I'm certain that SCI has all sorts of disclaimers regarding their lack of liability regarding hunts, outfitters, and products advertised both in their publications and conventions.

If there are no ethics complaints, the Ethics Board cannot take action. If an outfitter has not been formally charged with illegalities or game law violations, let alone convicted, I don't see SCI doing much about these allegations.

A word to the wise: any client considering a hunt in Zimbabwe should get a signed statement (preferably notarized) from the booking agent and/or outfitter that the company's principles are not on the State Department list of proscribed parties. If they balk, run.
It's not an ironclad guarantee against future legal trouble, but it does show you exercised some 'due diligence'.

George

Interesting quote from the editor of African Hunter vol 10 No. 2.
"I fought a prolonged war to get SCI to update a couple of its scoring systems which were highly detrimental to wildlife and sustainable hunting. I failed but assumed these few cases were the exception.
Unfortunately SCI's convention this year (2004) was a barely concealed show of what is really wrong with market driven conservation - with the open acceptance of illegal and unethical practices as long as a few top dogs benefit or get their names in the record book. Until such time as SCI will not permit the marketing of illegal or unethical hunting at their shows, and the leadership move towards doing what is best for sustainable utilisation rather than the record book, they can never become the market place partner of conservation that they proclaim"

I had a conversation at the SCI Show last January with the author, my basic comment was SCI cannot act until the governments involved do so.

What we have here is one (or more) outfitter accused of illegal actions, but on this forum SCI is being accused because the posters think SCI is somehow worse than the actual law violators -- because the outfitter sold a hunt at an SCI show.

jim

Yes, and if they had banned any outfitter(s) from the show without the legal cover of some pending legal action (or adjudication) agains the outfitter(s), SCI would be sued.

SCI Members (and others) vote with their dollars, and ultimately, it's up to them to choose outfitters wisely. Caveat emptor is especially applicable when it comes to booking hunts.

George

I am not a member of SCI and I have never been to Africa (yet) so please forgive me if this seems ignorant. I think what catches my and probably other people's attention, is that I thought SCI was an organization that was based on promoting and preserving African hunting. If so, I would think that it would be at the forefront of investigating illegal hunting and hold itself to a higher standard to prevent itself from being tainted by any hint of scandal.
From what I see on this and other sites, a portion of the general population of members and some outfitters have opinions that SCI is more like a business than a philantropic organization and are more worried about the financial benefits the organization and it's members reap rather than the preservation and promotion of the use of African wildlife.

Again, I may be totally ignorant of the facts, but that is the impression I get about the organization. Sorry, if I skewered anyone's sacred cows.

Jim, You need to talk with me offline. This isnt about OOA per say, but it is definitely about ethics. SCI needs to take the high road on this one and anytime there is a question.

Mike

Fjold,

I'm sure you'll get over here eventually.....but in the meantime, SCI - philanthropic ........

I don't think so. From my experience, SCI are a money making machine and nothing else. As far as I'm concerned they only see outfitters, hunters and game animals as a means of income.

Hope I haven't pissed off too many SCI members with that comment, but that's how I feel.

SCI's missions as I see them (Member for 16 years) are (in no particular order): a) act as a social organization for hunters; b) help keep hunting open in various locales through lobbying, providing technical assistance to game departments, funding studies etc.; c) to provide a sort of clearinghouse for information on where to hunt, and who to hunt with; d) help hunters navigate the bureaucratic morass involved in international hunting; e) act as an advocate on issues related to hunting (consumptive use, access, importation, etc.); and, e) provide a Record Book, as a means of honoring the hunter, animal, and outfitters/guides.

They have instituted some charitable programs, providing books, medicines, computers, clothing & shoes, as well as grants to game departments.

Like any organization, it has people with their own agendas of self-aggrandizement, and inefficiencies. It is not particularly democratic, but as an NGO, it doesn't have to be.

Most of the people I've met through SCI are decent people, with a genuine interest in keeping hunting open wherever it is sustainable.

George

George,

SCI is a private club, not a public bus, and they do not have to take all who show up at the door. In fact, SCI refuses exhibit space to many would-be exhibitors for reasons far less valid than conducting illegal hunts (i.e., poaching).

SCI should take a moral and ethical stance against illegal hunts and deny the outfitters a venue to market those hunts. Instead, SCI is putting its head in the sand saying that it cannot do anything until the respective governments act. But SCI's statement on that account is totally false.

Dan,
I was trying to say that it would probably be actionable if SCI were to ban a prior exhibitor on ethics grounds without a formal complaint having been registered anywhere.

SCI can refuse floor space to anyone it wishes, but they have to have a 'lawyer-proof' reason, because I doubt they want to waste a lot of time (and money) in court over it.

I suppose that many of the potential exhibitors are rejected for reasons of taste, incompatibility with SCI's mission statement, and safety (can you imagine PETA or HSUS wanting to set up a booth?! ), and whether they can come up with the 'good faith' donations reportedly required by SCI.

Most organizations are behind the 'ethical curve' due to institutional inertia; it's up to their Members to force them to do what's right.

George