I have been a member of SCI for over 20 years. As others have stated above, there are a lot of people with big money (not me) involved. But I really don't see that as a problem - except all those big egos creates some real issues with the politics at the upper levels.

For many years, the club was still trying to be the hunting club of Mac and his buddies. There was no real clear vision of where the club was going and how to get there. And many of them liked it that way.

The club is now marketing itself as "First for Hunters" and going after more of the mainline hunters. Thats a good thing. If SCI is seen as being to hunters as the NRA is to gun owners, we all win.

I do like the fact that we keep 70% of our money at local level. Here in Alaska, the local chapter devotes a lot of money to worthwhile projects. Here are a few:
- When fire swept through the remote village of Hooper Bay, the Alaska Chapter stepped in and bought firearms for 40 families so they could continue their subsistence lifestyle.
- When Fish and Game had no funds available to buy firearms for use in their classes, it was Alaska Chapter of SCI that bought them.
- When the practice of hunting black bears with the use of bait stands was threatened by a ballot initiative, it was the Alaska Chapter of SCI that led the fight (it was soundly defeated).
- And now that another group wants to us a ballot initiative to take away Fish and Game's ability to use predator control as a tool to manage big game populations, its once again the Alaska Chapter of SCI that is stepping in to fight that battle.

These things take money. And yes, the international organization does help with funds on a number of projects where they can, but its the local chapter that provides money and people to make these things happen.

There are lots of other hunter and conservation organizations taking money from hunters in Alaska, but its SCI that makes things happen. Hunters need SCI (and the many generous donors that help make it all possible).

One final word from me on this issue. I heard it once said, and have heard it many times since, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." There's strength in numbers. There's strength in all of us being united in our efforts to protect our Second Amendment Rights and our God given heritage to hunt. That's why I believe in these organizations, imperfect as they may be. We can stand united, or fail, divided. And believe me, many across the world want to see us fail and fail miserably. See you in Reno next week. . .

SCI - if you hunt you should join. Just like if you shoot there is no excuse not to be an NRA member. If you ever spent any time in some foreign countries where hunting and gun rights are constantly under attack you would hear the folks who live there telling you how lukcy you are to have organizations fighting for your rights. You do not have to agree with every issue to join and support the issues you agree with.

It is amazing what this small org has accomplished. As I understand SCI has app 75,000 members hauling the heavy load vs NRA 4 million plus hauling that heavy load. I think that puts things into the proper frame. SCI IS ONE HELL OF AN ORG.!

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
It is amazing what this small org has accomplished. As I understand SCI has app 75,000 members hauling the heavy load vs NRA 4 million plus hauling that heavy load. I think that puts things into the proper frame. SCI IS ONE HELL OF AN ORG.!

The last I heard it was closer to 50,000. Although some on this forum have groused about SCI's "fat cats" it is exactly these influential people who give the club so much clout with lawmakers here and around the world.

Bill Quimby

There are alot of Conservation/Hunting organizations these days.
RMEF, FNAWS, NRA, SCI, WTF, DU, and many more.

Just because some of the organizations have a different mission to accomplish than others doesn't make them wrong, only different.

To deny the importance of millions of acres of wetlands DU has protected, or the millions of acres that RMEF has protected would be in a word= ignorant.

The most inefficent thing a sportsman can do is bad mouth a Conservation organization.
If you feel there is a problem, bring it up at a board meeting. I can assure you the directors want to hear from you.

GET INVOLVED!

KC

quote:

Originally posted by Phoenixdawg:
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.

If you only read the IGFA (International Game Fish Association) publications or attended the big soiree at the Breakers in Palm Beach, you'd come away with the same impression. Some guys want their names in the record books no matter fowl, fish or beast. If ya got it, flaunt it.

I do most of my hunting less then 25 miles from home and am a member of SCI and the local chapter (East Ohio North West Penn Chapter). I'm a 4-H adviser and the local chapter has really supported us. With out their support we wouldn't have been able to provide the equipment, targets and ammo to introduce kids to shooting sports.