along.

Sort of like your picture with that Elephant, I didn't see you shoot it so it doesn't impress me.

Mjines,
I'd challenge HSUS & SPCA to the same test. My bet is SCIF would pass your test. Doubt that HSUS will.

This is another save face statement from SCI.

What we have been asking was how much they have spent in AFRICA!

And reading all the links that have been posted by SCI supporters, I managed to total less than $60,000 since 2002.

OK, I will bite. Let us have details of those $5 millions spent.

Where do they go?

Why is it so secret?

Oh FUCK!

quote:

$47 million over 9 years is slightly over $5 million a year. I would want to know what their total revenues are and how the $47 million compares on a percentage basis. I would also want to know what their administrative costs (salaries, office space, etc.) are and how the $47 million compares on a percentage basis. I would also want to know what that $47 million is being spent on. Lastly, I would want to know how that $47 million has been spent over 9 years, ratably, all in 2000, all in 2009, etc. to understand whether the funding is relatively constant, increasing or tailing off. Then I might be impressed. Until then, $47 million is just a number without any perspective.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
MJines, wow I wonder what would have happened if the $47 million had not been spent. To me the glass is half full. I guess you think the glass is half empty, just a mattter of prespective, eh.

On second thought you just won't believe anything SCI or SCIF says. The article said $47 million on conservation. It didn't say how much it cost to operate SCIF.

What does impress you? I guess it is like the trillions of useless spending the federal government is doing - with out the detail you are not impressed eh. You will just go along.

Sort of like your picture with that Elephant, I didn't see you shoot it so it doesn't impress me.

I considered not wasting the time to respond but sometimes I cannot resist a quixotic exercise. Let's keep it simple. Assume for the moment that SCI takes in $200 a year, has administrative and general costs of $150 a year (for salaries, offices, perks) and spends $5 a year on conservation. Would you be impressed that they were spending 2.5% of their revenue on conservation and 75% on salaries and other administrative costs, I do not think so. Point is simply that without any transparency into what the balance sheet looks like and where the money is actually going, the $47 million number is just a number without any context or perspective. Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. If you are impressed with a number with no context more power to you.

What ever

Thank God Turkey season starts next week and I can go and wack a few instead of jousting on here with them!

DOJ

Me thinks you protestith too much...

Perhaps you have imbibed too heavily on the SCI KOOLAID...

A little perspective is healthy for all of us.

Jeff

Just an FYI From Charity Navigator

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

Organizational Efficiency
Program Expenses 80.5%
Administrative Expenses 10.8%
Fundraising Expenses 8.6%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.08
Efficiency Rating 4 stars out of 4 stars (38.05)

OrganizationalCapacity
Primary Revenue Growth 3.0%
Program Expenses Growth 9.6%
Working Capital Ratio 1.56 (years)

Revenue
Primary Revenue $6,171,885
Other Revenue $548,706
Total Revenue $6,720,591

Expenses
Program Expenses $4,153,429
Administrative Expenses $557,657
Fundraising Expenses $443,870
Total Functional Expenses $5,154,956

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $1,565,635
Net Assets $13,408,785

Check the link to see executive payment and how they compare to other organizations.

Hutty

EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTION. Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by 404WJJeffery:
Hutty

EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTION. Thank you.

X2

quote:

Until then, $47 million is just a number without any perspective.

but $46,999,999.98 more than your inane 2 cents.

yet another lazy SCI critic.

MJ does this mean you have seen the light? If so maybe you could share it with Steve and Saeed.

I'll poke the dead horse one more time. how's the money distributed in these "programs?"

Do you mean from SCIF to the receipent org., well probably by check or wire transfer. If you mean how the receipent distributes well I guess you would have to ask that org. and if it is an Africian org well good luck.