I just got the flyer for our local sci fundraiser. included in the bill of goods is a trip to RSA with out of africa, and a RSA lioness hunt in august or september. Come to think of it I guess that there was a reason i didn't pay my dues last year or this

How in the world can Out of Africa afford to give away so many donated hunts to the SCI and all the local SCI chapters?

Regards,

Terry

Terry, I have talked to those guys before. Their tecnique I think is they offer a 10 day hunt for 2 hunters with very few (and cheap) animals. Then, with 10 days they encourage the hunter to shoot a lot more animals. They make it up in Trophy fees, miscellaneous, etc. I bet at the end of the day, these donations cost them nothing. The chapter I support does not allow them to donate. The truth has been known there a long time.

My Chapter gets quite a few donated hunts, like BigBBear said, some have alot of "exra" costs, it ends up costing more then the safari!

We try to say with the simpler donations. we have almost 50 hunts from all over the world going on auction! Including Marco Polo, Ibex, Tahr hunts! Anybody interested in coming let me know! Eastern PA....

I thought Out of Africa was brought up on charges and SCI was having nothing to do with them. Thats what earlier posts on them stated I thought???

Our chapter "politely declined" their offer as well. As far as charges everything is still secret secret with the ethics committee at international. Who knows if or when they will act. You cant make anyone else do anything but you can certainly be responsible for your own actions. That includes speaking up at your own chapters if you feel it is appropriate.
As far as a lioness in RSA, nothing wrong with it as long as you call it what it is. No misrepresentations.

I see they have donated a hunt for the Aussie SCI chapter as well.

Gentlemen,

SCI is NOT doing either themselves or us as members any favors by the way they act when it comes to ethics.

Dealing with Out Of Africa is a perfect example. In addition, I have heard some rather sad stories of how the ethics committee goes over board dealing with someone in Africa who has no financial clout.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Our chapter "politely declined" their offer as well. As far as charges everything is still secret secret with the ethics committee at international. Who knows if or when they will act. You cant make anyone else do anything but you can certainly be responsible for your own actions. That includes speaking up at your own chapters if you feel it is appropriate.
As far as a lioness in RSA, nothing wrong with it as long as you call it what it is. No misrepresentations.

Are you suggesting that the lion could be in a smaller enclosure???

my point in the lioness hunt is that if RSA closes off lion hunting in june like they're supposidly doing, what about the guy who bought the hunt? Is he going to get his money back or just hear a sob story and cross is off to profit and loss? I've just seen to many donated hunts that ended up in the bad list. Enough so that I don't really look at them anymore unless I know the people involved in the donation. Enter -out of africa!!

It is certainly disappointing, but it is also becoming increasingly difficult to be surprised by SCI's behavior in this regard. Having once been conned by Out of Africa and SCI, I know the details of this story all to well. It may very well be that Hell freezes over before SCI takes any direct action against Out of Africa. As long as they keep bringing money into headquarters through "donated" trips at local banquets, they will continue to look the other way. I find it particularly disgusting that National knows about these problems, but continues to profit from new SCI members / gullible hunters. It says much about this organization. And for those who need it spelled out for them clearly, I will echo Saeed's comments and simply say that SCI has and will continue to suffer from their association with Out of Africa.
Bill

Bill

Aren't "SCI" and "ethics" mutually exclusive terms?

Gentlemen,

Please name me any similar organization that doesn't have some aspects that aren't good. And don't lump all local chapters together. As Mike Smith said, several chapters have tired of the b.s. with the International on this particular matter and declined any association with OaA. I personally wouldn't hunt with OaA if they paid me.

That said, I look around my area and don't see any other pro-hunting organization that is doing 1/10th what SCI is doing. There are no other groups in my area that are taking disabled kids and Veterans hunting. There are no other local groups that are taking an active, pro-hunting stance with politicians.

What are we to do? All simply quit and let all the good stuff go down the tubes? Are any of you taking your time and financial support to some other alternate organization? Please let me know what the more pure and effective such organization is and I will be there too.

Matt Norman
SCI Life
NRA Life

Well said, Matt. They find one thing to focus on, that being the OoA thing, and forget all the rest. It is like the NRA haters. "The NRA wants me to own an AK47," they say. It isn't true, but they don't care. It would all be so simple if we just give up and let PETA and the anti gun people have their way. No more SCI or NRA to stand in their way. I guess that is what those who persist in such postings want.

I second Matt's challenge. Name an organization that does it better than either of the above, and I'll withdraw my membership in both and join yours. Your suggested organization must be without any faults whatsoever.

I think Fjold has got it right. I was going to use the word "oxymoron".

SCI seems to have no problem acepting OoA ad money still. I see in the January Safari Times a half page add for them.

I wonder if SCI is just waiting till the ethics committee makes their ruling on OoA conducted. Innocent until proven guilty?

SCI has helped win a lot of anti hunting battles, But I think their inability and or willingness to clean up their ranks might ultimately cost hunters the war!

quote:

Originally posted by sierrabravo45:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Our chapter "politely declined" their offer as well. As far as charges everything is still secret secret with the ethics committee at international. Who knows if or when they will act. You cant make anyone else do anything but you can certainly be responsible for your own actions. That includes speaking up at your own chapters if you feel it is appropriate.
As far as a lioness in RSA, nothing wrong with it as long as you call it what it is. No misrepresentations.

Are you suggesting that the lion could be in a smaller enclosure???

No Im saying if the property is large enough and the person who is doing it is ok with it then so be it. I just dont like it when a hunt like that is represented as a wild free range hunt. The stories are all similar but it isnt hard to see the truth. I dont have a problem if someone wants to shoot a lioness on 10,000 hecatres, or whatever fairly large piece of property. I am not saying 50 acre plots or anything like that.
It isnt for me but who am I to decide for someone else? I also believe maybe right maybe wrong that it takes the pressure off the wild populations somewhat by satisfying a lot of people that would otherwise be putting pressure there. My problem is when the whole thing gets misrepresented. Call it what it is, a somewhat canned hunt. There is of course the totally canned version which is absolutely out in my book.

I agree SCI international needs to do some house cleaning for sure.
However, as Matt said, you dont throw out everything good because of the bad issues. I find it better to work to change the problems rather than just sit around and complain about them. Sometimes that is a long and frustrating process, I know this one has been. Anyone who has had any dealings with me can tell you how I feel about OOA and this whole mess. I certainly have not spared words or energy in working to make such changes.

What have any of you done to change things?

I have been working for almost 4 1/2 years on this OOA thing and am finally starting to see some results. Not necesarrily because of my actions but of many who have put time and energy and money into this. There are a lot of political issues to be overcome and the old boy network is sure at hand. That said there are a lot of good people in SCI and elsewhere who work long and hard often with little recognition to right things like this. All I can say is if you want to make a difference, just complaining on the internet isnt enough. Get out there and try to make some real changes.

"SCI seems to have no problem acepting OoA ad money still. I see in the January Safari Times a half page add for them. I wonder if SCI is just waiting till the ethics committee makes their ruling on OoA conducted. Innocent until proven guilty?"

I was SCI's director of publications from 1983 until I retired in 1999, and I assure you that "innocent until proven guilty" is what I also would have followed.

Refusing to sell advertising space to a member (I would bet that at least one of OofA's owners is an SCI member) without the support of some action from a court or an ethics committee would have resulted in the club (and me) being sued. I believe we would have lost, too.

Incidentally, SCI is unlike DU, RMEF, FNAWS, NRA and most other organizations that keep all of the money raised at local events. SCI chapters keep 70% of the proceeds from their fundraisers.

After deducting auction costs, the amount headquarters receives from a single hunt sold by a chapter is not great enough to affect the club's decisions.

Bill Quimby

Bill your wrong about FNAWS. The chapters keep all of the money that they earn. There isn't even a membership requirement to the National Org. required to attend a local chapter banquet.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
"
Refusing to sell advertising space to a member (I would bet that at least one of OofA's owners is an SCI member) without the support of some action from a court or an ethics committee would have resulted in the club (and me) being sued.

Bullshit. SCI denies booth space to members all the time, meanwhile providing an oversized booth to OOA. Also, the "innocent until proven guilty" gambit is a bunch of crap as well. This is not a criminal court, and you do not have to prove that OOA is guilty in order to stop doing business with them. But even if you did, the government of Zimbabwe has declared OOA a threat to Zimbabwe's national security. So this "innocent until proven guilty" mantra is just camouflage so that SCI can keep pocketing money from OOA.

Since SCI chooses to profit from OOA's activities, that tells me a lot about the ethics of SCI's executives.

Totally agree with Matt and Bill on this issue.

I've been a very active SCI member for years, on my Chapter BOD, and chairman of our fundraiser auction program for the last five.

Most active or sizeable SCI Chapters get solicited by hundreds of hunting and safari operators offering fundraiser donations. What is really unspoken here is that in a lot of Chapters, the leadership performs due dilligence and donate a lot of their own uncompensated time, to put together a live auction program composed of trips and items that they are relatively comfortable with. This also has to be balanced with feeling fairly assurred with getting a reasonable value for the item up for bid. Chapters will also quickly get a poor reputation in the outfitting community if the let quality trips go for next to nothing, sell hunts from less than reputable outfitters, or send a continual stream of problem clients to the outfitters.

It is easy to tell the difference -- just go to a few SCI Chapter or other outdoor organization fundraisers, and take a good look at the auction program. It is usually quite evident by the quality and relative value (not donor stated value) of the items up for bid. It is also really the responsibility of the buyer to do a little bit of research into what they are buying.

After years of doing this, the biggest complaints that I've seen begin with the hunter/buyer demanding to modify the purchased hunt. One clear example was a African Plainsgame Safari, which had a good group of included animals, such as Bushbuck, Zebra, Wildebeest, etc. -- and the hunter/purchaser demanded action taken against the outfitter upon return from the safari because he modified the deal and took a Nyala, but was not able to take other desired species because the outfitter did not have quota (which the hunter did not negociate for prior to his safari). There was no action taken, because the outfitter really didn't do anything wrong, but the client was adamant that he was wronged, and demanded that SCI make it right.

The lesson here is if people are going to buy a donated hunt, they really need to make sure that its what they really want -- or, if modifications are to be made that they are agreed upon with the outfitter prior to purchasing the hunt. Folks often look to SCI to settle these disputes, which is just plain wrong.

The issues discussed on this board concerning some outfitters go far beyond ethics, and into criminal, civil, and association arbitration issues. These are not things that the SCI Ethics Committee or any Chapter BOD can rectify. However, it is relatively certain that the Ethics Committee will be reviewing the official decisions handed down by official governing bodies prior to issuing any ethics rulings. Also, SCI allows any type of hunting methods that are legal where the animal is taken. This recurring banter about what should or should not be considered an ethical hunt on this BB and reviewed by the Ethics Committee is pointless. SCI's position has always been, if the hunting method does not violate any laws, then it is considered an ethical hunt -- end of story.

Anyway, there are a lot of good people out there -- especially in SCI, that are giving freely of their time to help us all promote our sport, and protect our hunting rights. Over the years, after having been an active member in several outdoor clubs and associtions -- it is clear, that the people who do the least to help, aid, and assist, are the ones who usually complain the loudest and most often.

My personal association with SCI has been very rewarding. It has opened the door to a lot of information about the animals that I want to pursue, help me get to know numerous quality people with similar interests, and given me the opportunity to contribute back to the sport that I hold so dear.

I hav not been a SCI member all that long but even so I have been dismayed by how often I have read complaints along these same lines. While I agree that SCI should strive to be above reproach I think Mat has the correct outlook. I dont like a lot of what happens in my government but I dont even consider quiting my country because some things are done I dont like. Even if there is a good ol boy network running things at the top it seems like the general membership could change all that if we really want to. Having said that I guess I now have to try to get some info and maybe even get involved rather than just read the latest safari times..damn there is always a price for princibles. Bill makes a good point also maybe censure is right around the corner

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
"
Refusing to sell advertising space to a member (I would bet that at least one of OofA's owners is an SCI member) without the support of some action from a court or an ethics committee would have resulted in the club (and me) being sued.

Bullshit. SCI denies booth space to members all the time, meanwhile providing an oversized booth to OOA. Also, the "innocent until proven guilty" gambit is a bunch of crap as well. This is not a criminal court, and you do not have to prove that OOA is guilty in order to stop doing business with them. But even if you did, the government of Zimbabwe has declared OOA a threat to Zimbabwe's national security. So this "innocent until proven guilty" mantra is just camouflage so that SCI can keep pocketing money from OOA.

Since SCI chooses to profit from OOA's activities, that tells me a lot about the ethics of SCI's executives.

So, in your humble opinion, and as a former lawyer, which organization is doing a better job of protecting our rights as hunters and gun owners, and is also absolutely perfect in every way?

Patrykhntr,

Wanting to find a "perfect" organization in every aspect is juvenile. There are many, quality organizations. NRA, RMEF, and US Sportsman's Alliance are just a few I am happy to support. And no, I don't think they are perfect. I no longer support SCI. They have strayed so far from their mission that I no longer can stomach providing any support. In fact, I believe they trade off a decades old reputation for good deeds. As many mention, there are a few really good chapters. I have no quarrel with the good works they do. Funneling even 30% of their proceeds to National, where they are frittered away on personal agendas or worse, to dupe unsuspecting new members in other chapters, is still egregious. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but until mambers speak up loudly (with their check books, or lack there of) there won't be any change at SCI National.

Bill

Yes Dan, I would like to hear your suggestions and solutions to the problem. You already know it is before the ethics committee. The fact that things are not moving as fast or perhaps even in the direction we want is certainly no reason to quit trying. It may not be a criminal court but one certainly does have to observe certain protocol just to keep out of court. Win loose or draw that takes a hell of a lot of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

I am basically throwing down the gauntlet to everyone. If you dont like the way things are going then get involved and work to make changes. I dont care if it is SCI or any other organiztion. Pick one that you think is best and put your energy into it. Actions speak much louder than words. I happen to think that SCI with all its faults is still the best thing going for us. If you can show me otherwise as Matt said, Ill be there.
Mike



What I have seen too much of lately is a lot of negative sniping. It is true both here, maybe even moreso, and elsewhere. It is easy for people to sit back and take cheap shots. I am not even talking about SCI but in general lately. What is it that has made us as people that way? I am a firm believer in calling it as you see it but what happened to being civil to one another?

Your choice, lamapacker. None of the above organizations has anywhere near the clout that SCI does, with the exception of the NRA. I am just saying that if we trash the SCI, there is nobody to take its place. Do what you think is in our best interests. I think I will stick with the NRA and SCI and try to make changes within the organization.

Mike Smith, I agree with your approach. I'm with you, my friend.

It appears that some of you guys do not mind that SCI does business with poachers.

I mind.

I support a number of organizations but not SCI. A lot of people here seem to be saying that they do so much good we should overlook some of the ethical problems. I don't agree.

The ends do not justify the means! This is the philosophy of a lot of organizations that I would never support (DNC, ALF, PETA, etc.) I have a moral obligation to myself to support and help those organizations that I see have high ethical standards.

It's the same as when I'm hunting, getting the game animal is done according to all of the laws and the ethical rules of hunting.

IF I still were SCI's publications director and IF I knew a government had issued a statement condemning any outfitter, I would deny that outfitter advertising space.

I stand corrected about FNAWS.

Bill Quimby

Frank, I never said we should overlook the the problems. We should work to change them. In my opinion you cant do that from the sidleines you have to get invlolved. Comparing SCI to ALF or PETA is ridiculous. They dont do any good unless you can show me something positive?

Dan, I do mind! That is why I have been working to change things as have others. My question remains the same. What have you done to change the situation? I dont believe that avoidance is an answer. You can vote with your checkbook in many more productive ways. I would never bid on an auction item from an outfitter in question. As a chapter member you have a say in how things are done. IF enough people get together then pressure can be brought to bear where it is needed on the international. Many local chapters a fed up with this as well and things are changing. I must admit that it is a slow and frustrating process.

Bill, I would like that also, but there is no provision for it in the bylaws that I can find.
So, I would suggest everyone push to get the bylaws changed accordingly. However that would require getting involved. Pretty much what my statement has been from the beginning.

I agree with Mike & patrkyhntr, not supporting SCI is for sure the wrong path to take. I don't agree with things they do but then I agree with alot they do. I got involved in SCI, I'm on a board for a local chapter, and I am trying to get more involved in national. I want to see them stay strong, it's people like you, (ones that won't support SCI) that cry and scream the loudest but don't do a damn thing to try and get involved!! The way to change things is To Get involved! And quit your bitching!

Sportsmen need a orginization like SCI, that's if you would like to hunt in the future!

SCI ethics????????????????????????
I agree at the local chapter level that there are some great folks working hard with fine charactor and ethical standards--but the national level is another matter.
Look at the OOOA deal-
Give me a break--there is plenty of actions taken against them, yet they are still supported by SCI.
SCI uses OOA as a front to milk more cash out of its' members--thats the fact as I see it. SCI acts as a silient partner (or enabler) with OOA to bring in funds.
SCI also protects OOA from complaints--thats my opinion. How may complaints has been filed against them?? I know of quite a few.

quote:

Get involved! And quit your bitching!

Yup

Quickshot,

there are alot of very good people at the National level too!

Get involved! And quit your bitching!

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
IF I still were SCI's publications director and IF I knew a government had issued a statement condemning any outfitter, I would deny that outfitter advertising space.

I stand corrected about FNAWS.

Bill Quimby

SCI has been presented with a copy of the Zimbabwe declaration concerning OOA, and the Zimbabwe National Parks ruling which bans OOA from Zimbabwe. Yet SCI national kept auctioning the OOA donated hunts.

May be SCI's first step should be to start treating their members equally.

I understand that priority of booths is given to those who "donate".

May be that is why OoA has managed to get away with it so far because they do "donate" so many hunts to SCI, and SCI's ethics committee turns a blind eye to all the wrongs OoA has done and continues to do?

For those that thinks SCI doesn't protect OOA ---

Legal councel for SCI's task force is kevin Anderson-
guess who's OOA's attorney is?????
thats' right Kevin Anderson


widowmaker416
Quit bitching and get involved?? how do you think I know this stuff

a few people on this thread know's just how much I am involved --the crap is deep at the national level--and yes, bitching sometimes will help get members of SCI to stand up and demand a much needed house cleaning at the top--

--and no I don't think SCI needs to be totally gutted --just the bad apples and the greed needs to be removed before SCI implodes from the corruption.
best wishes

quote:

Legal councel for SCI's task force is kevin Anderson-
guess who's OOA's attorney is?????
thats' right Kevin Anderson

I wonder which job he had first? The answer would be very enlightning.

quote:

SCI has been presented with a copy of the Zimbabwe declaration concerning OOA, and the Zimbabwe National Parks ruling which bans OOA from Zimbabwe. Yet SCI national kept auctioning the OOA donated hunts.

The auctioned hunts mentioned; Does OoA only operate in Zim or are they trans-Africa? Are some of these auctioned hunts (via S.C.I.) in other African locales than Zim.?

DB