I spent some time reading the transcript (sort-of)

I'm personally a bit disappointed with much of if not everything I read in the transcript and heard on the video. How did these guys get into the top structure of SCI in the first place?

What is the real reason for the originator of this debacle posting this? Because his trophies were no longer recognized by SCI, because he was fired or both?

I'm not condemning SCI and what it supposedly stands for. And I'm sure most hunters who belong to the organization are honourable and have good intentions...

But what I've heard on this video and read in the transcripts really, really does not please me and does not make me feel good about any of the money I've spent on membership fees and / or donations.

I have not heard anyone talking of this matter in the convention.

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisTroskie:
I spent some time reading the transcript (sort-of)

I'm personally a bit disappointed with much of if not everything I read in the transcript and heard on the video. How did these guys get into the top structure of SCI in the first place?

What is the real reason for the originator of this debacle posting this? Because his trophies were no longer recognized by SCI, because he was fired or both?

I'm not condemning SCI and what it supposedly stands for. And I'm sure most hunters who belong to the organization are honourable and have good intentions...

But what I've heard on this video and read in the transcripts really, really does not please me and does not make me feel good about any of the money I've spent on membership fees and / or donations.

Chris:

Take it with a pinch of salt; according to the cheerleaders its all BS.

It would have been a classic had it been made public on AR on April Fools day.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I have not heard anyone talking of this matter in the convention.

and i bet that you won't. the average member has no clue what is happening at the top of the pyramid- and the good ole boys on top ain't saying shit!

I feel the best way to get to the bottom of this would be for one of the larger local chapters to file a law suit in the US demanding credible accounting at the international level

quote:

Originally posted by Full Roar:
I feel the best way to get to the bottom of this would be for one of the larger local chapters to file a law suit in the US demanding credible accounting at the international level

I doubt that'll happen if only because the Chapter ctte (or whatever they're called) will by their very nature probably be cheerleaders/sheeple themselves.

Personally, I'm astounded the US tax people aren't all over them like a rash........ the bastards are all over me for my comparatively minuscule book sales...... & I don't even live in the USA!

So much for no taxation without representation!

I'm not sure that the local SCI chapters are any more/ less transparent than SCI International. I was told in the past on this forum that SCI doesn't even have a national ( US) chapter. My question then is, how are the local US chapters monitored/assessed ?

Lack of Governance

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Lack of Governance

Do expect anything else when the top have a could not care less attitude except of what concerns themselves personally??

I did not hear a single person mention this matter. I have to wonder if they got 50 signatures?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I did not hear a single person mention this matter. I have to wonder if they got 50 signatures?

Hi Larry,
Unfortunately, I believe there are a huge majority of SCI members that are willing to compromise their personal integrity, just to fit in and not rock the boat.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I did not hear a single person mention this matter. I have to wonder if they got 50 signatures?

They might be using the same voting machines the politicians use - they only count designated votes, and disregard the rest

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Unfortunately, I believe there are a huge majority of SCI members that are willing to compromise their personal integrity, just to fit in and not rock the boat.

Steve

I think that's exactly right. The sheeple attitude is exactly what has allowed this (alleged) state of affairs to happen in the first place.

I'd guess they will find 50 members who will sign but would also guess that nothing significant will change. What usually happens in such cases is a whitewash investigation, an announcement that lessons have been learnt etc and then back to the same old, same old BS.

Hope I'm wrong though because (IMO) If SCI became what it's capable of becoming, it could be a fantastic organisation.

Im curious Steve - when exactly did you drop your membership and stop attending the conventions? What years did you actually attend as an exhibitor?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Im curious Steve - when exactly did you drop your membership and stop attending the conventions? What years did you actually attend as an exhibitor?

Very curious that you should be curious about me Matt..... Especially as you've asked the question before but I'll give you the same answer now as I did then.

I was a member when I lived in the UK so part of the UK Chapter which was bloody useless. I'm going from hazy memory because it was a looong time ago but I'd guess late 80s or early 90s & probably for about 3 or 4 years until I got sick of their attitude. Can't remember when I became a measurer but I have the certificate somewhere in an unpacked box that I'll probably find when I finally get my gun room finished.

What makes you think I attended the SCI convention as an exhibitor? - As a visitor yes but never as an exhibitor because as I told you last time you asked, I don't like & don't play the blackmail game, with anyone, ever.

I'm also curious...... do you think I'm only allowed to express an opinion if I've exhibited?

As I see it, anyone, whether they've been an exhibitor or a member or not is allowed to have and express any opinion they wish or whether you and the other cheerleaders approve of that opinion or not.

Terribly sorry Steve, my memory musnt be as sharp as yours... although I guess you are a tad hazy on the dates.

OK - so you were just a spectator... here's me thinking you were actually some kind of swinging dick in the African safari game?

Blackmail eh? Would that be attempred blackmail or consiracy to blackmail? I guess you are just so much smarter than all those hundreds of exhibitors allowing themselves to be blackmailed, the way they do.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Terribly sorry Steve, my memory musnt be as sharp as yours... although I guess you are a tad hazy on the dates.

OK - so you were just a spectator... here's me thinking you were actually some kind of swinging dick in the African safari game?

Blackmail eh? Would that be attempred blackmail or consiracy to blackmail? I guess you are just so much smarter than all those hundreds of exhibitors allowing themselves to be blackmailed, the way they do.

Matt,

Whether you like it or not, every SINGLE exhibitor at SCI that I have personally met, and spoken to, dislikes the "donation" scheme SCI has implemented.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Terribly sorry Steve, my memory musnt be as sharp as yours... although I guess you are a tad hazy on the dates.

OK - so you were just a spectator... here's me thinking you were actually some kind of swinging dick in the African safari game?

Blackmail eh? Would that be attempred blackmail or consiracy to blackmail? I guess you are just so much smarter than all those hundreds of exhibitors allowing themselves to be blackmailed, the way they do.

Matt

I've never claimed to be a "swinging dick" in anything but interesting (and slightly alarming ) that you seem to think I am. I've always viewed myself as a pretty ordinary PH that happens to have taken a slightly different path to many.

As I said and have told you previously, I was a visitor to the SCI convention rather than an exhibitor but FWIW, have exhibited elsewhere where they don't try to extort a 'donation' out of the exhibitors....... but quite honestly & as I've also told you before, (IMO) it was never really worth it to us simply because of the total costs involved in exhibiting. What you win on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts.

But none of that has anything to do with the topic in hand does it?

The topic incidentally, (just to remind you) is the "Reform SCI Petition From Dr. Larry Rudolph"....... so now let me ask you a question or two about said topic (I doubt you'll answer though)

What do you think of the petition and the allegations suggested?

Oh and if proven, will they change your attitude to SCI and if so, what will you do?

Some of us would be really interested to hear your reply. (As some of you cheerleaders are so fond of saying)

The silence is deafening !! ... must be the jet lag.

I am interested that no one has confessed to signing.

could it be because most of the SCI AR members are cheerleaders? if i was still a member, i would have signed in a heartbeat. if nothing ever changes, then nothing ever changes. remember the 3 monkeys....

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I am interested that no one has confessed to signing.

Larry,

This is all a joke.

Getting 50 signatures from the thousands who have been unhappy with SCI for so long is not a problem.

The problem is whatever happens, nothing is going to change.

The bad apples are entrenched far too deep in this.

The ONLY way SCI is going to be what we all want to be is to have a complete change of management.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

Matt

I've never claimed to be a "swinging dick" in anything but interesting (and slightly alarming ) that you seem to think I am. I've always viewed myself as a pretty ordinary PH that happens to have taken a slightly different path to many.

As I said and have told you previously, I was a visitor to the SCI convention rather than an exhibitor but FWIW, have exhibited elsewhere where they don't try to extort a 'donation' out of the exhibitors....... but quite honestly & as I've also told you before, (IMO) it was never really worth it to us simply because of the total costs involved in exhibiting. What you win on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts.

But none of that has anything to do with the topic in hand does it?

The topic incidentally, (just to remind you) is the "Reform SCI Petition From Dr. Larry Rudolph"....... so now let me ask you a question or two about said topic (I doubt you'll answer though)

What do you think of the petition and the allegations suggested?

Oh and if proven, will they change your attitude to SCI and if so, what will you do?

Some of us would be really interested to hear your reply. (As some of you cheerleaders are so fond of saying)

Outfitters participate in the convention - not just as paying 'exhibitors' but as participating members. It isnt just about a commercial venture but participating in the wider safari hunting industry - Sustainable-use as conservation.

As stated elsewhere this whole thing is a god aweful mess that needs to be addressed. Presumably it will be addressed through the court system - not on AR.

Should Larry Rudolphs allegations be proven? What allegations? That a bunch of SCI directors are petty social ladder-climbers? Of course he is correct.... but isnt Larry the one who had his arse thrown-out of the convention 2 years ago? I am sure there is a bunch of them who are no better than each other.

I dont think anything of the petition - let the courts decide this dispute and the members decide how they want their club to operate - as they do already. Members cant have it both ways - 'do nothing' at the chapter level and then complain when SCI doesnt do what they want.

One thing I have always thought was a problem is the lack of influence the average member has in who runs the show. You have no say whatsoever in anything unless you belong to a chapter and then the entire chapter gets a vote, if they are in good standing………. meaning they raised enough money to pay their minimum stipend to head office.

Thousands of members do not belong to chapters, which is often another layer of bullshit politics you have to deal with. It is also very inconvenient and virtually impossible for many to even participate in a chapter due to where they live.

They need a system where every member gets to vote………… as is done in many associations. It is not difficult. But the hierarchy is set up in SCI in a fashion to preclude this and it perpetuates the problem.

In any event, it is a shame to see these pathetic little rich boys playing their ego stroking games and pissing contents, while making a mockery of all the good work being done by so many in SCI.

Pretty good summary Skyline.

Do Chapters really have a fundraising minimum to get a vote?

Matt……. yes, only chapters in good standing get a vote, which is the chapter president or his designate. They recently upped the minimum annual amount that has to be paid, but I can't find the bulletin. I think it was increased to $5000 but could stand to be corrected.

The way it worked was there is the set minimum or a set percentage of the profits from the annual chapter fundraiser if the net from the fundraiser exceeded a certain amount. I am not in a chapter any more so I am not up to date on the minimums, but as I said I know they went up recently.

Vote on what?

Who sets the policies, principles and ethics for the board to follow?

Hint: It should not be to board itself.

Pay to play even to participate for chapters?

Wow

Thanks Skyline. $5000 isnt much I guess and it stops chapters being formed or maintained in order to stack the board... I guess? They have to be functional to vote.

The Board (or whatever its called) - Chapter delegates - elect the executive committee as I understand it.

quote:

posted Feb 11, 10:51 AM Hide Post
Vote on what? Who sets the policies, principles and ethics for the board to follow? Hint: It should not be to board itself. Pay to play even to participate for chapters? Wow

SCI's board of directors, which consists mostly of one delegate from each of the club's 200 or so chapters, determines policy issues and elects the club's officers. The executive committee, to whom the CEO reports, consists of the club's officers and a representative of the Sables. It reports to the board of directors (chapters).

Matt is correct. To remain in good standing as an affiliate of the international association, a chapter must maintain a minimum number of members, hold annual fundraisers, be active in local hunting and conservation programs, and deliver 30% of the profits of its fund-raiser to the parent organization.

There may be a minimum annual contribution to the international organization now, but there was no such thing when I still was involved with the club 15 years ago.

Taking only 30% of a chapter's fundraising profits is unusual for U.S.-based sportsmen's organizations. For Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and many others, 100% of a local chapter's fundraising profits are delivered to the parent organization.

Bill

So Bill if the chapter delegates dictate policy then the problem truly is top to bottom.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
So Bill if the chapter delegates dictate policy then the problem truly is top to bottom.

Jeff

What problem is 'the problem' you are alluding to?

A chapter has to maintain a minimum of 25 members and it has to perform one fundraiser per year and has to submit 30 percent of the net proceeds from the fundraiser to SCI headquarters every year or (until recently) $2000, whichever is greater.

I know the minimum $2000 is being raised and I think it was going to $5000 but have been unable to locate the information. It was in an issue of the SCI newspaper, Safari Times, a few months ago but I apparently have already burned it.

So if it is a small chapter with few members and it just does not have big money making fundraisers they have to submit the flat fee. If the club nets $100,000 from the annual fundraiser they have submit $30,000 to Tucson. The rest remains with the local chapter.

This is what keeps many people involved at the lower levels because the proceeds are kept locally and can be used for projects the chapter thinks are important. As Bill said, with other organizations you have to submit all the funds raised and then beg and plead for funding for a project and hope they think it is worthy.

The chapter funding a project can also submit a request for additional funding over and above what the chapter is committing, to the parent organization.

Anyways, despite the political three ring circus at the top……… there are indeed a lot of good people out there that are members of SCI, far removed from the cronyism at the top, working in the trenches and doing good things. That is why everyone does not throw up their hands in disgust and quit. They are still getting worthwhile things accomplished, despite the game of Survivor that is being played at the top.

Thanks for the info Skyline and others...

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
So Bill if the chapter delegates dictate policy then the problem truly is top to bottom.

Jeff

What problem is 'the problem' you are alluding to?

There mere existence of this thread says far more than a few words from me.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
So Bill if the chapter delegates dictate policy then the problem truly is top to bottom.

Jeff

What problem is 'the problem' you are alluding to?

There mere existence of this thread says far more than a few words from me.

Jeff

That makes zero sense... a handful of upper members fight among themselves - over petty issues - and you surmise that an organisation that operates around the world has problems from top to bottom!! Really??

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
So Bill if the chapter delegates dictate policy then the problem truly is top to bottom.

Jeff

What problem is 'the problem' you are alluding to?

There mere existence of this thread says far more than a few words from me.

Jeff

That makes zero sense... a handful of upper members fight among themselves - over petty issues - and you surmise that an organisation that operates around the world has problems from top to bottom!! Really??

Really...This culture of greed and narcicissm at the top has existed for many years. It is claimed the chapter delegates have the ability to govern board policies. Nothing changes. So top to bottom.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

Really...This culture of greed and narcicissm at the top has existed for many years. It is claimed the chapter delegates have the ability to govern board policies. Nothing changes. So top to bottom.

Jeff

I think you believe a little too much of what you read on AR. The board has had many new people elected over the recent years. To suggest some conspiracy or complacency by all of the Chapters to keep supposedly corrupt officers in power is just outright nonsense.

see current board...

http://member.scifirstforhunters.org/about/officers/

quote:

That is why everyone does not throw up their hands in disgust and quit. They are still getting worthwhile things accomplished, despite the game of Survivor that is being played at the top.

Which is not a good thing - admittedly "something is better than nothing" but seeing the possibility of achieving more is present, the game of survivor at the top needs to be dismantled and the 3 monkeys put in cages!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

Really...This culture of greed and narcicissm at the top has existed for many years. It is claimed the chapter delegates have the ability to govern board policies. Nothing changes. So top to bottom.

Jeff

I think you believe a little too much of what you read on AR. The board has had many new people elected over the recent years. To suggest some conspiracy or complacency by all of the Chapters to keep supposedly corrupt officers in power is just outright nonsense.

see current board...

http://member.scifirstforhunters.org/about/officers/

And you assume incorrectly that AR is my only source of info regarding SCI. I know chapters do many good things. That is a given. However the top leadership is what the folks who pass or reject our political positions see.

Are you comfortable with the current and former board members lobbying for legislative issues regarding hunting and conservation? In Washinton DC how might the BOT be perceived?

That's what concerns me.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

Really...This culture of greed and narcicissm at the top has existed for many years. It is claimed the chapter delegates have the ability to govern board policies. Nothing changes. So top to bottom.

Jeff

I think you believe a little too much of what you read on AR. The board has had many new people elected over the recent years. To suggest some conspiracy or complacency by all of the Chapters to keep supposedly corrupt officers in power is just outright nonsense.

see current board...

http://member.scifirstforhunters.org/about/officers/

Matt,
I left SCI because of what I saw at the CHAPTER LEVEL. We had selfish, elitists who were more concerned at the cruising speed of their airplanes than what we did for education, conservation and humanitarian projects. Self serving egomaniacs that just wanted rings and awards.

They sickened me and as many as five past presidents. We all left simultaniously. An effort was made with regional representatives, they had their heads up their ass' as well.

They've lost their way.