Seems that the awards issue of SCI that I recently looked through promotes the taking of all species of big game and make money from awards to better the egos of a few.

As far as I see, 50% of every dollar spent on these awards should go back into wildlife conservation and anti-poaching.

Is this something that SCI would consider? How about a hunter award for wildlife conservation?! Tying in hunting adventures with how much conservation was spent on the local economy might be better seen by the hunting community...Thoughts?

I'm all for hunting; I'd just like to see more focus on conserving wildlife for continued hunting than, take these 300 animals and pay $1,000,000 for a diamond inner circle that does little to help the animals that were hunted...

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

DRSS
NRA Life
NAHC Life
SCI

Todd, I humbly suggest that you consider my question thoughtfully and maybe view it as an opportunity to educate and/or think about how we as hunters can improve on the way we contribute to wildlife conservation rather than calling me a troll.

If everyone acted as you just did, we would have few, if any, opportunities to educate, inform, build relations with folks and improve on the wildlife conservation efforts that many hunters already do but that most folks might be unaware of.

With all of your titles, I would have thought that you would have some insights to share. I thought that in order to call yourself a member of for example, SCI, that you would at least uphold your responsibility to consider ways to improve our ability to contribute more to wildlife conservation and the continuation of hunters rights.

H-54

My only "Connection" with SCI is that I pay them the money for being a member.

That being said, if you want to change where they allocate money, as it stands now, you will need to become involved in your local chapter, get elected to be the chapter chair, then go to the national meeting, and go from there. I have little interest in organizing fund raisers, etc, so I am not at all in that area.

Near as I can tell by looking in the magazine at how many of the inner circle things they announce each month, we are not talking about dramatic amounts of money.

SCI traditionally has been (assuming you believe what they say) more in the international advocacy area, meaning legal and lobbying politicians, rather than subsidizing research and paying for habitat. To be honest, I would be a bit skeptical of any habitat purchase that any foreign multinational did, as the level of respect for property rights in Africa has not traditionally been very good.

As far as whether being a collector of species does any good, (which is what the various inner circle awards are...) I think it does have a positive outcome in that it increases demand for some of the less glamorous species. The more demand, the higher the value, the more value the local community sees to the animals, the stronger likelihood that the animals will be protected by the local community.

I think the reason for the comment don't feed the trolls is that any SCI thread here usually becomes a bash SCI/defend SCI thread.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
My only "Connection" with SCI is that I pay them the money for being a member.

That being said, if you want to change where they allocate money, as it stands now, you will need to become involved in your local chapter, get elected to be the chapter chair, then go to the national meeting, and go from there. I have little interest in organizing fund raisers, etc, so I am not at all in that area.

Near as I can tell by looking in the magazine at how many of the inner circle things they announce each month, we are not talking about dramatic amounts of money.

SCI traditionally has been (assuming you believe what they say) more in the international advocacy area, meaning legal and lobbying politicians, rather than subsidizing research and paying for habitat. To be honest, I would be a bit skeptical of any habitat purchase that any foreign multinational did, as the level of respect for property rights in Africa has not traditionally been very good.

As far as whether being a collector of species does any good, (which is what the various inner circle awards are...) I think it does have a positive outcome in that it increases demand for some of the less glamorous species. The more demand, the higher the value, the more value the local community sees to the animals, the stronger likelihood that the animals will be protected by the local community.

I think the reason for the comment don't feed the trolls is that any SCI thread here usually becomes a bash SCI/defend SCI thread.

Alright. Thank you for the context re: how SCI is viewed on this site.

Also, thank you for your thoughtful response. It gives me something to think about

Best, John

H54, I'm sorry if I was rude to you but as CRB said, I just don't want to get into another support SCI / Bash SCI thread. Also as CRB said, my interest in SCI is for their advocacy on hunters rights on local, regional, national, and international levels. Many here on AR focus on the "Inner Circle" and awards crap. My opinion is that within SCI, there is a very small number of people who care about or even understand that stuff. I certainly don't care about the awards. I don't have the money to pursue them and wouldn't pursue them even if I did. I think most members are of the same mindset. Even with that said, there will be many responses on this thread from guys who continue to focus their opinion against SCI solely on what the "big wigs" are doing to promote their egos.

As I mentioned, to me SCI is about the advocacy. A prime example is their support on the Polar Bear and Wolf issues here in the US.

One of your previous threads concerning HSUS and it's comments making you think twice about SCI make me suspicious about your motives as this is the second anti SCI thread you have started in a really short time frame. I completely agree that we need to be aware of what the "enemy" is promoting so that we can adequately mount a defense. But their methods are so far over the top and out of line with rational thought that reconsidering withdrawing your support for a hunting advocacy group based on HSUS's propaganda is what causes me to question the point of the thread.

David Keith posted this link on a thread in the American Hunting forum concerning HSUS and the lengths they are going to to end our hunting rights. Honestly, if you can't distinguish the efforts SCI does to advocate for our hunting rights vs what the HSUS does to advocate the termination of our hunting rights, I don't know what to say to you.

Please take the time to read this article about HSUS. It is a long read but at least read the part about HSUS and their efforts to end hunting. It is very enlightening on the extreme efforts they are putting forth.

https://westernlegacyalliance....ghts-agenda-part-one

Thank you. I read that. I also support the Boone & Crockett Club for making us aware of this. IIRC, Lowell Baier was one of the past presidents of the B&C Club.

I just think that we can do more and better as hunters for conservation and less of the stuff that has little impact on wildlife conservation like ego-inflating awards.

I appreciate your input and I hope that you also understand why I initially replied how I did.

Happy hunting,
John

Yes John, I understand your response. I'm sincere when I say that I'm sorry I was rude to you. My point is that HSUS propaganda is not simply the benign protection of animals as they would have the public believe. They are an incredibly radical organization with well though out tactics to achieve their ends. With that in mind, I just doubt any hunter will be swayed by their lies as we are not the ambivalent public when it comes to this topic.

Again, from your last post, you are still focused on the "ego-inflating awards". That's what I predicted in my earlier post. I'm in agreement with you that the awards are crap but it just doesn't bother me if someone has such low esteem that they need to engage in a mine is bigger than yours, or "I spent more money than you" contest. I couldn't care less.

Again what I care about is the advocacy for hunters rights. Now there are folks here who will question whether or not advocacy is taking place effectively by SCI on behalf of the hunter. That's a totally different question. I assume that SCI is doing what it professes. I don't have proof otherwise nor am I an attorney, so I don't profess to understand all the technical proceedings concerning individual cases.

I'd like to make 2 statements on the awards issue if I may, although, again, I don't care about them and this is the extent to which I will support this silliness so if you or anyone else think my points are invalid, so be it. They just don't matter to me.

1) The top guys with all the money chasing the awards and therefore supporting SCI monetarily are in the end providing more assets to be used for legal issues supporting hunters rights.

2) If you truly think that hunting IS conservation, as I do, then spending the money necessary to pursue the collections spreads the money into communities that would not ordinarily see funds from trophy hunting, thereby placing value on the "lesser" species and contributing to their protection by the locals.

I think this is the reasoning behind the awards programs. Do they work perfectly in a vacum? Absolutely not but then again, what does?

For someone who didn't want to get into a pro SCI/ Con SCI thread, I sure bit off on this one, eh? Just call me stupid!

Fire away guys but I don't care about the damn awards. I care about fighting HSUS, PETA, and others of the same ilk!

quote:

Originally posted by Hunter54:
As far as I see, 50% of every dollar spent on these awards should go back into wildlife conservation and anti-poaching.

Don't forget that at least some (no idea how much) of the money that the hunter spent hunting the various species should in a properly managed conservation system be ploughed back into wildlife conservation. The cost of an award/ceremony must be pretty minor in comparison to the cost of hunting...

I see Todd posted a similar comment before me...

First SCI is a lobbying org not a charity org. the SCI Foundation does the charitable, which includes conservation. SCI contributes to the Foundation.

Actually, it should not make any difference for a normal hunter.

But, when it becomes the holy grail, then it looses all it purposes.

SCI has nurtured all sorts of silly awards.
Which has made a lot of people - including several SCI bigwigs - do all sorts of illegal and unethical things so they can get their names in the book.

That is what I do not like.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Actually, it should not make any difference for a normal hunter.

But, when it becomes the holy grail, then it looses all it purposes.

SCI has nurtured all sorts of silly awards.
Which has made a lot of people - including several SCI bigwigs - do all sorts of illegal and unethical things so they can get their names in the book.

That is what I do not like.

Can't say that I disagree with anything in your post. I am very happy to agree with you Saeed! But I do think the number of people caught up in the awards is a rather small group.

Todd,

Well, if we look at the number of SCI bigwigs who have been caught red handed, the percentrage is quite high.

It would be interesting to see the actual figures i e # of "big wigs" and the # of them "caught red handed". When one throws accuactions they should be able to back them up with facts. Will this request get me banned?

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
It would be interesting to see the actual figures i e # of "big wigs" and the # of them "caught red handed". When one throws accuactions they should be able to back them up with facts. Will this request get me banned?

I'll second that request ... and if I get banned, so be it. Put up or shut up Saeed.

Saeed,

You and I have a different focus on SCI. You are focused on "catching" privileged people doing something wrong. You seem to have specific knowledge of these events. I don't. Not saying that irregularities haven't occurred. I'm sure they have.

But again, as I predicted in one of my earlier statements on this thread, many here will focus on the award silliness. That includes the offenses that you are alluding to. It's just a bunch of crap for a few to boost their egos. So what? It seems that you must have been personally affected by this in some way.

When the USFW uplisted the Polar Bear to endangered, would you have preferred there to be no SCI organization to argue against it (I realize you don't live in the US so it doesn't affect you; more of a rhetorical question). Would you prefer there to be no SCI presence arguing on your behalf if you had shot your Polar Bear but not got it imported prior to the ban. There are quite a few guys in that position. SCI argued for an exemption for them to bring their trophies into the US. Would you prefer to just let the HSUS guys run away with their agenda concerning wolf management in the US. SCI argued against the HSUS sponsored law suits that prevented wolf harvests in several states. Those same expanding wolf populations are causing drastic game reductions across their range.

We can go on and on here and round and round. You with your "got cha" awards issues and me with my hunters rights advocacy issues. In the grand scheme of things, what difference does the awards crap amount to? If someone has been caught doing something illegal, I expect they will pay the legal price associated with it. What difference does the advocacy amount to? Which of those 2 issues are more important to the vast majority of hunters?

If you are not a member of SCI, the awards "inner circles" are not going to amount to any effect on your life or ability to hunt. If you are not a member of SCI, the advocacy MAY affect your ability to hunt.

Because Jim Shockey has several "Inner Circle" awards doesn't mean a rats ass to me! The fact that I can hunt for wolf in Montana this fall if I choose to, DOES!

Again, I jumped into this thread because of H54's previous thread stating that he questioned support of SCI DUE TO STATEMENTS MADE BY HSUS. No other reason. Again: "DUE TO STATEMENTS MADE BY HSUS". Do you really believe the misbehaving of a few privileged yo yo's trying to outdo each other with the awards pins is reason to just let HSUS run roughshod over our rights? I don't.

quote:

If you are not a member of SCI, the awards "inner circles" are not going to amount to any effect on your life or ability to hunt. If you are not a member of SCI, the advocacy MAY affect your ability to hunt.

I can't really see how awards ceremonies can really have a positive impact. Any positive message about hunting, conservation and sustainable resource use is most likely more than overshadowed by a public perception of moneyed excess...

quote:

Originally posted by JabaliHunter:

quote:

If you are not a member of SCI, the awards "inner circles" are not going to amount to any effect on your life or ability to hunt. If you are not a member of SCI, the advocacy MAY affect your ability to hunt.

I can't really see how awards ceremonies can really have a positive impact. Any positive message about hunting, conservation and sustainable resource use is most likely more than overshadowed by a public perception of moneyed excess...

I think you and I are in agreement here. My point is that the only people affected by the awards programs are the select few members who choose to participate in them, but the awards programs do nothing for the betterment of our sport. If you are not one of those select few, you are not affected by the awards programs. The advocacy efforts MAY affect all hunters, SCI members and non-members alike. My opinion is that I support SCI for the efforts they take on behalf of hunters rights, the awards are pure silliness.

Very well put Todd.

IMO without the awards program SCI would not be the organization that it is. The awards program gets a lot of people interested in SCI and the more the merrier. More members equals more money for the promotion of hunting and hunting is by itself an extremely powerful conservation tool.

If your not a member and/or a trophy hunter the awards program may seem unecessary and just a competition between wealthy people for useless trophies and recognistion. The fact is that the awards program has set standards letting people understand what is a representative trophy. If you familiar with the records you'll know when that bargain basement PH says "shoot that 15" impala. He's a beaut" that the guy is full of crap.

Even if you don't want anything to do with the record books or awards program you need to know that SCI brings more hunters and hunt operators together than any other organization through the yearly convention and local fund raisers. The bottom line is this pairing of hunters and operators generates hunting and in turn conservation of animals and habitat.

So let the guys that want it have their diamond awards as it benefits everybody.

Mark

To a degree the awards are a piece of paper and/or a trophy for something that many would try to do anyway such as the Big 5, Spiral 9, and Tiny 10. I have a goal to complete the Spiral 9, but I don't think I'll be putting in for the Spiral Horns of Africa award as there are some differences between the two.

The awards are good for those where it gives them a goal simply for the accomplishment, but not when simply getting into the book is the goal. Kind of like climbing Everest, simply to have done it.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that, if SCI suddenly were to eliminate this program, the complaints would pour in loud and clear.

And not just from the hunters who actively participate, but also from many of the much larger number of booking agents, taxidermists, outfitters and professional hunters around the world who also are members.

Bill Quimby

I had not quite thought about that Bill...makes sense- Seems one hand tries to shake the other: SCI shakes hands with outfitter for donating a hunt and paying convention fees; outfitter shakes hands with SCI for creating so many awards that some hunters want so many animals that they then make money booking with...

I suppose that through these business transactions that the wildlife benefits by having value attached to them;thus, there is some incentive to manage the animal populations.

As to the dollars for conservation efforts, they do benefit from the awards program. Reciepents fo these "awards" pay for the trophy well in excess of the "cost" of the trophy, this provides funds to SCI for lobbying and to donate to SCI Foundation which is the org that funds conservation efforts. When you buy a big mac you are helping provide dividends to shareholders of McDonalds.