quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This matter has a lot of moving parts.

As it relates to Dr. Rudolph, he may well have been wronged. However, the way he went about documenting these matters really makes me question his integrity as does his concern over lost awards.

The video, while obtained in a reprehensible manner does point out that there are major problems with SCI. A major question in my mind is just what the Board was told as the basis for booting Rudolph?

Over the years there has been a lot of bitching and complaining on AR about SCI and their lack of transparency in their finances. To be blunt, many of these comments are out of pure ignorance. In the US, there is something known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP. GAAP is established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB.

SCI has audited financial statements every year. The audit is to determine if the financial statements are in accordance with GAAP as promulgated by the FASB. GAAP is what most businesses follow. For example, all publicly traded companies MUST follow GAAP. GAAP has a lot of very specific rules about how different items are presented and disclosed. Frankly, it is quite complex.

For any entity such as SCI to publish financials on any basis other than GAAP is a monumental problem. They would be total idiots to do so. It doesn't matter what I might like to see or Saeed might like to see or anyone else might like to see. They MUST follow GAAP.

I have looked at SCI's financials ( I am a CPA and work with extremely complex businesses every day of my life). I have to say that they are very well done. The firm that audits them is a large extremely reputable firm.

An audit is to determine whether the financials statements are in accordance with GAAP. An audit is NOT to determine if someone's expense reports is padded. An audit is not to determine if enough money was spent on this or that.

Having said that, it seems that SCI pretty much ignores any question posed to it about anything whether it be financial, ethics, conservation or whatever. This naturally leads to suspicion.

SCI has made many mistakes or at least what appears to be mistakes. Some of these are:

1- A lot of PH's of the year have ended up being common criminals.
2- Questionable organizations have been protected with little if any action taken by SCI. How about OOA, Zahir Mulla & Blair Worldwide Hunting to name a few.

It surely seems that an awful lot of SCI's business decisions are in the dark. Wouldn't you like to know why the former president represented OOA for example? Try and get an answer on that one. That is one of the problems. They don't answer ANYTHING. On the other hand, they have to be worried about being sued for disclosing certain information.

I am torn on who should be allowed to vote on important matters. I have to wonder if we, the members possess enough information to make an informed decision. I think about our local elections. Inevitably, there is some issue on the ballot that I have never heard of and have no idea if it is good or bad. Would we, the members of SCI, be in the same position if we were allowed to voted on issues.

Personally, I would like an independent investigation to go forward but not for Dr. Rudolph's sake. I could care less about him and his awards that he lost. I would like to see SCI cleaned up to be "First for Hunters" as they claim. I am extremely concerned about the rise in anti-hunting activity. It is really growing and becoming more organized. Just yesterday, while walking back from lunch, there were 4 anti-hunting protesters in downtown Orlando. I was shocked. We need a strong organization in our corner. I think SCI is the best organization to do that.

We need to quit pounding on SCI all the time. Some here come off as over joyed with anything that is negative toward SCI. Anything that is negative toward SCI can't be good for us as hunters.

SCI has lost its way in my opinion. There needs to be some changes I am confident. Just how we go about getting those changes is what I do not know.

Now, back to work!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This matter has a lot of moving parts.

As it relates to Dr. Rudolph, he may well have been wronged. However, the way he went about documenting these matters really makes me question his integrity as does his concern over lost awards.

The video, while obtained in a reprehensible manner does point out that there are major problems with SCI. A major question in my mind is just what the Board was told as the basis for booting Rudolph?

Over the years there has been a lot of bitching and complaining on AR about SCI and their lack of transparency in their finances. To be blunt, many of these comments are out of pure ignorance. In the US, there is something known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP. GAAP is established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB.

SCI has audited financial statements every year. The audit is to determine if the financial statements are in accordance with GAAP as promulgated by the FASB. GAAP is what most businesses follow. For example, all publicly traded companies MUST follow GAAP. GAAP has a lot of very specific rules about how different items are presented and disclosed. Frankly, it is quite complex.

For any entity such as SCI to publish financials on any basis other than GAAP is a monumental problem. They would be total idiots to do so. It doesn't matter what I might like to see or Saeed might like to see or anyone else might like to see. They MUST follow GAAP.

I have looked at SCI's financials ( I am a CPA and work with extremely complex businesses every day of my life). I have to say that they are very well done. The firm that audits them is a large extremely reputable firm.

An audit is to determine whether the financials statements are in accordance with GAAP. An audit is NOT to determine if someone's expense reports is padded. An audit is not to determine if enough money was spent on this or that.

Having said that, it seems that SCI pretty much ignores any question posed to it about anything whether it be financial, ethics, conservation or whatever. This naturally leads to suspicion.

SCI has made many mistakes or at least what appears to be mistakes. Some of these are:

1- A lot of PH's of the year have ended up being common criminals.
2- Questionable organizations have been protected with little if any action taken by SCI. How about OOA, Zahir Mulla & Blair Worldwide Hunting to name a few.

It surely seems that an awful lot of SCI's business decisions are in the dark. Wouldn't you like to know why the former president represented OOA for example? Try and get an answer on that one. That is one of the problems. They don't answer ANYTHING. On the other hand, they have to be worried about being sued for disclosing certain information.

I am torn on who should be allowed to vote on important matters. I have to wonder if we, the members possess enough information to make an informed decision. I think about our local elections. Inevitably, there is some issue on the ballot that I have never heard of and have no idea if it is good or bad. Would we, the members of SCI, be in the same position if we were allowed to voted on issues.

Personally, I would like an independent investigation to go forward but not for Dr. Rudolph's sake. I could care less about him and his awards that he lost. I would like to see SCI cleaned up to be "First for Hunters" as they claim. I am extremely concerned about the rise in anti-hunting activity. It is really growing and becoming more organized. Just yesterday, while walking back from lunch, there were 4 anti-hunting protesters in downtown Orlando. I was shocked. We need a strong organization in our corner. I think SCI is the best organization to do that.

We need to quit pounding on SCI all the time. Some here come off as over joyed with anything that is negative toward SCI. Anything that is negative toward SCI can't be good for us as hunters.

SCI has lost its way in my opinion. There needs to be some changes I am confident. Just how we go about getting those changes is what I do not know.

Now, back to work!

best post i have seen on this topic! we all want what is best for hunters but the way forward is a muddy track at best.....

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This matter has a lot of moving parts.

As it relates to Dr. Rudolph, he may well have been wronged. However, the way he went about documenting these matters really makes me question his integrity as does his concern over lost awards.

The video, while obtained in a reprehensible manner does point out that there are major problems with SCI. A major question in my mind is just what the Board was told as the basis for booting Rudolph?

Over the years there has been a lot of bitching and complaining on AR about SCI and their lack of transparency in their finances. To be blunt, many of these comments are out of pure ignorance. In the US, there is something known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP. GAAP is established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB.

SCI has audited financial statements every year. The audit is to determine if the financial statements are in accordance with GAAP as promulgated by the FASB. GAAP is what most businesses follow. For example, all publicly traded companies MUST follow GAAP. GAAP has a lot of very specific rules about how different items are presented and disclosed. Frankly, it is quite complex.

For any entity such as SCI to publish financials on any basis other than GAAP is a monumental problem. They would be total idiots to do so. It doesn't matter what I might like to see or Saeed might like to see or anyone else might like to see. They MUST follow GAAP.

I have looked at SCI's financials ( I am a CPA and work with extremely complex businesses every day of my life). I have to say that they are very well done. The firm that audits them is a large extremely reputable firm.

An audit is to determine whether the financials statements are in accordance with GAAP. An audit is NOT to determine if someone's expense reports is padded. An audit is not to determine if enough money was spent on this or that.

Having said that, it seems that SCI pretty much ignores any question posed to it about anything whether it be financial, ethics, conservation or whatever. This naturally leads to suspicion.

SCI has made many mistakes or at least what appears to be mistakes. Some of these are:

1- A lot of PH's of the year have ended up being common criminals.
2- Questionable organizations have been protected with little if any action taken by SCI. How about OOA, Zahir Mulla & Blair Worldwide Hunting to name a few.

It surely seems that an awful lot of SCI's business decisions are in the dark. Wouldn't you like to know why the former president represented OOA for example? Try and get an answer on that one. That is one of the problems. They don't answer ANYTHING. On the other hand, they have to be worried about being sued for disclosing certain information.

I am torn on who should be allowed to vote on important matters. I have to wonder if we, the members possess enough information to make an informed decision. I think about our local elections. Inevitably, there is some issue on the ballot that I have never heard of and have no idea if it is good or bad. Would we, the members of SCI, be in the same position if we were allowed to voted on issues.

Personally, I would like an independent investigation to go forward but not for Dr. Rudolph's sake. I could care less about him and his awards that he lost. I would like to see SCI cleaned up to be "First for Hunters" as they claim. I am extremely concerned about the rise in anti-hunting activity. It is really growing and becoming more organized. Just yesterday, while walking back from lunch, there were 4 anti-hunting protesters in downtown Orlando. I was shocked. We need a strong organization in our corner. I think SCI is the best organization to do that.

We need to quit pounding on SCI all the time. Some here come off as over joyed with anything that is negative toward SCI. Anything that is negative toward SCI can't be good for us as hunters.

SCI has lost its way in my opinion. There needs to be some changes I am confident. Just how we go about getting those changes is what I do not know.

Now, back to work!

best post i have seen on this topic! we all want what is best for hunters but the way forward is a muddy track at best.....

Larry,

Well said my friend.

I am one of those who have been asking for some financial disclosure.

But, my only concern is WHERE is the money spent on what SCI CLAIMS is being spent in AFRICA.

I wasn't concerned with their audited accounts.

They keep telling us that they have spent millions on African conservation projects, and, frankly, all I could find by googling the Internet was EXTREMELY small amounts.

A year ago there was so much publicity regarding the million they collected for lion conservation specifically.

It has been asked here, what happened to that money?

All we get is the usual silence.

The ONLY way for SCI to change its course from heading south is to bring transparency in their dealings.

And I would add that a first step is to get rid of the silly "awards" the top lot keep giving each other.

At least that might divert the devotion from their self aggrandizing to actually doing something useful for us for a change.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
The awards are a huge negative.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This matter has a lot of moving parts.

As it relates to Dr. Rudolph, he may well have been wronged. However, the way he went about documenting these matters really makes me question his integrity as does his concern over lost awards.

The video, while obtained in a reprehensible manner does point out that there are major problems with SCI. A major question in my mind is just what the Board was told as the basis for booting Rudolph?

Over the years there has been a lot of bitching and complaining on AR about SCI and their lack of transparency in their finances. To be blunt, many of these comments are out of pure ignorance. In the US, there is something known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP. GAAP is established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB.

SCI has audited financial statements every year. The audit is to determine if the financial statements are in accordance with GAAP as promulgated by the FASB. GAAP is what most businesses follow. For example, all publicly traded companies MUST follow GAAP. GAAP has a lot of very specific rules about how different items are presented and disclosed. Frankly, it is quite complex.

For any entity such as SCI to publish financials on any basis other than GAAP is a monumental problem. They would be total idiots to do so. It doesn't matter what I might like to see or Saeed might like to see or anyone else might like to see. They MUST follow GAAP.

I have looked at SCI's financials ( I am a CPA and work with extremely complex businesses every day of my life). I have to say that they are very well done. The firm that audits them is a large extremely reputable firm.

An audit is to determine whether the financials statements are in accordance with GAAP. An audit is NOT to determine if someone's expense reports is padded. An audit is not to determine if enough money was spent on this or that.

Having said that, it seems that SCI pretty much ignores any question posed to it about anything whether it be financial, ethics, conservation or whatever. This naturally leads to suspicion.

SCI has made many mistakes or at least what appears to be mistakes. Some of these are:

1- A lot of PH's of the year have ended up being common criminals.
2- Questionable organizations have been protected with little if any action taken by SCI. How about OOA, Zahir Mulla & Blair Worldwide Hunting to name a few.

It surely seems that an awful lot of SCI's business decisions are in the dark. Wouldn't you like to know why the former president represented OOA for example? Try and get an answer on that one. That is one of the problems. They don't answer ANYTHING. On the other hand, they have to be worried about being sued for disclosing certain information.

I am torn on who should be allowed to vote on important matters. I have to wonder if we, the members possess enough information to make an informed decision. I think about our local elections. Inevitably, there is some issue on the ballot that I have never heard of and have no idea if it is good or bad. Would we, the members of SCI, be in the same position if we were allowed to voted on issues.

Personally, I would like an independent investigation to go forward but not for Dr. Rudolph's sake. I could care less about him and his awards that he lost. I would like to see SCI cleaned up to be "First for Hunters" as they claim. I am extremely concerned about the rise in anti-hunting activity. It is really growing and becoming more organized. Just yesterday, while walking back from lunch, there were 4 anti-hunting protesters in downtown Orlando. I was shocked. We need a strong organization in our corner. I think SCI is the best organization to do that.

We need to quit pounding on SCI all the time. Some here come off as over joyed with anything that is negative toward SCI. Anything that is negative toward SCI can't be good for us as hunters.

SCI has lost its way in my opinion. There needs to be some changes I am confident. Just how we go about getting those changes is what I do not know.

Now, back to work!

best post i have seen on this topic! we all want what is best for hunters but the way forward is a muddy track at best.....

Larry,

Well said my friend.

I am one of those who have been asking for some financial disclosure.

But, my only concern is WHERE is the money spent on what SCI CLAIMS is being spent in AFRICA.

I wasn't concerned with their audited accounts.

They keep telling us that they have spent millions on African conservation projects, and, frankly, all I could find by googling the Internet was EXTREMELY small amounts.

A year ago there was so much publicity regarding the million they collected for lion conservation specifically.

It has been asked here, what happened to that money?

All we get is the usual silence.

The ONLY way for SCI to change its course from heading south is to bring transparency in their dealings.

And I would add that a first step is to get rid of the silly "awards" the top lot keep giving each other.

At least that might divert the devotion from their self aggrandizing to actually doing something useful for us for a change.

I posted here last week that I found that the 1 Million raised for the lion project was to be spent SPECIFICALLY on fighting the proposed USFAWS uplisting. But no, you just ignore these facts, as per usual.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
""It was in an SCIF handout at the convention. Not online.""

And it wasn't important enough to retain a copy for reference?

However, when the funding was lobbied, the motion behind it was for Lion Conservation, not to have a stagnant fund to be used for litigation against the up-listing of the Lion, or was it?

It would seem that the money has been sat on for +/- 1 year and obviously never utilized; now that questions are being asked the only available answer is their (SCIF) intention to battle it out in court (even though the up-listing has not been formally announced nor has it been passed) as though they are privy to something others know nothing about.

With all the jackasses running the show, from Senators to USF&W it is quite likely the bill will be passed, no thanks to the effort put in by SCI who felt that entertaining a presentation by LCTF would be stooping low.

quote:

I was there working, not collecting literature for you. I might have it here somewhere in all the crap I had to drag home. I just figured people would take my word that that is what was written and perhaps an electronic copy gained later. Why dont you ask SCIF for it yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I was there working, not collecting literature for you. I might have it here somewhere in all the crap I had to drag home. I just figured people would take my word that that is what was written and perhaps an electronic copy gained later. Why dont you ask SCIF for it yourself?

1. You stated "It was in an SCIF handout at the convention. Not online." ... so you didn't really have to go out of your way to obtain a copy nor did I ever ask you to obtain one for me.
2. I cannot remember having called you a liar.
3. I did not ask to see the contents of this flyer; it would have been to everyone's benefit to be able to read the full statement in its official capacity.

""And it wasn't important enough to retain a copy for reference?"" ..... was what I asked.

And the rest of what I wrote are facts, that you have been unable (or don't want) to clarify .... and you don't need to even though you present yourself as one of the loudest/vociferous representatives for SCI ... or do you have a hidden agenda?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
More blaa, blaa, blaa. Is that all you got fujo?

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
More blaa, blaa, blaa. Is that all you got fujo?

Larry Sellers

It's apparently more than you have in reply isn't it?

How you coming up with a few facts & figures instead of soppy schoolyard jibes & insults?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Just trying to keep up with all the schoolyard whining you guys are putting out. Just go up a few posts and you will see what I mean. Guess I shouldn't stoop to you all's level?

You and some never seem to let facts and figures get in the way of your rhetoric, so why bother even posting any?


Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
More blaa, blaa, blaa. Is that all you got fujo?

Larry Sellers

It's apparently more than you have in reply isn't it?

How you coming up with a few facts & figures instead of soppy schoolyard jibes & insults?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Just trying to keep up with all the schoolyard whining you guys are putting out. Just go up a few posts and you will see what I mean. Guess I shouldn't stoop to you all's level?

You and some never seem to let facts and figures get in the way of your rhetoric, so why bother even posting any?


Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
More blaa, blaa, blaa. Is that all you got fujo?

Larry Sellers

It's apparently more than you have in reply isn't it?

How you coming up with a few facts & figures instead of soppy schoolyard jibes & insults?

Would they be the facts & figures you cheerleading sheeple are totally unable or unwilling to provide?

There's nothing like a logical, well reasoned argument to win a debate & your latest feeble reply is nothing like a logical, well reasoned argument.

Just like SCI in general, the cheerleaders simply continue to prevaricate, dodge the questions & promise an accurate reply at some time in the future.

It's all soooooooo very predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This is predictable like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

The SCI detractors certainly appear to be gleeful at the thought of the SCI problems.

Some of the SCI supporters will never see the problems.

Wake up gentlemen. This is a big problem for ALL of us, members or not.

Can't someone come up with a constructive idea to help get SCI moving in the right direction once again?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Can't someone come up with a constructive idea to help get SCI moving in the right direction once again?

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Larry Sellers, Matt Graham,

I am a SCI member.

I would like nothing more than to SCI support our hunters and be successful.

Why not simply answer the questions in a straight forward intelligent manner.

Do you really think this dialogue is beneficial to SCI and it's future?

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Larry Sellers, Matt Graham,

I am a SCI member.

I would like nothing more than to SCI support our hunters and be successful.

Why not simply answer the questions in a straight forward intelligent manner.

Do you really think this dialogue is beneficial to SCI and it's future?

Jeff

Sorry... Are you expecting me to answer questions on behalf of SCI?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Larry Sellers, Matt Graham,

I am a SCI member.

I would like nothing more than to SCI support our hunters and be successful.

Why not simply answer the questions in a straight forward intelligent manner.

Do you really think this dialogue is beneficial to SCI and it's future?

Jeff

Sorry... Are you expecting me to answer questions on behalf of SCI?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
damn guys, we all want the same thing at the end of the day- what is best for hunting and wildlife conservation. maybe we( me included) should all take a deep breath, step back and realize "we" are not the enemy. regardless of who is doing what, we as hunters can fight together or watch the whole thing pass into the sunset.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Shakari - you are a liar and now on my ignore list. The only member on that list I may add.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
I have tried, where I can to help - I share many of the frustrations. But when I am constantly whipped by arseholes like 'shakari' and fujotopu ... I just dont know why I would bother any more. Some of you guys, you included Saeed dont pay any attention when information comes to light. You conveniently forget and regurgitate the same old questions again and again.... expecting SCI to enage you all on this forum - and when they dont - take out your frustrations on us hapless 'cheerleaders', simple members who you expect to answer complex questions on SCI's behalf.

Frankly 'shakari' can go take a flying leap too ... I'll only be called a 'cheerleader' (with the female and other connotations it carries) for so long. I have zero respect for this man - he is not a gentleman by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see that he has any real credibility in 'his' former industry either. He is obviously a pretender, who recklessly attacks the (apparent) peak body of 'my' industry - he isnt even a member or have any real history with this organisation. He does all this for his own Internet glorification and entertainment. A lowlife in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


Matt,

With this sort of silly attitude towards someone who does not agree with you, I bet you have lost a lot of respect from other members of this forum.

Agree or disagree, that is fine.

But stooping so low as to get insults is not acceptable.

You keep telling us that you have seen where SCI has stated that the money was going to be used for something, and we ask you to point us towards any link to that, you loose the plot and start your insults.

So Steve, Jeff and me are assholes now are we?

You owe us all an apology!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Larry

I ask the questions of those who purport to know so much about SCI but fail to give the information they so often claim to be privy to OR prefer not to give it. All I do is point out that there are questions to be asked and/or criticise policies such as the donation scheme that I believe deserve criticism...... and I'm perfectly entitled to do that. - If it annoys Matt and others then that's their problem and not mine. Quite honestly, I don't care if my inconvenient questions & comments put their noses out of joint.

As for Christmas morning........ All it is is that I deeply resent some of SCI's behaviour. Esp the donation scheme & the way that obscenely large amount of money seems to disappear up it's own arse when it could be put to bloody good use. And I do indeed often express my feelings about that...... and that ain't gonna change until the situation changes. I believe if something is wrong, it's wrong & staying silent or trying to cover it up won't ever make that wrong thing right.

As I've said repeatedly: I don't want to see SCI closed down at all...... but I do want them to be what they claim to be and so easily could be.

Simple really.

As for Matt: He accuses me (amongst many other things) of feigning offence & being insulted by things he's said about me.

I don't feign anything & I certainly don't feel offended by anything he's ever said. As far as I'm concerned, anyone with a measureable IQ would realise that his comments about me are ridiculous and would realise what he's doing & why he's doing it.

However, I have (repeatedly) pointed out that his petty attempts to insult me with soppy insults & innuendo are nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the subject in hand....... and I feel that's absolutely true but believe me, my skin is FAR too thick for those ridiculous comments to upset me in any way...... in fact, I usually find them laughable which is why I so often use those little laughing chappies that we have here.

And again, if that puts his or anyone else's noses out of joint, that's their problem, not mine.

I think Saeed is dead right. Matt does owe all of us an apology but I'll bet he doesn't have the maturity to make one...... or at least not to me.

My guess is he'll yet again reply with yet more silly insults & innuendo & still no facts, figures or answers...... and most certainly not with good manners.