Matt,

She was the sexual bait that made the whole scam work. The first time I met her she was rubbing her tits on my arm in an effort to get a free shot placement guide book. I coughed it up BTW. LOL

I watched her work the room like a pro and she had most of the guys there thinking they were going to get lucky that night. I knew better, because right out of college I worked for a booking agency putting bands into night clubs. Our groupies were mostly hookers and dancers, so I recognized the con immediately, although she had me going for a few minutes.

The finale was during the auction, and the punch line came when she cocked her hips out to the side, patted her ass, and said, "wouldn't you really rather follow this around the bush for two weeks rather than some guy?"

SCI coffers raked in record amounts from those donations. However, months later when the goober clients showed up in SA, it was Dawie's ass, not Teressa's they got to follow around.

But that is not what pissed me off at them. A 'John' deserves the fleecing he gets if he is stupid enough to let it happen. What pissed me off was Dawie running his big mouth and acting like a punk ass thug out of a B-grade movie.

He actually said to me that I should betray my friends in Zimbabwe and join up with OoA because the white Zimbabweans were never going to get their farms back. He went on to say how glad he was they were getting kicked out of their 'little kingdom', where they would never let him come and hunt. And, that he had new 'friends' in the Mugabe regime that would make sure he had a seat at the table while they carved up the plunder. He said what really pissed him off was the white refugees who were fleeing to South Africa, and how he didn't want them there in 'his' country. All this was going on while Mugabe was selling yellow cake uranium to the North Koreans.

I could not believe my ears that another white African, especially a Boer, would take delight that a megalomaniac black socialist was ruining the top big game hunting destination in Africa. It was only later that I started hearing stories from hunters coming back about extortion, intimidation, bait and switch, and all sorts of game violations. I personally know of over 30 people who were ripped off by this criminal syndicate. He even had the nerve to demand a $5000 payoff from people who wanted to cut their hunts short, just to take them to the airport.

I was stunned when SCI not only did not boot them out of the convention, but made every effort to protect them and even promote them further. SCI did not give a damn how many of their members were ripped off. Then, I started wondering what was the motivation for SCI protecting OoA.

When you look at how many of the leaders of SCI have been caught flagrantly violating basic ethics by shooting out of helicopters, and the list of SCI rock star rip-off PHs like Jaco du Plessis, David van der Merwe, and the whole general thuggish way they go about seeking donations, it seems to me their motto ought to be 'first for profit' instead of 'first for hunters'. These people don't give a fuck about their rank and file members or they would never let some small time hoodlums like OoA operate with such impunity... unless they had a very compelling reason that forced them into submission. Lots of theories about what those reasons are, but nothing yet that would hold up in court, but the Feds keep long and detailed files. However, criminals are stupid. They do stupid things and get caught, then they want to talk to make a deal.

Teressa is of no consequence any more. The last time I saw her at the SHOT Show she was almost unrecognizable. I don't know what she did to put on the muscles it took for her to kill that elephant with a bow, but I have a good idea. I don't think anyone would jump to follow her through the bush anymore.

Cheers,

~Alan

I was only asking about Theresa ... I mean she divorced the guy three years ago for some pretty good reasons I guess and I have never heard her name slurred by clients or others by being directly involved in the OoA shenanigans in the field. There is nothing substantial above.

She used booty to sell hunts?? Well yeah... nothing unusual there...

By the way: Just so I dont end up on your hit list Alan... I have no association with OoA, except that Theresa is an aquaintence...

Does anyone have anything of substance?

I tell you it sure hurt the last two years to walk past the OoA booth at Reno and see the happy, smiling, unsuspecting victims sitting there... sad really...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Matt, to me personally she did nothing. I may not be the smartest guy in the world but I was smart enough to not get into a deal with tese guys. Last I knew Teresa was still involved although trying to cover. These guys were involved in more stuff than most of us will ever know.

As far as I know she hasnt been involved for nearly three years... right?

Has she actually done anything to anyone else that you know of?? Apart from sell hunts for her husband and crew?

I fully understand the venom directed at OoA but not Theresa herself ... unless there is some reason??

quote:

Has she actually done anything to anyone else that you know of?? Apart from sell hunts for her husband and crew?

that's not enough??? selling hunts for an outfit that you obviously know are a bunch of crooks?? engaging in business with people that you have to know are liars, cheats and thieves?? and this whole pile of shit has been stinking for a lot more than 3 years.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
that's not enough??? selling hunts for an outfit that you obviously know are a bunch of crooks?? engaging in business with people that you have to know are liars, cheats and thieves?? and this whole pile of shit has been stinking for a lot more than 3 years.

It was just a question mate - that's all... I cant say for certain what she 'knew'...

I was just wondering why Theresa was getting slagged-off on here when I had never heard anything directly negative about her - just her former family of cretins.

Maybe she was duped too - just like the clients?? I dont know?

Matt I agree she always came across friendly and likeable. Not everything is as it appears on the surface. The answer is yes but Im not at liberty to discuss some of it. Sorry but unless I am told it is allright I will not betray a confidence. She was still pushing hunts well after the divorce. The reason I at first thought it was her posing here is she used almost the same spiel in Detroit. Almost word for word as our visiting marketing director.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Matt I agree she always came across friendly and likeable. Not everything is as it appears on the surface. The answer is yes but Im not at liberty to discuss some of it. Sorry but unless I am told it is allright I will not betray a confidence. She was still pushing hunts well after the divorce. The reason I at first thought it was her posing here is she used almost the same spiel in Detroit. Almost word for word as our visiting marketing director.

Fair enough .. but I dont think she was selling OoA hunts after the divorce ...

No offense intended but I don't understand the logic to defend Teresa. It is a little like saying that some person wasn't a bad person. They only sold the cocaine. They didn't make it.

Not defending her at all mate... just wondered if anyone knew how she was directly involved in the shenanigans on the ground.

You guys are probably right... I was just wondering is all.

quote:

When you look at how many of the leaders of SCI have been caught flagrantly violating basic ethics by shooting out of helicopters, and the list of SCI rock star rip-off PHs like Jaco du Plessis, David van der Merwe, and the whole general thuggish way they go about seeking donations, it seems to me their motto ought to be 'first for profit' instead of 'first for hunters'. These people don't give a fuck about their rank and file members or they would never let some small time hoodlums like OoA operate with such impunity... unless they had a very compelling reason that forced them into submission. Lots of theories about what those reasons are, but nothing yet that would hold up in court, but the Feds keep long and detailed files. However, criminals are stupid. They do stupid things and get caught, then they want to talk to make a deal.

Just thought that last one was worth re-posting. Shame is, some of these people are still idolized by low lifes on this very board.

who wrote that??

Matt - I believe Alan wrote it??

Looks like we may have three (3) SCI witch hunters on board now? Like I was always taught. If you don't like or agree with what a group or individual does simply don't participate. Making wild ass, vulgar, off the wall accusations based on personal observations and opinions and threating people seems way off base?

Mr. Bunn, I have no idea who you are, seems like some here know you? Did you get screwed by OoA? Did you use to work for OoA? Were you personally hurt or shunned by SCI? Wow. someone with your amount of anger must have suffered a great deal of wrongdoing at some point?

I do not condone what OoA has done and hope to see them get what they deserve as well as any other outfit that operates that way. I am not saying that some in SCI were not involved to some degree with OoA. Even if this is the case, the whole of SCI and it's many dedicated leaders and members are certainly not to blame for the few bad apples that may be involved.

Mr. Bunn, don't take what I have posted as a personal insult, but it would be nice if you were to enlighten us a little about yourself and what fuels your anger. I am sure the majority of folks here, as I, have no idea who you are and your connection to the OoA situation. Thanks.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Larry,

Actually mate, I thought the usual cry was if you don't like how they operate, you should join and change the system from within.... but maybe I'm mistaken in that.

Also, I don't think anyone is criticising the rank and file membership of SCI at all. I certainly haven't.

As I see it, the criticism is of the donation policy, the leadership, the ethics committee and those members who knowingly hunted seized land with this company..... All perfectly valid criticisms in my eyes at least.

BTW, If you consider me a witch hunter, you're very wrong indeed. I am however not afraid to express my opinion on the good and bad aspects of any organisation or anything else for that matter.

Folks I dont get it. Anyone who wants to find out more can do the reasearch. These people were crooked period. Just go back over the last 6 years here and then move on to other sources. How can you guys defend Theresa because she was flirty and people liked the attention? She was the bait period. There has been so many dcoumented problems with the OOA group I dont know how the ethics committee could not have acted. It is apparent that there are some with power at SCI who were involved in some manner. Alan is not the bad guy here. Nor am I for that matter. Kuzuma is another incarnation of the same people. If you cant or wont see any of this there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.

quote:

Also, I don't think anyone is criticising the rank and file membership of SCI at all. I certainly haven't.

As I see it, the criticism is of the donation policy, the leadership, the ethics committee and those members who knowingly hunted seized land with this company..... All perfectly valid criticisms in my eyes at least.

BTW, If you consider me a witch hunter, you're very wrong indeed. I am however not afraid to express my opinion on the good and bad aspects of any organisation or anything else for that matter.

quote:

There has been so many dcoumented problems with the OOA group I dont know how the ethics committee could not have acted. It is apparent that there are some with power at SCI who were involved in some manner.

Because many of the upper ranks in that organization are corrupt and not sportsman at all. And they are empowered by the lower levels or "rank and file" that continue paying their dues and treating them as they are "great hunters, sportsman and conservationist". Everyone on this thread is so focused on OoA, they should look at those at the top their organization as well as looking in the mirror and watching what they support financially. SCI is a corrupt organization RUN & FILLED with some disgusting lowlifes. IMHO of course.

I don't know about Filled.

From my experience, the rank and file are generally good & honest folks but I have absolutely no time at all for the upper echelons, their inner and outer circles, candle twisters and banana sharpeners etc, even less time for their extortionist 'donation' scheme and even less time than that for the so called 'ethics committee' who (IMO) should be renamed the lack of ethics committee...... but the vast majority of ordinary members are good guys.... perhaps misled but not bad folks.

Steve - Why do you think I would consider you a witch hunter?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Larry,

Actually mate, I thought the usual cry was if you don't like how they operate, you should join and change the system from within.... but maybe I'm mistaken in that.

Also, I don't think anyone is criticising the rank and file membership of SCI at all. I certainly haven't.

As I see it, the criticism is of the donation policy, the leadership, the ethics committee and those members who knowingly hunted seized land with this company..... All perfectly valid criticisms in my eyes at least.

BTW, If you consider me a witch hunter, you're very wrong indeed. I am however not afraid to express my opinion on the good and bad aspects of any organisation or anything else for that matter.

Larry,

I apologise if the comment wasn't aimed at me.... The reason I thought it might have been is that others (not you) have accused me in the past of bashing SCI.

As I see it, I bash some aspects of SCI such as the donation scheme and ethics ctte etc but don't bash the ordinary membership.

Once again, my apologies if I misunderstood.

quote:

I apologise if the comment wasn't aimed at me.... The reason I thought it might have been is that others (not you) have accused me in the past of bashing SCI.

As I see it, I bash some aspects of SCI such as the donation scheme and ethics ctte etc but don't bash the ordinary membership.

And keep bashing them until they do something positive about their "donations" scheme and their so called "ethics" committee should start applying real ethics.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

And keep bashing them until they do something positive about their "donations" scheme and their so called "ethics" committee should start applying real ethics.

Too right!

SCI President Larry Rudolph Addresses the United Nations
06/15/2010 Print

Washington, D.C. – Safari Club International’s (SCI) President Dr. Larry Rudolph will address the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States (BMS4) at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York today. His speech will focus on the vast economic benefits of hunting in developing nations, and will emphasize that an international regulatory climate that allows the continued private transportation of firearms is vital to those benefits.

This meeting is part of the follow-up process to the UN 2001 Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, during which Member States adopted the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA).

Anti-gun and anti-hunting groups saw the original PoA as a vehicle for gun bans, registration schemes and other sweeping proposals that would hinder the sport of hunting and our outdoor heritage. The United States, through the efforts of Ambassador John Bolton, forced the removal of provisions targeting privately-owned firearms from the PoA, and made it clear that the United States would not join consensus on any document that abridged its citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The UN now holds “Biennial” meetings every two years to review the provisions of the PoA.

“Regulated, well-managed hunting is vital to developing nations because it brings revenue to local economies,” said SCI President Larry Rudolph. “The United Nations itself has stated that economic stability is vital to reductions in violence in developing countries. Hunting helps build that economic stability and economic value.”

SCI recognizes that any attempt by the UN to implement onerous firearms regulations or unnecessarily complex permitting processes could cripple the international hunting market and destroy this industry in the developing world. “The consequences of this overbroad application of firearms restrictions will further cripple developing nations that rely on hunting for their economies,” concluded Rudolph.

Good to see my donation dollars hard at work....


SCI Taking Hunters’ Message To Capitol Hill; SCI Board Members meet with Congress to discuss hunter’s rights
05/12/2010 Print



Washington, D.C. – Safari Club International (SCI) board members will participate in more than 170 meetings this week with members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on behalf of hunters everywhere. Safari Club International’s annual “Lobby Day” on Capitol Hill represents the largest gathering of U.S. hunters in Washington, D.C. This year, hunters are requesting legislative progress on key legislation to help ensure sportsmen and women can continue to hunt on the nation’s public lands.


SCI’s members will be asking their representatives to cosponsor and hold a hearing on H.R. 3749, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act of 2009 which was introduced by Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and a Life Member of SCI. Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced the companion legislation, S. 1770, in the Senate. This legislation will:

· Direct federal land management agencies charged to provide for and promote sportsmen’s use and access of public lands in their land management plans;

· Require that planning evaluate the effects of management on sportsmen’s activities;

· Ensure each state’s authority to manage fish and wildlife on federal public lands is preserved and that the states have the exclusive authority to require licenses or permits of sportsmen;

· The bill does not open new lands to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting, however it does greatly enhance the ability of Federal land managers to provide for this traditional use of public lands in safe areas and to plan recreational use that balances the needs and interests of a diverse recreating public.

“The two hundred sportsmen and women traveling to Washington on May 13, who represent SCI’s 53,000 worldwide members, are adamant that Congress take real action to protect hunting on our public lands,” said SCI President Dr. Larry Rudolph. “Standing alongside our partners in conservation who together represent millions of American hunters, we urge members of Congress to support H.R. 3749.”

Other legislation SCI will be discussing this week include:

* H.R. 1831 & S. 812: Conservation Easement Incentive Act Of 2009
* H.R. 1054 & S. 1395: Importation Permits For Polar Bears
* H.R. 510 & S. 632: Firearms & Ammunition Affordability Act Of 2009
* H.R. 1454: Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp

Matt,

Mate, it's not about what they do right, it's about what they don't do at all and/or what they do wrong.

Your first (recent) post is a an example of what they do right, your second is an example of what (largely) ordinary members do right, one day a year.

Just some of the issues they should be addressing but apparently aren't is the:

Mozambique Ivory issue which has been going on for something like 3 decades.

UK handgun ban (past) and the UK (coming but not yet announced) new firearms/shotgun restrictions.

Australia's firearms issues. (I don't know much about that but seem to remember forcibly imposed restrictions in the not too distant past.

The entire fiasco that has been rumbling on for many years where members repeatedly make complaints to the ethics ctte about companies such as OoA ripping them off but time after time these complaints are effectively ignored.

The hunt donation scheme where companies are faced with something not far short of extortion and most aforementioned companies very deeply resent.

Their lack of clarity in financial statements with regard to donations in and out etc.

There's a lot more and most have been discussed here in the past and there's no point in my mentioning them all ad nauseum but we all know the list.

The general point is that SCI do do some things right (and they should be congratulated for those) but there's a lot of things the upper echelons of SCI do and don't do that are dubious to say the very least. (and as I see it, they should be criticised for those).

I largely agree with what you are saying Steve. However, I have to disagree about their financial statements.

In the US an organization called the Financial Accounting Standards Board establishes authoritative pronouncements on how financial statements are to be reported. All SCI does is follow those rules. If they deviate from those rules, their auditors would give them what is known as an adverse opinion on their financials. Trust me that would be bad for them.

While I can understand why someone may want to know something that they can't tell from financials, the truth of the matter is that financials are only the starting point for evaluating any organizations finances.

quote:

The hunt donation scheme where companies are faced with something not far short of extortion and most aforementioned companies very deeply resent.

Correction Steve, SCI "donations" IS extortion, there is no two ways about it. If you do not "donate" you won't get a booth. Very simple really.

We have asked, on many occasions, of what does SCI do for AFRICAN hunting, as it is their cash cow when it comes to "donations".

And we have not had many answers.

The most I could find was something like $60,000 or so over a number of years.

If anyone has details of their paying for anything in Africa, please post it.

Sadly, there have been far too many questionable individuals in the higher management of SCI.

This puts us all as hunters in a rather bad light.

Larry,

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well.

I didn't mean financial statements as in to the tax man etc I meant financial statements as in what income is derived from the convention and 'donations' etc and what they spend that money on.

When this debate came up a while ago, someone posted that it'd be far too complicated to do that online and my reply was an example of how www.grandcharity.org can list all donations (in and out) with a budget of umpteen million UKP can do it, I see no reason why SCI cannot.

As I see it, that's the very least they could do for their members and other interested parties.

Saeed,

You're right. It is extortion but I was trying to be diplomatic and avoid the ire of those that like to shoot from the lip without considering the point I was trying to make!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Matt,

Mate, it's not about what they do right, it's about what they don't do at all and/or what they do wrong.

Your first (recent) post is a an example of what they do right, your second is an example of what (largely) ordinary members do right, one day a year.

Just some of the issues they should be addressing but apparently aren't is the:

Mozambique Ivory issue which has been going on for something like 3 decades.

UK handgun ban (past) and the UK (coming but not yet announced) new firearms/shotgun restrictions.

Australia's firearms issues. (I don't know much about that but seem to remember forcibly imposed restrictions in the not too distant past.

The entire fiasco that has been rumbling on for many years where members repeatedly make complaints to the ethics ctte about companies such as OoA ripping them off but time after time these complaints are effectively ignored.

The hunt donation scheme where companies are faced with something not far short of extortion and most aforementioned companies very deeply resent.

Their lack of clarity in financial statements with regard to donations in and out etc.

There's a lot more and most have been discussed here in the past and there's no point in my mentioning them all ad nauseum but we all know the list.

The general point is that SCI do do some things right (and they should be congratulated for those) but there's a lot of things the upper echelons of SCI do and don't do that are dubious to say the very least. (and as I see it, they should be criticised for those).

and here I was thinking you only had a problem with the donation system and the ethics committee ....now all this too.

Not really sure what SCI can do about Australia's firearms 'issues' particularly as the changes to laws wont unduly effect SCI members anyhow. In this respect Australia is about as restrictive as say....South Africa.... except I can own as many longarms as I please (100's) in almost any calibre I choose.

UK handgun ban?? I'm sure there are FAR more important issues than that for SCI.

With the other issues - I dont know?? SCI actions are driven by the membership, if members want something done I am sure it will be addressed.

Ethics Committee?? OoA is finished with SCI - forget it. If there are other complaints out there about other companies then lets hear about it. I know of a complaint that was made to SCI last year, about a rogue outfitter and that case was dealt with in the space of two weeks...

Oh yeah there's this one from last year....

January 27, 2009

Barbara Crown, Editor
The Hunting Report
9200 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 523
Miami, FL 33156, USA

To the Editor:

John Jackson’s recent call for assistance on lion conservation has increased awareness of the need for hunter-conservationists to be involved in this issue. Safari Club International Foundation (SCIF) thought it appropriate to update you and your readership on the history and current status of this issue

In 2004, the conservation status of the African lion was brought to prominence at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora in Thailand. It was Kenya who proposed listing the African lion as an “endangered,” or “Appendix I” species, which would have banned commercial international trade in lions. Kenya withdrew its proposal after it was generally agreed that commercial international trade was not the problem for lion conservation and a group of African lion range states proposed to host a series of workshops to develop regional strategies for lion conservation and management. After the lion listing proposal was dropped, the southern African countries asked the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) to help produce the workshops. The SCIF was instrumental in developing and promoting the workshop strategy and became a major private funder of the workshops.

Two workshops were held to develop regional conservation strategies for the African lion. The first workshop brought together 14 West and Central African lion range states to a workshop in Douala, Cameroon, in October, 2005. The second workshop brought together 15 lion range states from Eastern and Southern Africa to a workshop that took place in Johannesburg, South Africa in January, 2006. As you can see by examining the documents in the attached links (http://www.catsg.org/catsgportal/bulletin-board/05_strategies/Lion%20Conserv%20Strat%20E&S%20Africa%202006.pdf, and http://www.catsg.org/catsgport...20Afric_2006_E.pdf), many organizations have contributed to the development of final regional plans.

The regional strategies included objectives formulated to address the leading threats to lions and a number of specific actions were recommended. The chief of these actions was to develop a “stepped-down” strategy to the national level for each lion range state. Once each range state had a tangible plan to conserve and manage lions, they would focus on implementing the plan with their available resources.

The SCIF has an extensive history and commitment in wildlife conservation in southern Africa and considers the development and implementation of the national lion management plans in all range states a top priority. Although some countries have management plans that include lions, such as Botswana, several countries do not. Since the conclusion of the regional workshops, SCIF has sponsored meetings in Zimbabwe and Namibia for the production of national-level lion management plans, and Zambia recently held their own workshop. SCIF has secured funding to assist Mozambique, Tanzania, and Malawi in holding workshops to develop their national plans. In addition, SCIF has funded a lion survey in Mozambique this year. SCIF has supported Dr. Paula White in her efforts to provide the necessary scientific research about the physical characteristics of lions in Zambia (nose color, mane development, etc) related to age to refine the sustainable use of this species. Finally, the past November SCIF co-hosted our 7thAfrican Wildlife Consultative Forum in Namibia, a meeting where lion conservation and human-lion conflict were the two dominant topics.


Funding is essential to assist the range states completion and implementation of their national lion plans. We commend the Conservation Force initiative in central and western Africa, and SCIF plans to continue our work in the Southern Africa (SADC) region to build a scientific basis for lion management.



Since inception, Safari Club International (SCI) has become a significant global organization. Our approximately 190 chapters provide us with a way to make and gather with friends, our Convention is a place to celebrate and enjoy our hunting heritage, and our Foundation is recognized as a world leader in wildlife conservation and education programs. SCI has provided nearly $300 million USD on hunter advocacy and wildlife conservation since inception. Since 2000, the SCIF has provided $47 million USD on conservation, wildlife education, and humanitarian programs around the world.

Sincerely,

Thank you, Matt, for bringing some perspective to this discussion.

Every organization has its flaws, and SCI is no exception.

Much of the criticism of SCI posted above in this thread is fully warranted. As an egregious example, the ethics committee has become a joke.

Still, overall, SCI is a powerful and positive force in preserving and strengthening our hunting rights, both in the USA and abroad.

There is room for improvement, but we should not burn down the entire forest because of a few sick trees.

Thanks Mike

You are correct - there are MAJOR flaws - but at the end of the day SCI is basically just a sporting club (a big one though) and simply the sum of its members and the few professionals it employs. I see things I dont like and I complain... I struggle to give the 'forced' donations, just as much as the next outfitter but I do it in good faith that there are committees in place to make the best use of the revenue... committees change and they may not always make good decisions but at the end of the day I am proud to be doing my part.

I am heartened by the younger club executives who are working their way through the ranks... guys like Paul Babaz, with the health of the club at heart.

I see that the money is mostly being spent in the USA - Exactly 0% of the money raised at the convention is spent in my part of the globe but I am satisfied that if the money is spent in the USA (to help protect the ability to hunt and to have active participation in real conservation) then there will be flow-on effects to the world hunting community - by providing strong leadership and a steady stream of motivated hunters.

I see (at the SCI convention) hunters from nations all around the world being inspired by the SCI model ... if you want to see a few thousand smiling happy people - come to the SCI convention... to me (aside from what it means to me in $$$ income) it is one the happiest places on the planet. Disneyland for hunters!!

We had a young hunter here in Australia last year, from Finland - we encouraged him to come to SCI (his first trip to the USA) and to my surprise.. he came!! On day four he called at my booth for about the tenth time and pulled me aside and said "I cant believe it Matt - this place is so cool... I was just now fondling a $30,000 double rifle and SERIOUSLY thinking to myself 'How can I buy this gun?'" .... I was rolling on the floor laughing. Another victim HOOKED, daring to dream!!

I dont care, SCI is worth every cent ... I only wish I could dedicate more time to help make it even better. So for now I will just throw money at them and hoipe that they take good care of it..

Maybe I am young, naive... maybe even stupid.... but I put my hard-earned on the line and I am happy enough with the outcomes thus far.

Cheers all
Matt

we should not burn down the entire forest because of a few sick trees.

How about cutting and removing the sick trees instead of holding them up as an example and something to aspire to?

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
we should not burn down the entire forest because of a few sick trees.

How about cutting and removing the sick trees instead of holding them up as an example and something to aspire to?

Spot on!

Matt,

Mate, I see no reason why they shouldn't do something about things like the UK handgun ban etc. After all they do have a UK chapter and members and they do claim to be first for hunters..... not first for hunters in the USA. Don't forget that the I in SCI stands for International.

alternatively, one could argue that they're largely a lobbying organisation..... in which case why don't they lobby the elected representatives to do something about the Moz ivory issue that as I said has been rumbling on for something like 3 decades without a single good reason?

They after all, first for hunters, so what about those hunters and members that would like to import Moz elephant products into the USA?

Alternatively, how about all those hunters/members who have filed complaints to the ethics committee and have unreasonably had their complaints rejected because the company happens to donate a lot of hunts to the convention....... where's the first for hunters there?

I've never said SCI don't do anything and in fact, I've acknowledged it when they have done something but there's no doubt at all that the upper echelons manipulate the organisation for their own benefit and there's no doubt that the donation scheme is very close to or in fact is extortion.

Saeed, Steve:

Someone much smarter than I once said there is no way to reason prejudice into a fellow because it was not reasoned into him. That apparently was never more true than with the two of you and your bias against SCI.

I've pointed this out in the past, but there is no extortion in SCI's donation programs. Exhibitors at its conventions are not forced to donate anything. Donations do give them a discount on their booth fees. Exhibitors who donate extraordinarily expensive things do so voluntarily in the hope of becoming noticed and gaining more business. It's like any other type of advertising.

Saeed: I don't know where you found that $60,000 figure for SCI's total expenditures in and for Africa. It must cost more than that each year just to operate its Africa office, to say nothing about funding its efforts to testify at CITES meetings and host African workshops, etc.

Steve: Although it does take positions on firearms issues, the mission of SCI and SCICF is conservation of wildlife and protection of the hunter. I know it has assisted on firearms issues outside the USA when local chapters requested it, but as far as I know it hasn't taken a leadership role. I don't know this to be a fact, but I suspect U.S. laws restrict how involved SCI and SCICF may become in another country's political issues that do not directly involve wildlife conservation.

I admit to knowing nothing about the Mozambique ivory situation, but it is a fact that SCI is instrumental in allowing elephant trophy parts from other countries to continue to be imported into the USA. Without SCI, Americans also would not be allowed to import their bonteboks and white rhino trophies from South Africa.

I, too, cannot understand why it took so long for SCI's ethics committee to take action against Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris, but I don't share your total contempt for the club's entire ethical review process. Each issue of Safari Times lists outfitters and members and the actions the committee has taken against them. The committee must be doing something right.

I have had no connection with SCI since retiring from my director of publications post in 1999 (other than holding a life membership and moderating a seminar at its conventions) and it would be easy for me to bite my tongue and say nothing. However, you are criticizing a club I have supported for more than a quarter century, and most of your rant is unfair and unwarranted.

Bill Quimby

quote:

I have had no connection with SCI since retiring from my director of publications post in 1999 (other than holding a life membership and moderating a seminar at its conventions)

Bill,

If selling a booth and services for a set published price and then asking the purchase/exhibitor what he's going to donate because the value of that donation will dictate the good or bad location of the booth isn't extortion, I don't know what is......

As for "conservation of wildlife and protection of the hunter" what about the Moz elephant issue or allowing a company with a known track record of hunting on seized land and no interest in game management to repeatedly advertise AND donate those very hunts at the show?

A few years ago, I met two guys at Pietersburg airport who had bought a hunt (donated by the same company) at the SCI auction. The package they'd bought was (if I remember correctly) 14 days of 2x1 hunting with camp exclusivity.

When they arrived there were 18, yes 18 other hunters who had all bought similar hunts at the same auction. 20 hunters in all and all in the same camp and area at the same time..... the two guys I met were going home early and told me they'd been asked to pay extra for the privilage.... (they refused to pay)

when they got home, they and others they'd met on the same hunt made an official complaint to the ethics committee... which was rejected.

Perhaps spmeone can tell me how the hell that's protection of the hunter..... I'll tell you what that is. It's some bugger or buggers getting something somewhere to reject a perfectly valid complaint.

As for operating outside the US if asked by local chapters...... The UK has at least one chapter and probably more and I find it very hard to believe that they didn't ask for help when the various and recent(ish) bans were proposed and put in place.

You say I'm criticising the club..... believe me my friend. I'm not doing that at all. As I've repeatedly said, the vast majority of the rank and file membership are very fine people indeed and I don't have any problem with them at all.

What I have a problem with is the upper echelons/management and things like the ethics committee and the so called donation scheme because I don't believe them to be fair. (to say the very least)

Bill,

Sorry my friend. I've just noticed your comment about Moz elephant products so I'll give you a quick thumbnail sketch of what I understand happened.

About the time of the original trade ban in the late 80s, Moz applied to move a very large consignment and upon investigation, it turned out to have been smuggled into Mozambique from elsewhere in Africa.

USF&WS promptly banned the import of all sport hunted elephant products from Mozambique in what is generally recognised to be retaliation. The reason they gave was that they didn't believe Mozambique had a valid elephant management programme in place and their ban would stay in place until they were satisfied with the country's management plan.

That was now about 3 decades ago and Mozambique has (IMO) had a good management plan for some years..... certainly considerably better than some of its neighbouring countries.

Despite that and also despite CITES themselves being perfectly happy to issue quota because they believe the management plan to be perfectly valid, USF&WS are behaving like a vindictive ex wife and are still ignoring CITES and are refusing to issue import licences.

To me at least, this is a perfect example of a case for SCI to take on and lobby the elected representatives to bring USF&WS into line and make then respect the rights of the hunter so they can import the aforementioned trophies.

After all, they are 'First For hunters'

But obviously not when it comes to their own members importing Mozambican elephant products for the last 30 years or so.

Thanks for the update on the Mozambique situation, Steve. As I said, I've not been on SCI's staff for 11 years and I have no idea why it is unable to obtain permission for Americans to import their ivory from that country. I doubt that it is not for lack of trying. I suspect that John Jackson's Conservation Force and others also have tried, obviously without success. I also would not hold my breath expecting something to happen in this arena as long as a certain political party controls our White House and Congress.

Your use of "extortion" to describe the club's exhibitor program definitely is unfair and unwarranted. Exhibitors have the option of donating something or paying $600 to $1,000 (depending upon their product or service) above the $2400 to $2600 cost of a 10x10-foot booth space. It is their choice if they want to donate something valued at more than that $600 or $1,000. Yes, "preference points" are given for the value of what they donate, but points also are given for the number of years someone has exhibited and for the type of the exhibitor's product or service. If you know of a fairer way to allocate a limited number of booths when there are hundreds of would-be exhibitors who cannot be accommodated, I'd bet money the SCI convention committee would love to hear about it.

As for the club's ethics committee, the laws of libel and slander in America are such that I'm not surprised that only the committee's final actions are made public. As in a court, the filing of charges does not mean someone actually is guilty. Without knowing the full story, I'd be reluctant to take a position based on what someone told me at an airport. Years ago, when I saw every hunting report that members filed, I was shocked to realize that certain members never had a good hunt and that they were convinced everyone they hired from their booking agent to their outfitter to their PH to the camp cook was a crook. This was brought home after I'd hunted with a certain Canadian outfitter. I was one of four hunters on his last hunt of the season when a major storm front dumped a ton of snow on us. When the three other guys filed their reports, two of them said they'd had great hunts despite terrible weather. My report was similar. However, the third man is still complaining to all who will listen. It's hard to believe I'd been in the same "awful camp," eaten the same "rotten food" and hunted in the same "shot-out" area with the same "bandit" as my outfitter.

As for UK gun laws, the SCI chapter/chapters in that country were formed after I retired and I don't know anything about them, or if they even asked SCI for help, but I suspect the UK members are wealthy, highly influential people. If they couldn't use their wealth and influence to stop a gun ban, how could SCI make a difference from across the Atlantic?

I'm sorry, my friend, but you have been criticizing the club. You also have lumped everyone who has served as an officer in that club in the same box as the very, very few who deserve condemnation. And, because a few ethics complaint hearings did not go the way you thought they should, you also have condemned what actually is a much-needed process that most of us believe has worked well more often than not.

Bill Quimby

Bill,

We all know the minimum US$600 will only get you a booth at the back next to the toilets and is nothing more than an added surcharge.

How about they just charge higher prices for better locations/products just like you pay higher rates for better hotel rooms, houses or products all over the world? - It ain't difficult mate. The whole world of commerce has worked on that basis for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So why don't SCI work the same way?

I'd bet that a private survey of exhibitors would prove that damn near all of the exhibitors would agree that the so called donation scheme is actually extortion.

As for the ethics cttee and privacy laws. They don't have to announce to the world what their findings are, although by your own previous admission, they do do just that in Safari News. All they have to do is uphold rather than reject complaints such as 20 hunters in one camp when they'd all been promised one camp per 2 hunters. Let's face it mate, it's a bit of a piss take to reject such a clearly valid complaint!

What could SCI have done to help the fight against restrictive firearms legislation? - One thing they could have done is carried the story in the mag and another is make their expertise available to the UK shooting organisations..... and I'm sure if they had, they'd have blown their own trumpet from here to kingdom come......

Let's try this.

Hands up everyone who remembers reading anything about SCI helping their UK chapters in any way in their fight against the restrictive firearms legislation that was foisted on them not once but twice?

No?

OK, let's try this.

Hands up all those who have heard that SCI will help their UK chapters in their fight against the soon to be proposed even more restrictive firearms legislation?

No?

Ah well, let's move on.

No my friend. I'm not criticising the club as a whole. That isn't my intention. The people I'm criticising are ONLY the upper echelons who as I see it are abusing their sport, their members and the industry of which they are a part..... and no-one else!