quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
This string

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Nelson - Sir, thank you for that. I sincerely look forward to seeing how to date, the $1million has been specifically utilized?? Certainly the Lion needs it now, more than ever!

As a side note - could you possibly get an answer to this question for me too?

Despite pleas from all angles including the scientific community as the most prevalent - why when asked to adopt the "Huntable Lion Definition", which is nothing more than a conservation minded guideline, did SCI not only refuse to do so, but refused to either create one of their own, or at the very least take some sort position in the matter period??

To date, I've seen nothing at all that represents the position of SCI - as it pertains to what they believe is good lion hunting practices, that they "recommend" to their members (both hunters/PH's and Outfitters) when participating in a "Wild" Lion hunting Safari? A guideline, a definition, something with substance that says - here's how we see it, and here's what we are recommending to our members. In fact, I know the USFWS was and still is greatly concerned that SCI - the organization they consider the biggest hunter/conservation group in the world was not willing to adopt the original definition that was in fact co-authored by who is considered most of the World's Leading Scientists in the field of the African Lion? Even more concerning to the USFWS was the fact that SCI did not either produce a guideline/definition of their own, or at the very least take a real conservation minded, well thought out position in the matter either? I think they, and the rest of us were certainly hoping for an expecting a lot more from the biggest organization in the world that is "First for Hunters".

Again, a sincere thank you for your time/effort in this matter. I for one, do greatly appreciate it.

Regards,

Aaron,

You have to look at SCI as an advocacy organization. They are not and should not be in the business of police matters if you will. If it is legal and ethical, then they should be all for it. I would not look for anything of that variety to come forward.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Nelson - Sir, thank you for that. I sincerely look forward to seeing how to date, the $1million has been specifically utilized?? Certainly the Lion needs it now, more than ever!

As a side note - could you possibly get an answer to this question for me too?

Despite pleas from all angles including the scientific community as the most prevalent - why when asked to adopt the "Huntable Lion Definition", which is nothing more than a conservation minded guideline, did SCI not only refuse to do so, but refused to either create one of their own, or at the very least take some sort position in the matter period??

To date, I've seen nothing at all that represents the position of SCI - as it pertains to what they believe is good lion hunting practices, that they "recommend" to their members (both hunters/PH's and Outfitters) when participating in a "Wild" Lion hunting Safari? A guideline, a definition, something with substance that says - here's how we see it, and here's what we are recommending to our members. In fact, I know the USFWS was and still is greatly concerned that SCI - the organization they consider the biggest hunter/conservation group in the world was not willing to adopt the original definition that was in fact co-authored by who is considered most of the World's Leading Scientists in the field of the African Lion? Even more concerning to the USFWS was the fact that SCI did not either produce a guideline/definition of their own, or at the very least take a real conservation minded, well thought out position in the matter either? I think they, and the rest of us were certainly hoping for an expecting a lot more from the biggest organization in the world that is "First for Hunters".

Again, a sincere thank you for your time/effort in this matter. I for one, do greatly appreciate it.

Regards,

Aaron,

You have to look at SCI as an advocacy organization. They are not and should not be in the business of police matters if you will. If it is legal and ethical, then they should be all for it. I would not look for anything of that variety to come forward.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
For the life of me I do not know why someone from SCI would come on to this forum, where you already have a long list of self declared folks that have renounced or cancelled their memberships, and try to explain or provide backup for what they do, simply because it is clear the group largely is not interested in what they have to say. Regardless of what is said, there will be an endless list of additional questions and skepticism expressed. It is absolutely a no win situation. There are some in the group who have mentally determined that they are beyond being convinced of anything good about SCI and they will defend their view to end. We already have folks criticizing the messenger because he does not hold the right title for goodness sake. So in the end, nothing really changes and people simply pick and choose from the information to justify that SCI is the demon they believe them to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Nelson - Sir, thank you for that. I sincerely look forward to seeing how to date, the $1million has been specifically utilized?? Certainly the Lion needs it now, more than ever!

As a side note - could you possibly get an answer to this question for me too?

Despite pleas from all angles including the scientific community as the most prevalent - why when asked to adopt the "Huntable Lion Definition", which is nothing more than a conservation minded guideline, did SCI not only refuse to do so, but refused to either create one of their own, or at the very least take some sort position in the matter period??

To date, I've seen nothing at all that represents the position of SCI - as it pertains to what they believe is good lion hunting practices, that they "recommend" to their members (both hunters/PH's and Outfitters) when participating in a "Wild" Lion hunting Safari? A guideline, a definition, something with substance that says - here's how we see it, and here's what we are recommending to our members. In fact, I know the USFWS was and still is greatly concerned that SCI - the organization they consider the biggest hunter/conservation group in the world was not willing to adopt the original definition that was in fact co-authored by who is considered most of the World's Leading Scientists in the field of the African Lion? Even more concerning to the USFWS was the fact that SCI did not either produce a guideline/definition of their own, or at the very least take a real conservation minded, well thought out position in the matter either? I think they, and the rest of us were certainly hoping for an expecting a lot more from the biggest organization in the world that is "First for Hunters".

Again, a sincere thank you for your time/effort in this matter. I for one, do greatly appreciate it.

Regards,

Aaron,

You have to look at SCI as an advocacy organization. They are not and should not be in the business of police matters if you will. If it is legal and ethical, then they should be all for it. I would not look for anything of that variety to come forward.

Jeff

Ya Jeff, I do see your point for sure - and I mean that sincerely. Not sure I totally agree to be honest, but that's of course what makes us all different. Again, just as DSC saw the definition - its simply a conservation minded guideline for its members to consider when lion hunting. There's no penalty, fine, etc, as one would generally associate with "policing" IMO. And it seems to me, folks are not getting that point?

But when you look at DSC's willingness to take a position, and state it publically - in favor of a reasonable guideline. As we all over 100 of the industry's largest, most prominent hunting companies, PH, agencies, etc - (the likes of CMS, Raoul Ramoni, Danny McCallum, TGTS, etc, etc, etc) it sure seems when dealing with such an important issue that could effect lots of Africa's wildlife, the biggest group of the lot - would at least take some position?

Honestly Jeff, the biggest downfall of not doing so - was the reaction from the USFWS. They couldn't believe it, and they clearly said that they were seriously questioning SCI's true intentions. Not my words, but theirs.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
For the life of me I do not know why someone from SCI would come on to this forum, where you already have a long list of self declared folks that have renounced or cancelled their memberships, and try to explain or provide backup for what they do, simply because it is clear the group largely is not interested in what they have to say. What we're interested in is truthful & complete answers but we're not getting them! Regardless of what is said, there will be an endless list of additional questions and skepticism expressed. Is it any wonder we react like that when the answers to simple questions are not forthcoming! It is absolutely a no win situation. There are some in the group who have mentally determined that they are beyond being convinced of anything good about SCI and they will defend their view to end. Not true. We could be easily satisfied by those answers I mentioned. We already have folks criticizing the messenger because he does not hold the right title for goodness sake. Titles don't matter. Answers do. So in the end, nothing really changes and people simply pick and choose from the information What information? No relevant info has been given.... just like normal! to justify that SCI is the demon they believe them to be. Give the correct info & we might change our minds. Keep it secret & we won't. It's not unreasonable to ask questions but it is unreasonable to keep such info secret.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
For the life of me I do not know why someone from SCI would come on to this forum, where you already have a long list of self declared folks that have renounced or cancelled their memberships, and try to explain or provide backup for what they do, simply because it is clear the group largely is not interested in what they have to say. Regardless of what is said, there will be an endless list of additional questions and skepticism expressed. It is absolutely a no win situation. There are some in the group who have mentally determined that they are beyond being convinced of anything good about SCI and they will defend their view to end. We already have folks criticizing the messenger because he does not hold the right title for goodness sake. So in the end, nothing really changes and people simply pick and choose from the information to justify that SCI is the demon they believe them to be.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Pretty simple actually. My view is that there are people that made their minds up a long time ago on their view of SCI and frankly nothing anyone says is going to change that view. They are simply going to seize on information that supports their view that SCI sucks and use that information to justify their position and ignore any information that is inconvenient to their view. If that is your audience, for the most part, why waste your time?

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Nelson - Sir, thank you for that. I sincerely look forward to seeing how to date, the $1million has been specifically utilized?? Certainly the Lion needs it now, more than ever!

As a side note - could you possibly get an answer to this question for me too?

Despite pleas from all angles including the scientific community as the most prevalent - why when asked to adopt the "Huntable Lion Definition", which is nothing more than a conservation minded guideline, did SCI not only refuse to do so, but refused to either create one of their own, or at the very least take some sort position in the matter period??

To date, I've seen nothing at all that represents the position of SCI - as it pertains to what they believe is good lion hunting practices, that they "recommend" to their members (both hunters/PH's and Outfitters) when participating in a "Wild" Lion hunting Safari? A guideline, a definition, something with substance that says - here's how we see it, and here's what we are recommending to our members. In fact, I know the USFWS was and still is greatly concerned that SCI - the organization they consider the biggest hunter/conservation group in the world was not willing to adopt the original definition that was in fact co-authored by who is considered most of the World's Leading Scientists in the field of the African Lion? Even more concerning to the USFWS was the fact that SCI did not either produce a guideline/definition of their own, or at the very least take a real conservation minded, well thought out position in the matter either? I think they, and the rest of us were certainly hoping for an expecting a lot more from the biggest organization in the world that is "First for Hunters".

Again, a sincere thank you for your time/effort in this matter. I for one, do greatly appreciate it.

Regards,

Aaron,

You have to look at SCI as an advocacy organization. They are not and should not be in the business of police matters if you will. If it is legal and ethical, then they should be all for it. I would not look for anything of that variety to come forward.

Jeff

Ya Jeff, I do see your point for sure - and I mean that sincerely. Not sure I totally agree to be honest, but that's of course what makes us all different. Again, just as DSC saw the definition - its simply a conservation minded guideline for its members to consider when lion hunting. There's no penalty, fine, etc, as one would generally associate with "policing" IMO. And it seems to me, folks are not getting that point?

But when you look at DSC's willingness to take a position, and state it publically - in favor of a reasonable guideline. As we all over 100 of the industry's largest, most prominent hunting companies, PH, agencies, etc - (the likes of CMS, Raoul Ramoni, Danny McCallum, TGTS, etc, etc, etc) it sure seems when dealing with such an important issue that could effect lots of Africa's wildlife, the biggest group of the lot - would at least take some position?

Honestly Jeff, the biggest downfall of not doing so - was the reaction from the USFWS. They couldn't believe it, and they clearly said that they were seriously questioning SCI's true intentions. Not my words, but theirs.

Aaron,

I don't disagree at all with your position and your desire to see at least suggestive guidelines. I just don't thinks you will see. it. I also forgot about your association with the SCI/Lion/USFWS situation. My bad.

Mike,

I think Nelson has the perfect title and is someone we could gather more information from and perhaps influence. My .02.



Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
For the life of me I do not know why someone from SCI would come on to this forum, where you already have a long list of self declared folks that have renounced or cancelled their memberships, and try to explain or provide backup for what they do, simply because it is clear the group largely is not interested in what they have to say. What we're interested in is truthful & complete answers but we're not getting them! Regardless of what is said, there will be an endless list of additional questions and skepticism expressed. Is it any wonder we react like that when the answers to simple questions are not forthcoming! It is absolutely a no win situation. There are some in the group who have mentally determined that they are beyond being convinced of anything good about SCI and they will defend their view to end. Not true. We could be easily satisfied by those answers I mentioned. We already have folks criticizing the messenger because he does not hold the right title for goodness sake. Titles don't matter. Answers do. So in the end, nothing really changes and people simply pick and choose from the information What information? No relevant info has been given.... just like normal! to justify that SCI is the demon they believe them to be. Give the correct info & we might change our minds. Keep it secret & we won't. It's not unreasonable to ask questions but it is unreasonable to keep such info secret.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
I am saying nothing about questions for SCI, what I am saying this has been going on and on and on and on. It does not appear anyone posting here has or will get the answers they want. When someone tries to provide some clarification it is not enough. It appears the only thing that will satisfy some here will be a copy of the SCI check stubs and then the same for the foundation.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Aaron, do you mean a lot of AR members or SCI members in either case it is not a lot it is a few members of AR and a miniscule number of SCI members.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Pretty simple actually. My view is that there are people that made their minds up a long time ago on their view of SCI and frankly nothing anyone says is going to change that view. They are simply going to seize on information that supports their view that SCI sucks and use that information to justify their position and ignore any information that is inconvenient to their view. If that is your audience, for the most part, why waste your time?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not dispute that there are some on AR that are legitimately interested in the information. On the other hand, I also believe there are some that made their minds up on SCI a long time ago and will grasp at every straw to justify their position on SCI regardless of the information being presented. Unfortunately, the latter tend to be the most vocal.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Aaron, do you mean a lot of AR members or SCI members in either case it is not a lot it is a few members of AR and a miniscule number of SCI members.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Even at US$1M spread over 6 years as Matt suggests, that's US$166666 per year and doesn't explain the US$1M that was claimed to have been raised for lion conservation last year and that doesn't appear to be been used.

Reducing the time span from 11 years to 6 years might make the figures look marginally better but it surely doesn't come close to making them look good.

It'd also be interesting to know the value of the African hunts 'donated over those same six (or eleven) years, how much was raised from them at the auctions and what was done with that money?

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Pretty simple actually. My view is that there are people that made their minds up a long time ago on their view of SCI and frankly nothing anyone says is going to change that view. They are simply going to seize on information that supports their view that SCI sucks and use that information to justify their position and ignore any information that is inconvenient to their view. If that is your audience, for the most part, why waste your time?

Mike - In some cases that might be true. I can't speak for all, but your statements are certainly not my sentiments. I'm not looking for damning evidence against SCI, quite the contrary. I'm just looking for facts/figures that support the money trail from the 2013 SCI convention, where $1million was raised for lion conservation projects.

Secondly, my other question is straight forward as well. Why did SCI do nothing, as it pertained to the LCTF / Lion Definition, or any definition/position for that matter, in this most important wildlife conservation issue? Ya, obviously I am frustrated with the two issues above - but I'm not throwing my support of SCI out the window. We just would like some answers?

Frankly however, when you watch/listen/read the recent videos and transcripts - it really makes one's blood boil. Its like watching high school all over again. Stripped awards, jealousy, finger-pointing, in-fighting, all from a group of "grown men" who have been entrusted with running the biggest hunting/conservation organization in the land! And to be more frank, I was told on several occasions that SCI's private reasoning for not adopting the Lion Definition was that there was no way they were gonna play second fiddle to DSC - who had adopted the Definition first. And when you watch the videos - you see that same childish behavior play out - live and in color! Man, if that's really true - that's simply the most pathetic thing I've heard, ever. Is it really about the lion/conservation, or is it really about egos??? IDK the answer, but so far - the actions of SCI and its hierarchy are speaking much louder than their words. That's all I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Pretty simple actually. My view is that there are people that made their minds up a long time ago on their view of SCI and frankly nothing anyone says is going to change that view. They are simply going to seize on information that supports their view that SCI sucks and use that information to justify their position and ignore any information that is inconvenient to their view. If that is your audience, for the most part, why waste your time?

Mike - In some cases that might be true. I can't speak for all, but your statements are certainly not my sentiments. I'm not looking for damning evidence against SCI, quite the contrary. I'm just looking for facts/figures that support the money trail from the 2013 SCI convention, where $1million was raised for lion conservation projects.

Secondly, my other question is straight forward as well. Why did SCI do nothing, as it pertained to the LCTF / Lion Definition, or any definition/position for that matter, in this most important wildlife conservation issue? Ya, obviously I am frustrated with the two issues above - but I'm not throwing my support of SCI out the window. We just would like some answers?

Frankly however, when you watch/listen/read the recent videos and transcripts - it really makes one's blood boil. Its like watching high school all over again. Stripped awards, jealousy, finger-pointing, in-fighting, all from a group of "grown men" who have been entrusted with running the biggest hunting/conservation organization in the land! And to be more frank, I was told on several occasions that SCI's private reasoning for not adopting the Lion Definition was that there was no way they were gonna play second fiddle to DSC - who had adopted the Definition first. And when you watch the videos - you see that same childish behavior play out - live and in color! Man, if that's really true - that's simply the most pathetic thing I've heard, ever. Is it really about the lion/conservation, or is it really about egos??? IDK the answer, but so far - the actions of SCI and its hierarchy are speaking much louder than their words. That's all I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Even at US$1M spread over 6 years as Matt suggests, that's US$166666 per year and doesn't explain the US$1M that was claimed to have been raised for lion conservation last year and that doesn't appear to be been used.

Reducing the time span from 11 years to 6 years might make the figures look marginally better but it surely doesn't come close to making them look good.

It'd also be interesting to know the value of the African hunts 'donated over those same six (or eleven) years, how much was raised from them at the auctions and what was done with that money?

I wasnt commenting on the figures themselves - I was commenting on Saeeds ability to twist things about. Just the same as you and jdollar and others do all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Pretty simple actually. My view is that there are people that made their minds up a long time ago on their view of SCI and frankly nothing anyone says is going to change that view. They are simply going to seize on information that supports their view that SCI sucks and use that information to justify their position and ignore any information that is inconvenient to their view. If that is your audience, for the most part, why waste your time?

Mike - In some cases that might be true. I can't speak for all, but your statements are certainly not my sentiments. I'm not looking for damning evidence against SCI, quite the contrary. I'm just looking for facts/figures that support the money trail from the 2013 SCI convention, where $1million was raised for lion conservation projects.

Secondly, my other question is straight forward as well. Why did SCI do nothing, as it pertained to the LCTF / Lion Definition, or any definition/position for that matter, in this most important wildlife conservation issue? Ya, obviously I am frustrated with the two issues above - but I'm not throwing my support of SCI out the window. We just would like some answers?

Frankly however, when you watch/listen/read the recent videos and transcripts - it really makes one's blood boil. Its like watching high school all over again. Stripped awards, jealousy, finger-pointing, in-fighting, all from a group of "grown men" who have been entrusted with running the biggest hunting/conservation organization in the land! And to be more frank, I was told on several occasions that SCI's private reasoning for not adopting the Lion Definition was that there was no way they were gonna play second fiddle to DSC - who had adopted the Definition first. And when you watch the videos - you see that same childish behavior play out - live and in color! Man, if that's really true - that's simply the most pathetic thing I've heard, ever. Is it really about the lion/conservation, or is it really about egos??? IDK the answer, but so far - the actions of SCI and its hierarchy are speaking much louder than their words. That's all I know.

Actually Aaron, you and I do not disagree. My only point is that unlike you there are folks that do not approach this dialogue with an open mind. That being the case, I would not blame anyone at SCI from concluding that it is a waste of time -- using this forum as the venue -- to try to address the issues you are raising. For example, we already have seen folks questioning why this information is coming from Mr. Nelson as opposed to someone else at SCI. Say what? But it is indicative that there are some that intend to take every bit of information and try to determine how they can tear it down or question it versus what does it actually convey. You have been around here long enough to know that some simply do not want to be convinced (much less acknowledge) they might be wrong or that there might even be another legitimate point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Even at US$1M spread over 6 years as Matt suggests, that's US$166666 per year and doesn't explain the US$1M that was claimed to have been raised for lion conservation last year and that doesn't appear to be been used.

Reducing the time span from 11 years to 6 years might make the figures look marginally better but it surely doesn't come close to making them look good.

It'd also be interesting to know the value of the African hunts 'donated over those same six (or eleven) years, how much was raised from them at the auctions and what was done with that money?

I wasnt commenting on the figures themselves - I was commenting on Saeeds ability to twist things about. Just the same as you and jdollar and others do all the time.

We're not twisting the figures Matt....... we're analysing & then untwisting them & once untwisted, even working on your 6 year time span, those figures work out at just US$166666 per year & considerably less on the 11 year time span.

I won't hold my breath but perhaps you or SCI might like to give us further figures to work on if you think those figures are wrong?

I'm going from memory but seem to remember about a year ago you cheerleaders were bragging about how the corporation had raised $1M for lion conservation & my reply was that I'd look forward to seeing how it was spent.

Here we are, a year later & I'm still waiting.

Do you think that's reasonable? or is that another inconvenient question that I shouldn't be allowed to ask?

quote:

But my real concern is if the majority of the money is still in an SCI coffer - why??? Waiting, waiting to fight a legal/re-active position, rather than getting the money and taking a pro-active position in favor on much needed help for the lions in Africa.

quote:

Steve - You certainly are entitled to ask, but let's at least give Mr. Nelson some time to gather the info. Hopefully he'll come back with some satisfactory details?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
While we are on the subject of questions, an interesting question for those that are some of SCI's harshest critics might be, other than paying your membership fee, what have you done personally to make SCI the kind of organization you would want it to be?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So Saeed, what have you personally done to try to make SCI the kind of organization that you want it to be? Or are you saying that you knew they would not listen to you or care what you did or said, so you elected to do nothing? Sort of sounds like you are suggesting the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Have you all also noticed that the specific question Aaron Mike had asked seems to have been ignored completely?

quote:

....you knew they would not listen to you or care what you did or said, so you elected to do nothing?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Have you all also noticed that the specific question Aaron Mike had asked seems to have been ignored completely?

What have you personally done to try to make SCI the kind of organization that you want it to be? If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.