Mickey,

Good post, and you are right on several points. I see a lot of merit in many of the things that SCI does: the supporting of hunting rights, and conservation work. That's why I've been a member and at times donated money to them beyond membership.

However, I have not been impressed with the quality of their publications lately, or many of the SCI members/booking agents that I've talked with. I know I've only run into a small sample of the people in SCI, and that judging from this forum and Nitro's forum, there are many great people in it, I just feel "out of step" with the hunting culture/style they seem to promote in the publications.

Personally, I enjoyed the Reno Convention. I suspect if you look hard enough you can find fault with any organization, churches included. It seems some do that looking and focus on the negative instead of the positive. All of the alternative organizations mentioned here have detractors. None is perfect. If one is looking for perfection, it only exists in my wife. She told me to say that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogcat:
I do not and cannot in good conscience make a donation to an organization that holds the safari company hostage for a donation in order to exhibit at a combination boat-sport-travel-hunting show. You get what you pay for in life - there is no free lunch and no "good" or "inside" deal. The safari company is giving away profits to bolster an organization that does not truly represent the safari company's interest.

I am on the board of a conservation organization that raises about $150,000 per year for projects we want to support. We host an art show of 50 or so artists. We charge them a booth fee of about $350 and 20% commission on all art sold at the show. We set them up, we advertise, we get 20,000 people to the show and sell an enormous amount of art. All are happy at the end of the day. We have artists lined up to get into the show.

If you want to hold a good show, do the same with safari companies or brokers - charge a reasonable booth fee and ask for an agents commision on all hunts sold via the show. If the show is as good as everyone claims they are, everyone wins. The hunter gets a tax deduction for the amount of the commission, the safari operator gets hunts booked and the hosting entity gets operating money.

I checked out RMEF, DU, Nature Conservancy and others a few years ago. All are focused on fund raising to support thier mission. DU has "chapters" which in reality are fundraising groups. I suggest that SCI look deep within itself and settle this issue as they will continue to lose members.

I have no intention of joining as I don't agree with the "measuring" of trophies. I think it is wrong and don't do it. I joined Houston Safari Club a few years ago to attend the meetings and learn about new places to hunt. Money well spent by me.

If I were a safari company, I would go to Dallas and Houston and Harrisburg and blow off the Reno event.

---

dogcat

No one forces a safari company to attend the SCI Convention. They do it because it is good business. Even after the donations and the booth fee the exhibitors must feel that it is profitable for them to attend. If not they would not be there. Like you said, there is no free lunch. If an outfitter wants to attend than they have to pay for the privilege. The Convention is set up for the benefit of the members, not for the benefit of the outfitters. I suspect that if you owned a Safari company you would be at SCI, because thats where the buyers are.

Your taking 20% of sales from your artists is a real rip off. SCI offered to forgo the auction and the donations in return for 10% of the value of goods sold and the exhibitors said NO.

I am guessing from your remarks that you have never attended the SCI Convention. Everyone should go at least once. It is amazing.



.

Mickey,

Thanks for raising those points. For the others I have exchanged emails and PMs with Mickey, and he has given me insights into why the things that happen at SCI do so.

For the other posters,

I didn't list the names of the conservation groups that met with the President (about 15 IIRC). I was trying to point out that SCI was the only outfit with Safari in its name that is invited to that forum.

At my SCI Chapter we raise funds for local, regional, national and international projects. We have about 300 members, and draw about 600 to our main fund-raiser. We have about 40 exhibitors there, and we don't charge them to exhibit. We do request a donation. We will raise over $100,000 for our donations in most years, and we have been doing this for over 25 years.

We coordinate with the Southern California SCI Chapters in our region, and also with all the California Chapters as a group. Of course we work with SCI too, and SCI works with other NGOs like NRA in North America and FACE in Europe.

SCI raises much of its annual budget from the Convention. By the way SCI is at 47,000 members and is growing.

jim

Mickey,
We set the art show up with the input from artists. They suggested the 20% commission as opposed to the 25% and higher commissions charged at other shows such as the Southeastern Show in Charleston and others. We also tell the buyers that 20% of the purchase price directly to projects we think are worthwhile and within the guidelines of our charter. The buyers know this and we have not had a complaint in 12 years of doing the show.

My suggestion to SCI is that they should consider staging the event with a great deal of input from the exhibitors because the public is there to see the exhibitors, not necesarily join SCI or support SCI efforts. The public is there to make contact with an outfitter/safari company.

I have not been to the Reno event, but have attended similar events in Houston and Dallas at the local non-SCI clubs. I have no issue with conventions.

I wonder if SCI or others ever sit down with a cross section of exhibitors and ask - what is the best way to put on this type of event? I think the answers would suprise them. I talked to three exhibitors at the Dallas event and each said - we like the events, we like the timing of the events, but we do not like to donate hunts. So, there must some middle ground between host and exhibitor.

As to the original reason for this entire subject - OoA reniging on a hunt offered by SCI, I would think that SCI is the responsible party as they "owned" hunt that was to be auctioned. It was donated to SCI or through SCI. SCI has a level of responsibility to be sure the end user or end buyer gets what he has paid for. SCI is getting paid for the hunt, not the safari company and hence should have some responsibility to deliver the goods.

I realize that there is likely some fine print somewhere on a ticket stub or membership form or whatever that allows SCI to dodge this responsibility, but it is not right.

End of the matter is that you never get something for nothing and that is what the safari company is getting by donating.

Bill,
sorry you had to go through this to and thank you for sharing it

jeffe

One goal SCI and the other safari clubs has is to raise money to fund their operations. Big game hunting has and will be an expensive hobby. SCI's membership is made up of both multimillionaires and middle class working people. I think they try to appeal to both in order to get the "big bucks" from one and the membership numbers from the other. Large membership with little money or very small elite membership with lots of money both has its problems if an organization continues to prosper. I think that some of us get squeezed out in that some of the programs are just not available to all members - for example the awards program which is very expensive just for the price you pay for the trophies. The prices to attend all the functions at the annual convention is getting higher and higher. Some events are only open to certain members, such as the inner circle winners and life members. I can remember years ago when a registration to the convention got you into all meals, breakfast, auctions, etc. Now you have to purchase each individually, and many people settle for just getting in the door. Still, attending the annual convention is an overwhelming experience, especially for the first timer. It's kind of like being a kid at Christmas time, with your nose pressed up against the toy store window.

Even with all it's faults SCI is still a great organization fighting for the rights of hunters. I do not agree with everything they do but they are still one of if not the best out there. Certainly there are problems some worse than others as with any organization. However, you can only change an organization from the inside. You can go elsewhere to play but it dosnt solve any problems that way. I will continue to fight for what I believe is the right thing to do within the organization.

dogcat

SCI does sit down with an exhibitors committee to decide how to run the convention. This is the system they have come up with. Don't forget their are around 1200 different exhibitors and there will always be some that disagree with what happens. I think the outfitters who raise the issue are the ones that want to enjoy the benefits of attending but don't want to pay the fee for doing so.

20% may be an acceptable figure in the Art world, I don't know. Art is mostly labour and that is always cheap. Hunting trips have a much higher percentage of fixed costs and a percentage can kill an outfitter. A fixed cost, known ahead of time can be written off over the length of a season as advertising.

Trust me on this, Houston and Dallas are nothing like SCI. SCI is huge. I actually prefer something the size of DSC myself but like I said everyone should see SCI at least once.

One thing that most people do not understand is that all SCI Chapters are independent corperations. SCI can set an overall policy, can mediate and suggest but ultimately the International has little control over the Chapters. About the only hammer it has is the pulling of the Chapter Charter.

What happened to Bill is shameful and he has a right to be angry. It is a Chapter issue. The International does not have the authority to arbitrarily act on his complaint. It is precluded by it's bylaws and by law from dictating to other corperations.

SCI needs to rewrite those corporate regulations and make the local chapters make their beds tight enough to bounce a quarter off of. Slop and greed. Swine at the trough.

RAB

What you are suggesting would be very difficult. The Chapters control the Board of Directors. They have about 80% of the votes. They would have to approve the giving up of their own independance. Not likely and frankly not a very good idea. Most think the International has too much authority now.

After reading all the above I am sorry that you have gone through this. I am President of the local SCI chapter in Nacogdoches, Texas (Pineywoods chapter) and we deal with those PHs and Safari operators that are known to be loyal and true. The chapter that sold the hunt should have been a little more cautious in their dealings with those that were offering.In our chapter we research each possible donation and only take those that are up and open to inspection. Deal with a quality group and you will get a quality return
Our chapter runs almost 100 members, up from 34 2 years ago. We have been a chapter with SCI now for over 10 years and have yet to have to deal with anything such as the original post.
I hope you will consider the idea of rejoining the membership of SCI on a national basis. Find yourself another club to go with and become part of the Board and help direct the ways of that club so this will not happen to anyone under your watch.

Bob Cunningham
Pineywoods SCI - President

Mickey,
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that SCI national had control over the local entities or affiliates similar to DU, RMEF and others. Seems that if you wear the logo of national, you should be somewhat under their rules or standards.

I hope Bill his mess sorted out.

It would be a gross mistake to conclude that SCI national has any better ethics than the SCI local chapters. SCI national is selling poached hunts in Zimbabwe from OOA, just like the local chapters.

I was a member of SCI years ago and dropped because of some of the antics mentioned here. I had a weak moment and joined again this year but it looks like little has changed. I let my RMEF membership lapse this year. There is just something about the tone of that bunch that makes me uncomfortable. Could be me as I am not really much of a joiner. Anyway, reading your post cured me of EVER wanting to purchase any SCI auction hunt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:
My advise is to shop and find a good deal, check out references and book that hunt, if its too good to be true then it probably is..A well known PH once told me that for every discount he gave in a hunt, some quality of the hunt had to be removed...I believe that.

---

Ray's got it down! I find if you pay with peanuts, you are most likely dealing with monkeys!

NOW! with LLamapacker's post you have something solid to bitch about, instead of all the gossip that has been going round!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MacD37:
.......

NOW! with LLamapacker's post you have something solid to bitch about, instead of all the gossip that has been going round!

---

Mac

I resent that. I never repeat gossip....... You have to listen close the first time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mickey1:

Mac

I resent that. I never repeat gossip....... You have to listen close the first time.

---

I am a member of the NRA, SCI and the Republican party. None of these organizations fully represents my opinions and thoughts on all matters.

However, all three groups are willing to be my spokesperson on major issues which I agree with to the bottom of my soul. You know what they are.

SCI has problems and is full of rich bastards. So what. I loved grabbing a $120,000 rifle and pretending its mine. The Reno show is worth $500.

Give the NRA $100 a year and SCI $55 if you believe in the right to keep arms and the right to hunt. The Sierra Club pukes are more than willing to give the same and more in a race to take those rights away.

And by the way....Don't give a dime to the Humane Society. Their national charter lists banning hunting as a goal.

Si+3