General question and would like to hear other's opinion. I have been a member of SCI and have been to several shows, etc. One thing that I have always come away with is SCI seems to really attract the "well heeled" hunter and certainly the hunter that is very concerned with trophy size.

First impressions of the organization are it is a far cry from the "average" guy that one might meet at the range on saturday afternoon.

This is not a bad thing, just a different thing.

What do you say are my impressions completely off target.

Go to the local SCI Chapter fundraisers to meet "Joe Average". He's the one doing all the volunteer work, and helping out the F&G Dept. projects. Lots of fun!!!!!!!!!

Go to the big show for playing with guns, eye candy, lots of reading material, and the chance to meet old friends again - year after year.

I've been a member for five or so years. Never have attended a convention but I think SCI does more for our hunting rights than any other org.

SCI is the only world wide organization that is focused on preserving hunting and hunters' rights. In addition to that, they serve as a clearing house for contacts between would be hunters and the hunting industry. If a large portion of their membership is well heeled I thing that is a good thing. These individuals are, as near as I can tell, more than willing to shell out money for conservation, local aid, medicines, research, political support, lobbying efforts, etc. etc. that will benefit everyone, including the non-hunting wildlife lovers and the anti-hunting wildlife lovers. Top echelon efforts carry a fair degree of weight world wide in protecting hunting habit and dealing with various governments in opening hunting opportunities. Wealth, power, and numbers of people are all part of the game in influencing what you want in life, in the case of big game hunters, it's SCI. No, they're far from perfect, and hunting in distant lands is expensive, but it has always been expensive. I haven't found any "bargains" in hunts, but I have joined in the brotherhoon nonetheless and made to feel welcome and a full fledged participant. The RMEF, the Mule Deer Fd, NFAWS, Wild Turkey Fd, DU,TU, and so on, do good work, and I hope they continue to do so. However, SCI is more encompassing. At 40 or 50,000 strong, something must be right.

SCI

FIRST FOR HUNTERS !!!



Steve

I’m an “average guy†and a member of SCI. Without SCI, I would have never been able to go to Africa. My brother bought a trip at a SCI dinner and I got to go as an observer. I did my observing with my Remington and had a great time. I never thought I would have been able to go at a “young†age. Without SCI and their auctions/dinners, a lot of “average guys†(like me) wouldn’t be able to hunt in Africa.

[URL=www.safarilist.com ]Safari List[/URL]

Its' safe to say nobody in the SCI Hall of Fame or Inner Circle. Is living pay check to pay check or in any way the average Joe!

I'm a Life Member of SCI, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the NRA. All of these organizations got my money because I believe that they were and are doing the right thing for gun owners and hunters. We need every hunter to join with us in protecting our Second Amendment rights and hunting privileges. SCI does this on a world wide scale for hunting, in spite of the awards programs and other things that some people may not like. No organization is perfect, but we have to band together in what we believe in and have a passion for. Just my 2 cents worth.

SCI is full of "average Joes" and a fair number of the "well heeled" also. But we all fight together to defend the right to hunt. Great organization.

Use Enough Gun said it all.

My local SCI chapter (Tallahassee) has many experienced hunters and some of the nicest people I've ever met.

I'm an international member but do not belong to a local chapter

I will probably never be able to hunt Argali in asia, Polar Bear in the Artic or Markhor in the Himilayas. All are way beyond my financial means.

But I am happy that some peole can and that SCI has gone to Congress to fight for those people's right to hunt and import trophies. They still haven't got Markhors importable, but are trying. SCI is working with South American countries to document Jaguar numbers so maybe they can be sport hunted and imported in the future.

While it is undoubtably true that lots of people with big money belong, and I don't agree with allowing pen raised game into the record books, any organization willing to go fight for the rights of hunters in the halls of Congress will have my support.

And for what it is worth, I'm an average Joe. I'm just an old enlisted career sailor, never really made a whole lot of money. I've done 5 safaris, hunted all over the states and several area in Canada. I am a life member of SCI because they will fight for my rights. I have never had a trophy measured and will never put one in a record book. My ego just doesn't run that way, but the book does show where the best game comes from and if the game is free ranging, that would be a real good indicator of the overall health of the population in that area.

Outlaw the importation of Argali today and you can utlaw the importation of moose from Canada tomorrow.

Mac

Use Enough Gun, mustbhuntn said it all for me!

PSmith is absolutly right. Hunters as are on this forum and member of SCI are some of the best folks you'd ever want to meet. I am proud to call many of them "friend"!

In general I agree with MAC and most others, SCI may well be the best representative hunters and hunting in general have on a national and international basis. That is why I am a member and will continue to be. That said, I am put off by what seems like an obsession with "medals" etc., which to me seems to put hunting in the same category as winning ribbons at a car show. Generally speaking this is a harmless thing which I suppose brings satisfaction to those who are into it, and I don't wish to deprive them. I do hope SCI exercises great vigilence to insure that the ethical hunting hurdles prior to awards of medals are the highest, if not, one truly egregious rotten apple used as an example by antis will wipe much of the good work done by SCI.

We because you asked. I joined back in the early 80's and did not get my membership materials or magazine for 3 months-- so I called the office and had my money returned. I have never been interested from that point. If the service is that bad starting out, I can not see it getting better over time.

I am a member of NRA, SCI, and RMEF. I joined theses organizations because they are a powerful groups that support my rights to pursue activities that some would like to see eliminated.

SCI uses many programs that I do not participate in (Inner Circle, etc.) to raise hugh amounts of cash. How much does it cost to bring litigation that insures our right to hunt Bear in New Jersey? Next year California? We need a voice.

Any hunter/shooter that does not support the NRA is part of the problem. Once again there are some things I do not agree with, but who else is supporting our rights to own firearms at all levels?

I have heard complaints about the RMEF, usually concerning fund raising. Folks, get a grip. Insuring habitat is not cheap. Want a place to hunt? Think about it.

quote:

I joined back in the early 80's and did not get my membership materials or magazine for 3 months-- so I called the office and had my money returned. I have never been interested from that point.

SCI does seem a bit disorganized at times; they apparently lost my membership renewal materials last year. This year my badges and banquet tickets which were supposedly mailed on 12/19/07 have never arrived. I called SCI; when I get to Reno "if they done arrive" I have to go to the membership desk.

That said, I value my SCI membership even though all things aren't right. It's advantageous to have some well heeled hunters on our side.

SCI is to hunting what the NRA is to the right to bear arms, only it advocates for everyone world wide. And it is a world wide organization. I too am a member of the Tallahassee Chapter, and we are loaded up with good folk, and is so often the case, the ones who have been to Africa, New Zealand, or you name it the most are as common and comfortable as a pair of well broke-in hunting boots. Kudude

Well, I'll be the dissenting voice on this thread too, I guess. I have had very negative interactions with SCI. While they do some good, on balance I do not think they are on the right track. Their insistence on collaborating and supporting PH's and outfits alredy banned from hunting in some country for illegal activity is just one clear example. The entire ethics committee is a true joke, with cash contributions greasing the skids in many cases. I believe SCI is dmaging the sport in many ways. Hunting is too important to me to just ignore these efforts.
I am also aware that chapters are very different from one to another. Some I would readily support. Others are a true disgrace. SCI (International office) excercises very little control over local chapters. In a few instances, different local chapters have spent money to support opposing sides of the same hunting issue. Incredible.
There are some good people in SCI. There are others I don't care to be associated with. I have chosen to make my contributions to other more worthy hunting and conservation organizations.

Bill

i would like to know SPECIFIC examples where local chapters have supported opposing sides of the same issue? there is NO other organization that advocates for international hunting like SCI.

My opinion has always been positive. I have been a member for 15 years and been to the convention for the last eight. This one is the first as a life member. I won't miss it for anything as it has become a part of my yearly hunting activities.
Do I run into other people that have very different ideas of what "Hunting" might mean to them - absolutely, but that does not keep me from belonging or enjoying the show. Blank has it right, go to the show to see it for yourself, check out the eye candy, the new products, taxidermy and above all to see old friends.

I think SCI is a good outfit over all. I find a lot of the trophy stuff to be silly but to each his own. As far as being well heeled I guess there are a lot of successful people in SCI. I didnt know that working hard and making a mark in life was a problem. I guess I was raised differently. There are some who seem to have their priorities mixed up in SCI. At least to me it seems that way. You need to look at the reason you hunt and what you get out of it. There are just as many average Joes around too, and as stated above they are the worker bee types. Thank all of you in that category. I didnt like some of the things that went on so got myself elected to the BOD a couple years back. Seems to me the way to change things is to get involved and make yourself heard. I am no longer on the board due to my job but I still voice my opinion and do what I can to help when I can. That includes doing things like getting a certain outfitter who shall remain nameless out of donating to that chapter. I will say that I have met a few real asses in SCI but that 90 percent or better are some of the hardest working, nicest, and generous people I have ever met. They vote with both their time and money working for the rights of hunters and also to give back to the community. I would have any of them in my camp or home anytime and they even not knowing me well have opnened their homes to me many times as well. The organization does a lot of good. There are also some things that are a work in progress shall we say. When SCI first started it was basically a millionaires club. Look what it has evolved into. An organization fighting for the rights of hunters everywhere, as well as one concerned with the conservation of wildlife.To shun SCI because you dont like some of the attitudes or ethics is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. To make a change you need to get involved if there is something you dont like or that you believe needs to get done. I will guarantee that you will meet a lot of great people and form friendships for life. I know I have. Iam a life member both of the international and I am life member #3 of the Detroit chapter.
Mike

Life member #358, and proud to have made the contribution. Worthwhile and important work being done on many levels by many people world wide, and that's the key.

I have had issues with individuals within SCi, but not the organization or the concept.

Mike Smith; I couldn't have said it any better. What he said!

LP, i am still waiting for SPECIFIC examples of different SCI local chapters supporting opposing sides of a hunting issue!! since you used the plural, i must assume this has happened more than once, so one example shouldn't be hard to find.

LP - I am still waiting for your answer on you and several others starting the "perfect'' organization and publishing the "perfect" magazine?? As I said don't be a whinner and complainer without putting forward a solution. If you have no solution you are just a "Whinner" and "Complainer". SCI is at the forefront for ALL hunters, protecting the sport we love. jdollar, hope you are not holding your breath waiting for the answer to your question??

Larry Sellers
Life Member SCI

From a worker bee's point of view the one thing I like best about SCI is when a local chapter works hard to raise funds only 30% goes to the national office vs the others RMEF, NRA, Ducks etc all funds go to national and you must jump thru hoops and do hugh amounts of paper work to get any of your funds back for local projects.

Very very, very important point DOJ. SCI Chapters are the backbone of the organization. This fact lets funds raised be used in the
grass root" projects that each Chapter holds closest and dearest. I have been involved with many SCI Chapter fundraisers in New Mexico and we always put the hard earned monies to good quality, local projects.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
From a worker bee's point of view the one thing I like best about SCI is when a local chapter works hard to raise funds only 30% goes to the national office vs the others RMEF, NRA, Ducks etc all funds go to national and you must jump thru hoops and do hugh amounts of paper work to get any of your funds back for local projects.

It is this same fact (70/30 split) that allows chapters to occassionally work at cross purposes. It has been about 3 years since I did my research and investigated SCI thoroughly. There were several well documented cases, and as best I recall they involved chapters in CA (of course!), UT, and either MI or WI. I don't recall all the details about every case, but talked with a very helpful person in the office who basically parroted the above fact. Since National (International?) doesn't control where the 70% goes they didn't much care. I realize this isn't an everyday event. It does happen and the folks at HQ weren't bashful about it. I got much of my info at the time directly from HQ and the involved chapters. Each made the case they were spending their members money as the members in their chapter saw fit. Do your own research and make your own decision.

I actually believe there is an important safeguard in having the money funneled through the National office, as it is in RMEF. There is a professional staff in their case that verifies that the money is being spent on truly worthwhile projects and not frittered away on someones special interest. I've never had trouble getting money released from RMEF for quality projects. I think allowing the decisions to be soley in the hands of local chapter officials (volunteers) is poor management. But I guess I have never had a need for a habitat improvement project adjacent to my private ranch.
Just my opinion.

Bill

llamapacker, IMO anything centeralized on a national level will be IMO less effeicent just like our federal government. I just flew down and back to DSC and was once more reminded of the "great job" TSA is doing. Local is better even if it is funding someones favorite project and in the cased of SCI I will gau. that person has busted his ass for the local chapter or they will not get the funds. When one has to deal with one face to face the rubber meets the road.

But to each his own, that is why I am involved with our local SCI chapter and not the REMF, I do attend their banquet and suport them with funds just not time.

As long as we're talking about RMEF, let's add DU, FNAWS and the turkey and quail federations. All do great jobs with habitat preservation and enhancement. None, however, has a mandate to protect our right to hunt their featured species.

RMEF, DU, FNAWS and the turkey and quail foundation members will get involved as individuals, but these organizations will lose their non-profit status if they lobby as organizations against proposals to halt or restrict hunting.

SCI not only has habitat protection programs around the world, but it also is involved in many programs to protect hunting and hunters. SCI and the NRA are our only organizations with Washington D.C. offices staffed with attorneys/lobbyists.

The difference is the NRA's mandate is the protection of our rights to own and use firearms. SCI's mandate is the protection of hunting and hunters. Thank God we have both of them working for us.

Bill Quimby

Just so no one gets their drawers in a bind, SCI and NRA have charitable arms to handle their charitable efforts, but as Bill has stated they are mainly lobbying org. thus "contributions" are not tax deductable. Let us not confuse charitable org with non-profit org the SCI and NRA are non-profits, not charitable org.

Bill Q - right on as usual. My opinion of RMEF is one of total disgust. They managed to "snag" a large ranch here in New Mexico, thousands of acres in prime elk habitat. No problem with preserving habitat. But guess what? To date only the "big wigs" in RMEF have been allowed to hunt there. Talk about a bunch of elitists!! They take ever penny from their Chapter's fundraisers, send little if any back, and will not raise one finger to help us hunters protect our hunting rights. They and there kind will never get any support or monies from me with that kind of agenda. Also has anyone checked the membership list of RMEF lately?? Lots of greenie, bunny huggers and anti's on their membership rolls. A lot of their members
that do hunt, have been misled into thinking they are supporting elk and elk hunting by being a member. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sorry for getting somewhat off topic but now we know where the llama man is coming from.

Larry Sellers

and still no specific examples."i talked to someone ,somewhere , who talked to someone else who said such and such". if anyone ever needed to see a specific example of why it is a bad idea to send money( read-taxes) to a central headquarters( read- Washington) just look to where you send your income taxes( state or federal) and see how much tricKles back to your area. and what is wrong with locally raised funds being spent LOCALLY???

So what is wrong with separate Chapters with separate memberships spending their own money the way the members see fit? As long as it is within the guidelines used by SCI what is the problem?

Different people have different ideas of ethical hunting and how to preserve it.

I believe that in Montana the Chapters were split on the High Fence issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Gator1:
So what is wrong with separate Chapters with separate memberships spending their own money the way the members see fit? As long as it is within the guidelines used by SCI what is the problem? Different people have different ideas of ethical hunting and how to preserve it. I believe that in Montana the Chapters were split on the High Fence issue.

The difference between SCI and most other groups mentioned above is that its board of directors consists of representatives from each of SCI's many chapters. The majority vote of the board members rules the international organization. The local chapters may spend their money and take positions as they see fit.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
As long as we're talking about RMEF, let's add DU, FNAWS and the turkey and quail federations. All do great jobs with habitat preservation and enhancement. None, however, has a mandate to protect our right to hunt their featured species.

RMEF, DU, FNAWS and the turkey and quail foundation members will get involved as individuals, but these organizations will lose their non-profit status if they lobby as organizations against proposals to halt or restrict hunting.

SCI not only has habitat protection programs around the world, but it also is involved in many programs to protect hunting and hunters. SCI and the NRA are our only organizations with Washington D.C. offices staffed with attorneys/lobbyists.

The difference is the NRA's mandate is the protection of our rights to own and use firearms. SCI's mandate is the protection of hunting and hunters. Thank God we have both of them working for us.

Bill Quimby

Very well stated.

So, as I read this, membership of SCI is like an insurance policy?
Peter.

When the Fund for Animals and Humane Society filed a lawsuit in an attempt to halt expansion of hunting programs on 37 National Wildlife Refuges, SCI was the only organization who provided comments in opposition to be included in the final decision on our hunt plan. Somebody at SCI realized the importance of the legal action, and took the time to read through and evaluate the plan and then craft a well thought-out comment letter. They have also been involved from the beginning in the legal wranglings in court.

That spoke volumes to me. As a lifetime member of the NRA, and former member of a bunch of other conservation organizations, I was truly disappointed at the lack of involvement by anybody else. I had been on the fence about renewing my SCI membership until they weighed in against HSUS - not any more. They've got my check.

Thank you Acer!