quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Saeed, would you mind saying why Dr. Rudolph felt the need to email you and have you post this on AR instead of coming on himself and posting it, then standing up to whatever the folks here had to say?

I didn't sign the petition because its all about him.

I think if someone came around with a petition to look in to the management of SCI without a millstone of "its all me" I would feel differently about it.

Frankly, I think he did not have the balls to post it himself, as AR members would have made his presence here very miserable.

Him being a past SCI president is enough to tell us that he was part of the problem we are all trying to get rid off.

Saeed. I wonder why he chose you (in particular) to post it.
If you had started the petition, you would have got fifty names quite easily and would have been something you could do. Being as how you live so far away from the centre of activities, which I presume is USA.

Steve. When I asked you if you were a member of any of the organisations, you listed some of which you used to be a member. Presumably you gave them up when you retired as a pro to live in sunny Portugal. I can relate to that.
I get the impression that a most of the posters here,who are members of SCI, are ,just because they are hunters and see you, a non member, just throwing stones.jc

Mr. Chalmers:

I was doing some research and came across this exact thing on another forum. It was also sent to the owner of that forum.

If I recall correctly (which might not be the case) I saw a reference to the same matter on yet another forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Saeed, would you mind saying why Dr. Rudolph felt the need to email you and have you post this on AR instead of coming on himself and posting it, then standing up to whatever the folks here had to say?

I didn't sign the petition because its all about him.

I think if someone came around with a petition to look in to the management of SCI without a millstone of "its all me" I would feel differently about it.

Frankly, I think he did not have the balls to post it himself, as AR members would have made his presence here very miserable.

Him being a past SCI president is enough to tell us that he was part of the problem we are all trying to get rid off.

Then why is this a sticky thread?

Matt,

May be you are happy with the status quo of SCI.

Many of us are not and we really like to see something being done.

FFS - where did I ever say I was happy with the status quo? That is what I keep saying - you ignore what I write in regard to this... Please don't tell stories about me!!

Do you really think that this petition and the actions that may or may not come from it - are the correct way to effect change for the better in SCI??

You 'stickied' it and appeared to be supporting it by doing so and also by what you said about it. Do you still support it?

John

IIRC, WAGBI changed to BASC in about the mid 70s so I'd probably have joined shortly before the (then unpopular IIRC)change to BASC but yes, you're right, I am showing my age! LOL!

I did indeed let my memberships lapse either when I left the UK or after that, left RSA (or in between). As I said, the only one I'd like to have remained a member of is PHASA but felt it wasn't worth paying full subscription when I was retired.... but if they don't want to have a retired list then it's up to them.

As for throwing stones..... quite honestly, that's my right if I want to exercise it...... but that isn't the case. I believe my comments & criticisms of the organisation are perfectly valid & I'm not making them because I just want to see them closed down, I'm making them because they have a shit load of money, contacts and skills that could be put to VERY good use. Not only do they (IMO) squander that but they also keep what they do with that money etc seemingly secret! - And that to me just ain't right.

Retained contact with the old country...... I'm still in contact with a lot of friends & a little bit of family there but quite honestly, I'll be happy if I never have to set foot in the God forsaken place again!

Portugal's not so sunny at the moment...... we've had two months of torrential rain just like you guys in the UK and it's a bugger when you're trying to get a house build finished!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Saeed, would you mind saying why Dr. Rudolph felt the need to email you and have you post this on AR instead of coming on himself and posting it, then standing up to whatever the folks here had to say?

I didn't sign the petition because its all about him.

I think if someone came around with a petition to look in to the management of SCI without a millstone of "its all me" I would feel differently about it.

Frankly, I think he did not have the balls to post it himself, as AR members would have made his presence here very miserable.

Him being a past SCI president is enough to tell us that he was part of the problem we are all trying to get rid off.

Then why is this a sticky thread?

Matt,

May be you are happy with the status quo of SCI.

Many of us are not and we really like to see something being done.

FFS - where did I ever say I was happy with the status quo? That is what I keep saying - you ignore what I write in regard to this... Please don't tell stories about me!!

Do you really think that this petition and the actions that may or may not come from it - are the correct way to effect change for the better in SCI??

You 'stickied' it and appeared to be supporting it by doing so and also by what you said about it. Do you still support it?

I support the well over due change at SCI.

Steve ,Ha!! We have had very little rain, frost (or snow here in the Highlands this winter. The bad weather seems to be coming in from the Atlantic south of Ireland. The southern part of England and Wales has been getting the worst of it. But PLEASE don't tell them that, our population in Scotland has risen something drastic in the past few years as it is.
Back to the OP I wonder if many of our UK AR members, are members of SCI....Was that the sound of glass breaking I hear.jc

We've copped the same lot the S of England had..... I went on a pig hunt for a few days up to Castelo Branco last week and even there, the fields are sodden & everywhere you look, there are flooded streams & rivers....... the game must have taken a hammering both here & in the UK.

Got home to find my bottom field awash with water and 4 foot ruts from 2 vehicles that got stuck in it which will mean another bloody year before we can even start planting the wild flower meadow we hope to have.

UK SCI membership would be pretty small I'd guess. - Esp if it's the same people running it as in my time.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
FFS - where did I ever say I was happy with the status quo? That is what I keep saying - you ignore what I write in regard to this... Please don't tell stories about me!!

Do you really think that this petition and the actions that may or may not come from it - are the correct way to effect change for the better in SCI??

You 'stickied' it and appeared to be supporting it by doing so and also by what you said about it. Do you still support it?

I support the well over due change at SCI.

I think it is you who is the politician!!!

Matt,

I think anyone would agree that a"definition" would be a living breathing position. In other words not cast in stone. To put nothing out that defines what is harvestable and sustainable is not good.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Matt,

I think anyone would agree that a"definition" would be a living breathing position. In other words not cast in stone. To put nothing out that defines what is harvestable and sustainable is not good.

Jeff

It looks like that SCI is not sure which way the wind is going to blow, so they are keeping quiet to see what happens, then say "I told you so"!

A true sign of a follower, not a leader!

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Matt,

I think anyone would agree that a"definition" would be a living breathing position. In other words not cast in stone. To put nothing out that defines what is harvestable and sustainable is not good.

Jeff

Well they did put something out. They said they (whoever) must work with the scientists and all other stakeholders. SCIF supports the scientists - why would they not promote their work?

quote:

SCIF supports the scientists - why would they not promote their work?

Only to ignore their recommendations at the wrong moment? - wasted money on their part if that is their policy.

A somewhat contradicting statement!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

SCIF supports the scientists - why would they not promote their work?

Only to ignore their recommendations at the wrong moment? - wasted money on their part if that is their policy.

Fujo - You have never said it better!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Matt,

I think anyone would agree that a"definition" would be a living breathing position. In other words not cast in stone. To put nothing out that defines what is harvestable and sustainable is not good.

Jeff

Its a shame that we have this information running in three different threads now.

From what I can see (read) SCIF simply took the tack with physically fighting the uplisting - rather than to try and 'reinvent the wheel' - to actually attack the antis petition.

The other stuff was already 'in action', the science, management, etc. USFWS appears to me to have been happy that that work was being done - and said that they would rely on the local govt management.

I am just saying how I read it. I am not saying that SCIF totally did the right thing - they just doing it differently. And we all know that 'SCI' is very hard to influence from the outside - just because of its size and structure.

I'm a relatively new member to SCI and I'm behind the concept - that is, supporting the worthy goals of hunting and conservation.

Having ugly and petty political infighting and pending legal actions within SCI is not in the best interests of hunters or conservation - especially given the growing momentum of anti-hunters and over-population.

It is in our hobby's best interests that SCI resolve this conflict with Rudolph ASAP, canonize a set of policies governing ethical behavior by SCI leadership, and reaffirm SCI's commitment to conservation and ethical hunting.

This may mean a change of current leadership that has allowed this controversy to develop - these events are making SCI look like a group of petty egotistical and self-serving rich-men.

I'm hoping someone with clout within SCI will read this and seriously consider a voluntary, yet critical, self-evaluation of the SCI and it's current policies and direction.

I want the SCI to succeed. SCI's success is critical for our - often unjustly attacked - hobby.

I went to my first SCI convention in Las Vegas this year, but I'm going to try the Dallas Safaris Club next year. I'd like to support both organizations, but we'll see. Given the current state of internecine fighting within the SCI, I assume other SCI members are considering moving toward the Dallas Safaris Club as well.

The sad part is Rudolph did not start this.

He has been part and parcel of what had ruined SCCI!

He has only brought this to the open because he got a bit carried away further than the rest of his just as rotten management team.

"...got a bit carried away..." Well I guess that's one way to put it.

I see John Whipple is no longer a Director or holding any other position.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
"...got a bit carried away..." Well I guess that's one way to put it.

I see John Whipple is no longer a Director or holding any other position.

The rotten apples are not being removed fast enough not to affect the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
"...got a bit carried away..." Well I guess that's one way to put it.

I see John Whipple is no longer a Director or holding any other position.

The rotten apples are not being removed fast enough not to affect the rest.

And how do you identify these rotten apples?
'Means' test?
Throw out anyone who has record book entries?

What exactly do you prescribe?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

I see John Whipple is no longer a Director or holding any other position.

Gosh!....why would that be?

quote:

The rotten apples are not being removed fast enough not to affect the rest.

Indeed - the whole orchard needs to be uprooted and a totally new variety to be introduced.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

I see John Whipple is no longer a Director or holding any other position.

Gosh!....why would that be?

I heard he resigned.

quote:

I heard he resigned.

How distressing! - I guess he couldn't take all that publicity in one go!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I heard he resigned.

How distressing! - I guess he couldn't take all that publicity in one go!

Something like that I guess.

I have asked SCI for a statement on where this is all going. Hopefully we get it in the next week or two. They know how important it is that they communicate this stuff but it is tricky if there is still court action pending. I dont know that there IS - just be good to get something from them. We'll see...

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Matt,

I think anyone would agree that a"definition" would be a living breathing position. In other words not cast in stone. To put nothing out that defines what is harvestable and sustainable is not good.

Jeff

Well they did put something out. They said they (whoever) must work with the scientists and all other stakeholders. SCIF supports the scientists - why would they not promote their work?

What must be remembered here is that the scientists "worked" on writing that definition. They (the scientists) then recommended that the major hunting orgs, specifically SCI and DSC, endorse it to set precedence for outfitters recommending the practice and also for tourist hunters engaging in a lion hunt. "Support" for the scientists' "work" would have been shown with endorsement. So I reckon they (SCI) chose NOT to support their (scientific community) work at least in this instance.

It would have also been a powerful message to the non-hunting but NOT anti-hunting public who are on the fence.

It's likely to be a screw-up when you let scientists design a political action campaign. If as you say the scientist were the ones dictating what is best in that regard.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
It's likely to be a screw-up when you let scientists design a political action campaign. If as you say the scientist were the ones dictating what is best in that regard.

I will be sure to tell them how you feel.

But you asked the question above...I was just sharing a good example of them (SCI) NOT supporting the scientists' work.

Does Dr. Al Maki consider hisself a scientist? And if so...do you lump him in with the other scientists not capable of political action design???

Why dont you keep the Lion uplisting stuff in a relevant thread. It will be confusing to readers (if anyone is still bothering to read)... this thread deals with a Petition by Larry Rudolph. The LCTF/SCIF/USFWS threads deals with a Petition by HSUS and ors.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Why dont you keep the Lion uplisting stuff in a relevant thread. It will be confusing to readers (if anyone is still bothering to read)... this thread deals with a Petition by Larry Rudolph. The LCTF/SCIF/USFWS threads deals with a Petition by HSUS and ors.

The old side step.

I was just responding to what Jeff and you were discussing. I referenced the discussion in my post.

I have come to believe that "most" posters on AR are not easily confused...they are pretty darn astute.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Why dont you keep the Lion uplisting stuff in a relevant thread. It will be confusing to readers (if anyone is still bothering to read)... this thread deals with a Petition by Larry Rudolph. The LCTF/SCIF/USFWS threads deals with a Petition by HSUS and ors.

Matt,

If there is anyone being confused here it is you.

You don't seem to understand that REFORMING SCI means many things.

It means getti8ng them off their rear ends being so busy clapping each other on the backs, and doing somethi8ng remotely useful for us in the hunting community.

Not signing on to this was just one of SCI's unwanted actions.

And as to Dr. Rudolf, I hope no hunting organization ever accept him as member.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Not signing on to this was just one of SCI's unwanted actions.

Lost in translation or something??

I don't think they ever said they wouldn't sign on to it. But I suspect Lane has been pushing them hard enough that they are cautious.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Not signing on to this was just one of SCI's unwanted actions.

Lost in translation or something??

I don't think they ever said they wouldn't sign on to it. But I suspect Lane has been pushing them hard enough that they are cautious.

You mean like so many people were pushing them to see the light of day about all the criminal activities Out of Africa were up to, while the man who is being paid by Out of Africa, at the top of the SCI ladder, doing all he could to deflect it?

Yeah whatever Saeed. You reinvent it however you like.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Yeah whatever Saeed. You reinvent it however you like.

OK, here are some questions for you.

1. Wasn't Out of Africa's representative head of SCI?

2. Didn't many people complain about them for so long, that SCI turned a blind eye to everything that was being done to damage hunting?

3. Didn't SCI get forced to act after USFW arrested members of Out of Africa?

Please enlighten us, inventors like to start from somewhere so they can invent something

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Yeah whatever Saeed. You reinvent it however you like.

OK, here are some questions for you.

1. Wasn't Out of Africa's representative head of SCI?

2. Didn't many people complain about them for so long, that SCI turned a blind eye to everything that was being done to damage hunting?

3. Didn't SCI get forced to act after USFW arrested members of Out of Africa?

Please enlighten us, inventors like to start from somewhere so they can invent something

RE question 1:

I believe he was head of the Ethics committee before that and whilst a good many of the OoA complaints were being made and then either ignored or dismissed...... Lots can be found on that using the search function.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Yeah whatever Saeed. You reinvent it however you like.

OK, here are some questions for you.

1. Wasn't Out of Africa's representative head of SCI?

2. Didn't many people complain about them for so long, that SCI turned a blind eye to everything that was being done to damage hunting?

3. Didn't SCI get forced to act after USFW arrested members of Out of Africa?

Please enlighten us, inventors like to start from somewhere so they can invent something

My understanding of this is.

1. Yes, he represented them (a lawyer I think) in some matter/s - some years before it all blew-up.
2. Yes, lots of people complained but I dont know what happened to those complaints. Some people say they 'complain' but unless they follow the correct procedure the complaint doesnt get through. Lots of people 'complain'...
3. I believe that they had acted long before that actually happened.

In reply to your original statement - I dont believe it has been shown anywhere, that the lawyer was deflecting the complaints. That was only speculation - that turned into 'truth' on AR. From what I can see SCI had no real reason to keep OOA at the convention - they had a long list of other outfitters waiting to take their place.

No, I don't think SCI handled the OOA situation well ... at all. And I am not supporter of OOA in any way shape or form.

OOA was set up with full display at the Lehigh Valley SCI banquet with some tall attractive woman attending to the display. We were advised Mr. OOA was arrested by USF&W and "attempting" to make bail.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


1. Wasn't Out of Africa's representative head of SCI?

I guess that depends on your connotation of representative. OOA's legal counsel was in fact the president of SCI.

Damn, I would love to know how many have signed. My guess is he didn't get the 50 signatures.

quote:

Originally posted by GOB:
OOA was set up with full display at the Lehigh Valley SCI banquet with some tall attractive woman attending to the display. We were advised Mr. OOA was arrested by USF&W and "attempting" to make bail.

That is true that OOA continued to work through the chapters for a year - until word finally got around that they were verbotten. SCI doesnt monitor all the chapter functions, donations and supporters. That stuff happens a lot at Chapter level, unfortunately.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


1. Wasn't Out of Africa's representative head of SCI?

I guess that depends on your connotation of representative. OOA's legal counsel was in fact the president of SCI.

Damn, I would love to know how many have signed. My guess is he didn't get the 50 signatures.

Bloody hell!

Rotten to the very core!