quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
I really don't think AR played a very big part in this decision. AR is just a quiet breeze, albeit a bit full of hot air at times.

Ed reminds me of a slave's behavior to his master.

All he says is:

YES MASTER.
ANYTHING YOU SAY MASTER
AT YOUR SERVICE MASTER.

Any sort of critical thought has been brained washed out of him

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Saeed
But the SCI cheering section, to their credit, has been very silent on this issue thus far.

The sensible ones, that is.

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
In this case I see SCI like the criminal who is "deeply sorry", only because he got caught.

Perhaps some, but I would say the majority feel they dropped the ball and screwed up.

Brett

Brett,

A proposal such as this one was not hatched overnight - it was obviously proposed and discussed at length before seeing the light of day and all 147 stooges sitting at the Round Table knew EXACTLY what was going on, hence the UNANIMOUS decision; not a SINGLE BLACK BALL among the entire 147 voters? - Give us a break!

Good luck in your capacity as future Chapter President - your sage decisions will be a valuable contribution towards "cleaning house" at SCI HQ.

Fujo - In Brett's defense, many of the 147 voters were in fact duped to a degree into voting for this debacle! It was NOT discussed at the May 10 meeting, but it was buried in the 110 page budget proposal. So, unless you sat there and read all 110 pages thoroughly - before voting, its very possible one didn't actually know about it. That was the intention of those who came up with this genius idea!!!!!!

According to them, they did a six month research on what wonderful idea this was

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fujo - In Brett's defense, many of the 147 voters were in fact duped to a degree ....... ........... So, unless you sat there and read all 110 pages thoroughly - before voting, its very possible one didn't actually know about it. That was the intention of those who came up with this genius idea!!!!!!

Aaron:

Correctly said and thereby substantiating that the 147 members of the EC are supposed to be intelligent upstanding members whose place on the Council was established through character representation for the betterment of SCI and its contributions towards its members.

To suggest that "many of the 147 voters were duped" does not hold water. Voters have the right to their opinion prior to coming to a decision, an important one at that and considering the proposal in question is embedded within 110 pages!

It was therefore their OBLIGATION to sift through the sheaf of pages and digest the contents before voting in favor of the proposal.

There are not 147 members on the EC. There are about 10, I didn't count. The 147 refers to board members, many of which are chapter presidents.

I think the reality is that this was buried with the budgets for pencils and paperclips. Nothing in the description would lead one to believe that it was such a controversial matter. I have seen it but I have not been given permission to post it.

In fairness, I have communicated directly with one of the EC members . They are totally SHOCKED at the controversy. They may not have made more detailed disclosures because they considered it a non-event. Obviously, they were wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fujo - In Brett's defense, many of the 147 voters were in fact duped to a degree ....... ........... So, unless you sat there and read all 110 pages thoroughly - before voting, its very possible one didn't actually know about it. That was the intention of those who came up with this genius idea!!!!!!

Aaron:

Correctly said and thereby substantiating that the 147 members of the EC are supposed to be intelligent upstanding members whose place on the Council was established through character representation for the betterment of SCI and its contributions towards its members.

To suggest that "many of the 147 voters were duped" does not hold water. Voters have the right to their opinion prior to coming to a decision, an important one at that and considering the proposal in question is embedded within 110 pages!

It was therefore their OBLIGATION to sift through the sheaf of pages and digest the contents before voting in favor of the proposal.

The impression I am getting is that many of my friends here, despite criticizing SCI's actions, are ready to give them some slack because they postponed this silly idea.

That is very noble, but my experience with SCI has been that they do not deserve any slack.

They got themselves into this hole - as they had done many times in the past.

And they only decided to backtrack after realizing that members have had enough of this totally uncalled for and unprofessional behavior.

And I suspect things are NOT going to get better, because the same brains behind this sort of utterly unacceptable brain fart are still the same lot who have been there before, and will continue to be running SCI.

quote:

They may not have made more detailed disclosures because they considered it a non-event. Obviously, they were wrong.

THEY considered THIS a NON-EVENT??

Bloody hell, whenever I think those guys got to the bottom, they sink even lower!

quote:

And I suspect things are NOT going to get better, because the same brains behind this sort of utterly unacceptable brain fart are still the same lot who have been there before, and will continue to be running SCI.

Saeed:

You are absolutely right!

The cancer is ever present and as with most cancers, very difficult to cure, let alone eradicate.

And to think I always thought it was Dennis Miller that said, "I rant, therefore I am."

Fujo - You are correct, its NOT any excuse at all. I was simply stating what I know to be true, as I have seen the May 10 meeting info - etc.

Saeed - Make no mistake, I am NOT backing off one bit. As you saw by my email you are copied on to the EC. I do believe though, many of the local chapter Presidents were totally unaware of this, and thus it was slipped through under the cover of darkness if you will. An under-handed move by those in charge.

Aaron,

Local chapters have always done good.

It is the unmentionables at HQ that are screwing things up royally.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Aaron,

Local chapters have always done good.

It is the unmentionables at HQ that are screwing things up royally.

Agreed!!!!

Has Cabelas outdoor adventures commented on this whole shameful and unethical debacle ? Seeing that 2 of their former KEY employees were " procured " to start up SCI outdoors...

Well done Aaron for running with this. Like a honey badger Bwana. Don't give them slack.

I was talking to the advertising people t SCI and was at the point to start advertising again in the SCI magazine , as I had done for years.
Not any more.

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:
Has Cabelas outdoor adventures commented on this whole shameful and unethical debacle ? Seeing that 2 of their former KEY employees were " procured " to start up SCI outdoors...

Well done Aaron for running with this. Like a honey badger Bwana. Don't give them slack.

I was talking to the advertising people t SCI and was at the point to start advertising again in the SCI magazine , as I had done for years.
Not any more.

Jan, I think you should tell them that .

I have done so Larry.

Besides Kirk, who was the other one poached from Cabelas?

In some of the communications on this matter, I have seen some negative references to Kelso. Does anyone know what the issues were with him?

My opinion ?
Business and good old capitalism will figure it out ( that's all of us including SCI )
I've been there on my own end in my business and from both sides
Life is a bitch and not always fair, business is never much fair from one side or the other as we all know and we are gonna live through it.
And my opinion may not be liked by some or all and I'm not looking for any approval.
Just don't want any socialism/fair play/equal deal for everyone
I hear enough from our Chiefie...

Let SCI LIVE OR DIE BY THEIR OWN HAND

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:
Has Cabelas outdoor adventures commented on this whole shameful and unethical debacle ? Seeing that 2 of their former KEY employees were " procured " to start up SCI outdoors...

Well done Aaron for running with this. Like a honey badger Bwana. Don't give them slack.

I was talking to the advertising people t SCI and was at the point to start advertising again in the SCI magazine , as I had done for years.
Not any more.

My boy, we are just getting started!!!

Good Day

I, like many others, have been watching the posts regarding SCI, and also like many, have often been at the receiving end of their dictatorial policies (at the Conventions mostly). That said, my purpose here is not to bash them... others seem to have that under control.

Through the various threads, I see a strong link between the support some give to their publication, and the belief that the SCI Magazine is an important and integral part of this conservation/advocacy organisation. I believe this to be very true, as I see magazines such as theirs and ours, being significant voices in a growing din of a bunny-hugging chorus. Their advertising rates are indicative of similar high volume publications, though I believe numbers to be misleading if they are missing the mark with content, and the publication mostly ends up in the bin, or bottom of the hyena’s cage.

With all that is taking place in Africa’s hunting arena, not least of all the recent ivory ban, we as hunters can ill afford to lose a voice. African Hunter has been in existence since 1994, and like everyone we are fighting to keep it going. Now more than ever, the African Hunter magazine needs the support of the hunting community, an industry we have promoted and supported over the last 20 years, helping to nurture and grow the sport, and industry at large. Our long-term survival depends on the support of those who are engaged in this industry today.

As I said, sport hunting is under pressure all over Africa, as evidenced by its closure in Botswana and Zambia. Kenya is a good example of the disaster that will follow these actions. While I know I am preaching to the converted and we all understand hunting’s role in conservation, the African Hunter needs the support of safari operators and hunters alike, if we are to have a voice in the future, and help safeguard the business of sport hunting.

We continue to promote ethical hunting, providing a forum for discussion in our pages which has led to better hunting and conservation practices over the last 20 years. We have published hundreds of trophy pictures and hunt reports, and are driven by an ethical, moral responsibility to the sport which goes beyond mere publishing.

For 2014, we are offering advertising specials and enhancements within the African Hunter magazine and our other publications. With the digitization of our magazines over the last 18 months, I believe we are able to offer an advertising medium unmatched by any other African specific publication, anywhere in the world. Basically, we have discounted our rates by 50%, which in essence means a full page, full colour advert will cost $650... a far cry from SCI’s $4 500 going into the bigwig’s piggy bank. For the $4 500 single advert cost in SCI, operators could buy TWO year's worth of half page adverts (that’s 12 issues) in African Hunter, and we have a very captive and targeted audience. If our pages get into a hyena’s cage, it is because it ate the hunter reading the magazine.

Thanks for lending an ear. Should anyone want to know more about the linked digital services we offer to advertisers (free), please PM me or mail us on fishunt@zol.co.zw.

Wishing you all a great week

Should not the above post be in the classifieds.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Should not the above post be in the classifieds.

You mean like we should post anything to do with SCI in the HUMOUR FORUM?

Because everything that comes out of those plonkers is nothing but a bloody joke!

Apparently your distaste for SCI over rules your ability to read the post said "IN THE CLASSIFIEDS". Of course what is new. You are

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Apparently your distaste for SCI over rules your ability to read the post said "IN THE CLASSIFIEDS". Of course what is new. You are

Ed,

And from what we see here from so many people, I am not alone in my utter distaste of this organization.

Their actions speak volumes.

If there ever was an organization that is digging its own grave, SCI is it!

May be all the money they get from "donations" have been used to buy the spades

Saeed, there are not "many" people here only a miniscule few of the world wide hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Saeed, there are not "many" people here only a miniscule few of the world wide hunters.

My guess is the population on AR is a statistically significant sample, and therefore an accurate depiction of the feeling among all hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Saeed, there are not "many" people here only a miniscule few of the world wide hunters.

My guess is the population on AR is a statistically significant sample, and therefore an accurate depiction of the feeling among all hunters.

In all sincerity I think you are sadly mistaken. From a statistical perspective, not only is the AR data set small (particularly in terms of those that opine on these issues) but the data set is skewed. Sort of like running a political poll that relies solely on the opinions of active political bloggers. You cannot extrapolate those results. At the next SCI convention, stand at the door and ask everyone entering whether they have heard of AR or spent more than 30 minutes on AR in the last twelve months. I would be surprised if you break single digits.

You must think AR is significant, or you would not keep stepping over each other to discredit it!

I guess we do have something in common my opinion of AR is the same as your opinion of SCI, nothing more or nothing less.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You must think AR is significant, or you would not keep stepping over each other to discredit it!

Make no mistake, I enjoy AR and appreciate you hosting it for us. Nor do I have any desire to discredit AR. My point is simply that when you look at the universe of all hunters, those that are familiar with, much less use AR, is a very limited subset. Now back to bashing and thrashing SCI. Perhaps someone needs to make a post about Mark Sullivan, would not want you to get too rusty on that topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
I guess we do have something in common my opinion of AR is the same as your opinion of SCI, nothing more or nothing less.

Bloody hell Ed,

With my attitude towards SCI, if they had a forum, I can assure you, you would not see ME there

Oh Saeed, you are only kidding yourself. You would be there like stink on shit! Complaining, complaining, complaining. What else do you have to do, I am semi retired so I can waste time here.

Of course SCI could be of the same opinion of AR - I don't see anyone from there posting here.

Ed,

As you seem to be so connected with those at the top SCI, can you tell me why we have not heard a single word from any members of the Executive Committee?

I know they gave a general email address for anyone complaining - to diver attention from themselves.

And we know that once they got a good kick up their collective rear ends, they "postponed" this decision.

But how come not single one of them said a word about all this mess?

We know that their excuse was that this was buried into a 100 pages document, but does anyone really believe them?

I tell something though, members of SCI seem to have had enough, and REAL change has to come.

Like anything else, SCI is not all good or all bad. This episode has to rank right up there with the worst of the bad.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Like anything else, SCI is not all good or all bad. This episode has to rank right up there with the worst of the bad.

I couldn't agree more and it has to be said that if they should even consider this idea, let alone consider it for 6 months & then put the idea into operation says an awful lot about the utter contempt they hold their members and exhibitors in.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Like anything else, SCI is not all good or all bad. This episode has to rank right up there with the worst of the bad.

I couldn't agree more and it has to be said that if they should even consider this idea, let alone consider it for 6 months & then put the idea into operation says an awful lot about the utter contempt they hold their members and exhibitors in.

Frankly, those same exhibitors and donators deserve whatever they get!

SCI has been screwing them up for years and they never tried to make any changes - despite all the complaining they do out of the exhibition.

SCI gets a cut from EVERYTHING connected with the show.

First they blackmail you, then they charge for every little thing that goes into the exhibition - wither it is a service or a product.

And the exhibitors did nothing.

They might ask president Hollander of France to be the next head of SCI!

He will be a perfect match for them.

After all, he brought the 100% tax for the French, and I suppose that is what SCI is aiming for.

Saeed, I am not "connected with those at the top SCI". Also I haven't seen AR do anything about any of the "SCI problems". The letters that seem to have had some effect didn't come from AR. Saeed, if you are so concerned about SCI why not just get on the Board you can sure afford to attend all the board meeting or why not just attend a board meeting as an observer and see first hand how things work. You are basically working or expressing opinions based on second hand information.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Saeed, I am not "connected with those at the top SCI". Also I haven't seen AR do anything about any of the "SCI problems". The letters that seem to have had some effect didn't come from AR. Saeed, if you are so concerned about SCI why not just get on the Board you can sure afford to attend all the board meeting or why not just attend a board meeting as an observer and see first hand how things work. You are basically working or expressing opinions based on second hand information.

I love that!
Second hand opinions!!??

So all we have been hearing so far is not factual, it is only second hand rumor!

You will do well in a job as spin doctor Ed!