quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
What a great start. Maybe we can make difference.

Saeed any chance of mailing this "emergency" request to all the members of eve?

This could be a great way to raise the profile of AR if we, as a group, can help with the short term funding issues.

We do have the facility to mass mail to all members, but it is against our policy to so.

We have never done it before, and I honestly cannot see any reason to start now.

Well this site is your toy and your decision. Have you considered when you might ever do such a thing? Or is it you know something that we don't and maybe this issue doesn't have the urgency that Conservation Force is suggesting.

If not ... did you send your $100?

I sent $20 I know its not much but its what I can afford right now, and I am sorry to say I will probably never set foot on the continent as long as I live. I will say one thing I am not going to sit here and argue about what SCI does and does not do for Africa. I took matters into my own hands, now I know what I have done for African hunting.

Pauly3511,

I heard a quote a few years ago and have not since been able to find it. It's from my favorite American Theodore Roosevelt. I can't remember the exact words, but it's something to the effect of:

Any man worth his salt supports his profession and his hobbies.

This is a truth I've taken to heart in my life. I support my professional organizations even taking time of to lobby congress on its behalf. I support hunting and fishing by becoming members of organizations that promote hunting, fishing, and firearms rights, and I introduce new sportsmen and women to the outdoors whenever I can. I aplaud your effort even though you don't foresee a tangible return to yourself. I hope someday you will be able to hunt or at least see Africa.

Keep the money coming ladies and gentlemen!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
What a great start. Maybe we can make difference.

Saeed any chance of mailing this "emergency" request to all the members of eve?

This could be a great way to raise the profile of AR if we, as a group, can help with the short term funding issues.

We do have the facility to mass mail to all members, but it is against our policy to so.

We have never done it before, and I honestly cannot see any reason to start now.

Well this site is your toy and your decision. Have you considered when you might ever do such a thing? Or is it you know something that we don't and maybe this issue doesn't have the urgency that Conservation Force is suggesting.

If not ... did you send your $100?

Whether I have sent $100 or $1000 dollars is no one's busines.

And I am not about to brag about it either.

quote:

Originally posted by mboga biga bwana:
From the www.huntingreport.com

African Lion Hunting In Crisis

(posted January 27, 2009)

I just received word from John J. Jackson, III, of Conservation Force regarding the impending doom of African lion hunting if the hunting community does not take immediate action. ........ In his cover story, Jackson explains how African lions are on the verge of being listed on Appendix I of CITES, which would spell the end of African lion hunting. .................


Seloushunter

Maybe I'm just a "Domkop". But I don't know much about the Conservation Force. I don't know who John J. Jackson III really is. I have not read the article by Mr. Coogan. I don't know or care much about the good or not of SCI. I sure do appreciate the hunter and hunting support by Saeed!Please note and record my thanks for that .

I know a small bit about CITES. According to my list [which may be out-dated], elephant is on CITES Appendix 1. I read a lot about elephant hunting here on AR, see postings of trophies and see adverts offering exportable trophy elephant for hunting. Leopard is on CITES Appendix 1. I see a lot of postings about leopard hunting, pictures of proud hunters with their trophies and adverts for leopard hunts offered. Cheetah and Cape Mountain Zebra are all on CITES 1, yet they are hunted regularly.

Will someone please explain to this poor idiot how it will come about that if lion is placed on CITES Appendix 1 it "....would spell the end of African lion hunting."?

I can quite see that it would spell the end to all "canned" lion shooting!. Wonderful! Do you think I will loose any sleep over the poor canned lion hunting outfitters' loss of income? Or the canned lion breeders' loss of income? What I will feel sorry about is the fact that real lion hunting will probably become more expensive. Initially, until the lion population has increased to the point where 'non-exportable' lion hunts are offered - just like elephant now.

But how will placing lion on Appendix 1 affect ethical lion hunting? Sure, it will make it a bit more difficult to make all the required arrangements for a lion hunt. But it will be so much easier for an intending lion hunter to sift BS when he is looking to book with a Hunting Outfitter that offers lion hunting! He only needs to ask "Please send me a copy of your CITES permit." If the HO can send such a copy the hunter can then be sure that the offer is legit and valid! Elephant and leopard hunting seems to be in a just fine shape, despite [or as a result of?] these species being on Appendix 1!

Don't attack me for being stupid, or having my facts a bit or totally wrong; rather explain in step by step manner the cause and effects that will lead to " ..... spell the end of African lion hunting." if we do not all contribute financially to the Conservation Force for this issue.

Thanks.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew McLaren:
... I can quite see that it would spell the end to all "canned" lion shooting!.

Andrew,

I would not bet on it ... the sheer demand, fantastic volume of money and specific character of the players make this unlikely!

Andrew i agree, it will not spell the end of all Lion hunting, it will merely make quota's, permits etc a lot more regulated and complicated. People hunt Black Rhino and that is listed as high as you can get on Cites. I am not pleased by the Anti's securing a victory and making hunting any more regulated and covered in red tape than it is at times, but i do believe that this could have a positive impact on certain countries and areas in the long run. Anyone who has hunted Lions in Africa has a good idea of how their population has been severely threatened and hence the steps by companies such as TGT, and national parks like Zim Parks(Matetsi) and ZAWA in Zambia to try and establish sustainable norms and standards for hunting Lions. I do not think that Lions will close forever, what i do know is that they will only get more expensive and should the industry self regulate properly the trophy quality can only get better.

Andrew,

That is a very valid point. The issue at least that American hunters deal with is that USF&W will be able to decide which countries IF any Americans can import lions from. Much like the current situation with elephants from Mozambique we will be subject to the nonsensical wims of USF&W and those who have a say that may not have hunters interests at heart. Listing the lion on appendix 1 may have some benefits for sure, but the problem is we give the power to decide lion hunting's future over to non hunters and who knows what the outcome will be? It might be better to keep them off appendix 1 and just implement better lion management strategies including the reduction on lion quotas in a lot of areas.

My two cents.

Brett

Placing the Lion on Cites, append I will make it more restrictive to export and import. But, for the U.S. hunter the greatest threat will be if the Lion is put on the U.S. endangered species list. If that happens, you will see all imports of the lion stop as is in the case of the Polar Bear.

I did not agree with the the banning of the Polar Bear. There was no scientific reason for it. Well SCI, did not put any money into research to prevent this. We all saw it coming.

It will happen with Lion, so let us get ahead of the curve. SCI needs to step up to the plate. Hire some researchers in the various countries. Do the studies, help implement rules that will preserve lions and improve their status. Quit the political B.S. and put their money where there mouth is.

DOJ your comment was totally out of line concerning Saeed. So, you belong to local chapter, so you work hard. So, what! I too have belonged to a local chapter for years and donate time, money etc.


Just my two cents.

Bad day of hunting is better then a good day in the office.

Put all Lion not bred for sport hunting on Appendix I , as they are being affected the most by indesrciminate hunting i.e shooting of immature lions.

Bred lions killed DO NOT AFFECT THE LION POPULATION AT ALL

quote:

Originally posted by Kwan
Bred lions killed DO NOT AFFECT THE LION POPULATION AT ALL

True, but (IMO) the canned Lion hunting industry is the greatest threat to African sport hunting and the African sport hunting industry in Africa at the current time. If we don't put an end to it ourselves, the antis will one day use it as a weapon against us and not only try to stop Lion hunting but all hunting.

Brooks, if there wasn't SCI there would be no local chapters to work for and do the good they do. JMO

Saeed may provide this forum but he don't walk on water.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Kwan
Bred lions killed DO NOT AFFECT THE LION POPULATION AT ALL

True, but (IMO) the canned Lion hunting industry is the greatest threat to African sport hunting and the African sport hunting industry in Africa at the current time. If we don't put an end to it ourselves, the antis will one day use it as a weapon against us and not only try to stop Lion hunting but all hunting.

The greatest threat is that we have lost the initiative. We are just responding to the Antis. They set the agenda. We are playing defense. We will continue to lose until we come up with a new strategy.

DOJ,

Let us leave Saeed out of this.

I am going to ask you very simply. What has SCI done for promoting wildlife and hunting here in the U.S. I don't of anything here or in Africa. Maybe you can enlighten us. Here is the organizations I want you to compare SCI to. Elk foundation, 10's of thousands of acres of land purchased for elk and elk hunting. Ducks unlimited, wetlands purchased accross the U.S. and Canada. Pheasants forever, thousands of acres land leased for hunting and pheasant habitat, Sheep foundation paid for sheep transplants accross U.S. The list goes on. What has SCI really done with their millions.

Do you know why SCI was formed in the first place? Don't ask with a question you need to answer this one yourself.

I know you believe in what you are doing and I support that. But, do not knock someone else until you know what they have done.

Can we start another everyone hates SCI thread. This one is about trying to keep lion hunting open.

Everyone knows SCI started as a way for some rich guys to go hunting. Hopefully it is/has changed to truly being an advocate for all hunters.

Conservation Force emailed me this morning and said they have noticed a number of donations from AR members. I think that is a good thing.

Brooks,

We are speaking across points here. The organizations that you mentioned are solely grass roots organizations and as such are very visible. These kinds of organizations are wonderful and we need more of them here and in Africa. Comparing them to SCI is rather apples to oranges. SCI is a hunter and conservation advocacy group that performs some grass roots efforts (mostly through the local chapters) rather than a pure grass roots organization. I've attached my previous post from this thread that illustrates the difference between SCI and groups you have mentioned and the importance of groups like SCI. What they do may not be the sexy stuff that everyone can see and makes hearts warm, but that doesn't mean it's not important!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
I don't see how lobbying the US congress on hunting laws can affect the various countries in Africa. Those countries have their own Governments, Game Depts and hunting laws.

Steve,

I must strongly disagree with you on this point! Our government sends out BILLIONS of dollars every year to a multitude of African nations. Some of this aid is specifically designated for wildlife conservation and improvement of rural communities. Very recently there was an attempt by anti hunting organization to shut down this funding to hurt the hunting industries in these countries. SCI and other organizations worked to lobby congress to see that the funding continued. Lobbying is very expensive. Elected officials in our country really listen when it’s in their financial/political interest. I'm sure SCI spends staggering amounts of money on lobbying, but they have to.

I too would love to see more grass roots philanthropy by SCI, but let me put it to you this way:

Scenario 1 - SCI spends all its money on grass roots efforts to provide tangible benefits throughout the world (Africa included). They stop lobbying US and African countries on behalf of hunters. Anti-hunting organizations solely have the ears and pockets of politicians. Slowly hunting is restricted and limited until species are protected from hunting, countries and states closed to hunting, and bans are placed on importation until the hunting industry is crippled.

Scenario 2 - SCI spends time and money on litigation and lobbying to keep animals importable, open new species to imports, keep US funding to hunting and conservation programs in the US and the world over, lobbies CITES countries to vote down lion listing ect. SCI spends some of its money on tangible grass roots philanthropy. We complain about weather they REALLY do anything because we can't see it or there isn't a fancy sign saying "SCI Was Here".

Just my two cents.

Brett

Brett

I have to agree with you. It is like comparing apples to oranges. I should have made my self more clear.

The lobbying is great and yes it cost money. But, SCI needs to put down tangible results also, so people that people can see what they are getting. Even government's in those far off countries understand this. Money and resource always talks. Lobbying is great but there has to be an end result.

SCI needs to get ahead of the curve and not play catch up. That is what, I am trying to say in the Lion situation. Do not wait before it is listed. Get in there and spend some money on research etc. Have all your ducks in row and when Lion hunting comes up for Cites appendix I listing, SCI can combat it. It is then a win-win for everyone that way.

Brooks: In looking at the SCI Website under Conservation, I ran into two documents that contain, among other organizations, the sponsorship of SCI. One was entitled: "Regional Conservation Strategy for the Lion in Eastern and Southern Africa, (December 2006)" and the other was entitled: "Regional Conservation Strategy for the Lion Panthera Leo In West and Central Africa, (February 2006)".
Unfortunately, many don't realize that SCI has been involved for years in the conservation efforts regarding the African Lion. I believe that more individuals ought to accquaint themselves with the SCI website and the information that is contained there. It does not require SCI membership to access these articles or information. IMHO I think that it would help more of us understand just what SCI has done or is doing. Once again, they're not perfect, but they are doing things that are beneficial to all of us world hunters.

Shakari

When are you going to stop whining about SCI and the cost to attend the Convention. If you can't afford it than I'm sorry but the SCI Convention is a business that makes money to help support hunting worldwide. It is not a charity for old broke outfitters who can't afford or don't have the resources to play with the big boys. If you or your friends think it is too expensive than don't go. There seems to be plenty of other Outfitters that think it is a wise investment and a successful event.

If you and Saeed can't see any benefit from SCI in Africa than perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit. African Elephants are legally imported into the US, and thus Canada and much of Europe because of SCI. The same John Jackson that is quoted above sued the US Government on behalf of SCI to allow their importation.

If SCI never spends another dollar in Africa it's very existence promotes hunting that employs you and all outfitters. The Convention itself is a huge celebration of worldwide hunting and that alone makes it a good deal and valuable resource. Whining about costs that you have never paid, but from which you benefit from by osmosis as an African PH is small and childish.

Just stick to your self promotion and your website and leave SCI to those that help it's mission and see it's benefits.

Brooks,

Glad we're on the same page. I too hope SCI picks up the ball on this one proactively.

All,

Instead of bashing each other and fighting over SCI let's get back to the lions. Please send more cash! Does anyone know how much they need at this time?

Brett

quote:

If you and Saeed can't see any benefit from SCI in Africa than perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit. African Elephants are legally imported into the US, and thus Canada and much of Europe because of SCI. The same John Jackson that is quoted above sued the US Government on behalf of SCI to allow their importation.

What a load of rubbish!

We import elephants and lions trophies into the UAE, and SCI has absolutely NOTHING to do with it!

So now SCI starting to claim it is them who are facilitating the import of trophies into other countries too ha?

I went to the SCI site, and was not able to find much n the way of WHERE all the money they extort from the outfitters go.

If you have better information than me, please show us.

I really want to see where all those millions are going.

So far we got an example of $6260 for anti poaching, and not much else.

I don't usually repeat a post...

Well to get to the bottom of this I called SCI. Was referred to the DC office and an Emma Mutinda. She is out until next week. Will post when I hear from her.

Apparently Emma is the coordinator for SCI and Africa conservation. I will call her again in a couple of days. Maybe they have a whitepaper that we can post, or maybe they have nothing at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

If you and Saeed can't see any benefit from SCI in Africa than perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit. African Elephants are legally imported into the US, and thus Canada and much of Europe because of SCI. The same John Jackson that is quoted above sued the US Government on behalf of SCI to allow their importation.

What a load of rubbish!

We import elephants and lions trophies into the UAE, and SCI has absolutely NOTHING to do with it!

So now SCI starting to claim it is them who are facilitating the import of trophies into other countries too ha?

I went to the SCI site, and was not able to find much n the way of WHERE all the money they extort from the outfitters go.

If you have better information than me, please show us.

I really want to see where all those millions are going.

So far we got an example of $6260 for anti poaching, and not much else.

Where did I ever mention the UAE? Where did I mention Lions? Where did I mention facilitate? Why do you assume I speak for SCI?

You assume too much.

My comment about Elephants was in regard to the SCI lawsuit, handled by John Jackson, that forced US Fish And Wildlife to allow importation of sport hunted Ivory into the US. Because of this most of the European Countries also reversed their position to allow importation.

You and Shakari asked what SCI had done. I gave you an example. Do you think the US would have allowed importation without intervention from SCI?

quote:

Originally posted by Gator1:
Shakari

When are you going to stop whining about SCI and the cost to attend the Convention. If you can't afford it than I'm sorry but the SCI Convention is a business that makes money to help support hunting worldwide. It is not a charity for old broke outfitters who can't afford or don't have the resources to play with the big boys. If you or your friends think it is too expensive than don't go. There seems to be plenty of other Outfitters that think it is a wise investment and a successful event.

If you and Saeed can't see any benefit from SCI in Africa than perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit. African Elephants are legally imported into the US, and thus Canada and much of Europe because of SCI. The same John Jackson that is quoted above sued the US Government on behalf of SCI to allow their importation.

If SCI never spends another dollar in Africa it's very existence promotes hunting that employs you and all outfitters. The Convention itself is a huge celebration of worldwide hunting and that alone makes it a good deal and valuable resource. Whining about costs that you have never paid, but from which you benefit from by osmosis as an African PH is small and childish.

Just stick to your self promotion and your website and leave SCI to those that help it's mission and see it's benefits.

I'll try to ignore the childish inflammatory tone there and reply calmly in the hope that it might reduce the heat of the debate........

Ive every right to voice my opinion on the subject whether you like it or not...... and will continue to do so if I want to.

You say $ci is a business...... I thought it was a charity? - It's certainly registered as such. Also I'm not really omplaining about the cost of attendance, although it is very expensive. I'm complaining about the donation scheme which I see as not far short of extortion. The price of the product (the booth) is published as are the additional costs such as cleaning, security, electricity, furniture etc etc but once that's agreed, they then say, now, what will you give us to ensure you don't get a spot next to the toilets or at the back of the hall etc. Surely it would be a great deal fairer simply to grade and price the locations according to traffic and suitability etc? I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the current system is to me, and many others, extremely unfair and immoral.

We choose not to attend the convention circuit because it's not worth our while, not because we can't afford it. We're lucky enough to have a (largely) niche market that means the vast majority of our clients come to us through repeat bookings, web sales and recommendations etc which means we only have a fairly small percentage of our season that we could sell at the conventions, so it's not worth our attending. In some ways that's a shame because I like the States and it'd be nice to do the social thing both with friends and past clients. The fact that I don't go, means that I have no need to be concerned about $ci 'getting their own back' on me for criticising them. Believe me, most African outfitters etc feel the same as I do about it, but the difference is they DO attend so are afraid to comment for the reason I mentioned. For example, I had an e-mail yesterday from someone in the industry thanking me for my comments on this subject, but he sent it anonymously simply because he was so scared of possible backlash should $ci see the comments and find out who they came from.

I've no idea where your comment on $ci having anything to do with Elephants being imported into Europe, because it simply isn't true.... I'm not even sure it's true of the US either. The States is a signatory of CITES as are most countries and it's them that make the rules.

Moving on, you mention $ci spend money in Africa. Where? on what? Sure it's members do, even it's individual chapters might, but as I've repeatedly said, I've never seen any evidence of the organisation itself actually financing any projects in the 29 years since I set foot on the continent.

The biggest investment I've seen them make by far is that bad taste monument to self aggrandisment they call the HQ. - That must cost a damn fortune, is totally unnecessary and I'm astounded it doesn't offend a great many members.

There's also the issue of how or why they continue to accept donations and give floor space to at least one company that is famous for it's dodgy dealings. - Which obviously brings their ethics into question.

I wasn't aware I did much self promotion. I hardly ever offer any special deals, and my posts are usually well balanced even to the extent of recommending my competition in some cases. Certainly far less than my colleagues on this or any other forum and even if I do, it's got bugger all to do with you. As long as Saeed is happy for me to do what I do, then I see no reason to change anything.

As for the site, I assume you mean www.shakariconnection.com That site is designed to give free information to help both hunters and my colleagues in the industry. We even accept and indeed encourage ads from other (ethical) safari outfitters, agents and companies etc......... However, unlike $ci we don't accept ads from companies that offer things like dodgy Lion hunts etc. So it's hardly self promotion is it?

I'd like to thank my anonymous correspondent for the $ci idea....... Whilst hoping it doesn't cause offence, I do think it's it's funny as hell.

Steve,

Obviously there are some things about SCI that could use some work. I think even those of us who like SCI can agree with you on that. I'll wait until SCI gets back with JohnHunt before I comment on what the do or don't do on the ground in Africa. Yet again they do have worth in their lobbying and funding litigation.


Saeed,

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I really want to see where all those millions are going.

I'd be blue in the face on this one except I'm typing, so maybe I'm blue in the fingers.

SCI IS NOT SOLELY A GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!!! As a hunter and conservation advocacy group I would imagine that the majority of their funds go to legal fees and lobbying. If you would like more examples of how they spend money on the ground in Africa that's different, but if you're expecting someone to come up with a list of African projects with budgets that total up to the amount of money SCI makes it's not going to happen because that's not what they do.

Brett

Brett regarding your post with scenarios 1 & 2 and Brooks regarding your post directly beneath it:

I appreciate they do a lot of lobbying and to quite a high degree, I understand that is necessary, but I'd also like to see them fund occasional African projects such as the giant sable one and this Lion one. Both of which are emminently suitable. The organisation (not individual members or chapters) take an immense amount of money out of the African hunting industry and I'd like to see more of that re-directed back into it....... and I don't think that's unreasonable.

Andrew Mc Laren is dead right in his point that raising the Lion 'up one' won't close Lion hunting, but it will bring the closure a step closer.

As I've said, I also have a problem about their ethics where donations from dodgy companies are concerned.

Ive seen a lot of section 21 or charity organisations and have seen the following.

charity is only for raising funds and lets say 10% of their income goes to that. the top 3 tiers of management normally have huge salaries and benefits better than companies in the private sector "we are not to show a profit excuse".they use a lot of volenteurs to do the actual work and nothing gets done unless there is some sort of incentive.

I dont have enough experience with sci to say thats the case its just an observation ive made with these organisations over the years. You normally get the answer when you go through their parking area and look at the cars standing there. ive seen big Mercs, Bmw's and other luxury cars then i know where the money goes.

I my case charity is for everybody in that organisation yes there is people that works there permanently but im sure a normal family car is sufficent to get the job done. the biggest evil is power and status

Steve and I have had our own private converfsation on this matter and those conservations will stay private. I stopped back to see what was happening here and saw some comments I would like to comment on. First Steve $CI is a bit trashy you chastize others (me) for similar actions. JMO

375fanatic, you are correct about other charities (SCI is not a charity it is a not for profit corporation and has its charitable wing i e the foundation.) spending soo much on mgmt salaries, as I posted prior reviewing the 990 shows salaries AND benifits are about $300,000 out of $15,000,000., or .02% of net receipts. when taken to gross receipts of approx $22,000,000 it becomes .013%. That is a pretty efficent operation and not top heavy.

There would be no organisation with out individual members.

Also it is Safari Club International not Safari Club Africa. I do not know but what has the "local" South African Chapter done for Africian hunting since you'll don't seem to have a problem with local chapters. I seem to rembmber they (RSA CH) had a fundraiser a few years back with the grand prize being worth $100,000 USD does anyone here know what the net proceeds were used for.

I know our local chapter concentrates on exposing youngsters to our sport. The biggest project is to provide hunts for youngsters with life altering/threatening illness or conditions and unfornatally some of our past receipents are no longer with us but are in a better place free of their burdens. Sorry.

quote:

375fanatic, you are correct about other charities (SCI is not a charity it is a not for profit corporation and has its charitable wing i e the foundation.) spending soo much on mgmt salaries, as I posted prior reviewing the 990 shows salaries AND benifits are about $300,000 out of $15,000,000., or .02% of net receipts. when taken to gross receipts of approx $22,000,000 it becomes .013%. That is a pretty efficent operation and not top heavy.

Do they give details about where the 21,700,000 goes?

Saeed if you mean check by check of course not, but go to the web site and you can review the 990 all 118 pages, which is a very extensive return. I am not sure but they may open their book up to an accounting firm of your choice and of course at your expense because I am fairly confident they have nothing to hide. I do believe they have an annual audit. All of that said it doesn't mean they will have spent the funds raised to your satisfaction or to Steve's. JMO

DOJ,

You're quite right $ci is a bit trashy, but I think it's funny as hell, and as quite often happens, my sense of humour got the better of me again.

As for the African chapter, I've no idea, but it's not them or indeed other chapters I have a problem with, it's the organisation itself which I feel needs to clean up it's act and it's ethics in a variety of ways.

A form 990 is a form designed by the Internal Revenue Service of the US Department of the Treasury for not-for-profits organizations to summarize and report their activities in a manner that is uniform and predetermined. It applies to ALL such organizations in the USA.

These forms provide a lot of detail. However, this detail would not be sufficient to provide the answers some here seem to want. Don't criticize them for that. They are simply complying with the tax laws.

Why don't you all get a copy and review it. Better yet, why don't someone more computer literate than me post a link to it.

Well, I downloaded the SCI financial report for 2007 - the last one available, and was not aboe to find anything to do with Africa.

SCI financial reports

If anyone is interested, please down load the above PDF file and see for yourselves.

Saeed, maybe our posts crossed in posting but as I said you will not find a check by check listing of the expenditures.

I have now come to the conclusion the Saeed or Steve will never be convinced that SCI does any thing for African hunting. So now my excersise of slamming my head into a brick wall will end.

Cheers

Please let me go. Don't post stupid comments.

Thanks Saeed.

I have extensive experience in this area. I looked at the 990 quickly as I have to catch a plane. I am off to Nashville to see ACDC.

I have several comments:

1-If SCI spent every dollar in Africa, this form may never mention Africa specifically. Why? Because this is a required form that is a standard format. The form does not mention Africa anywhere. Blame the IRS for that.

2-The same form is used by all non for profits, no matter which subsection of the Internal Revenue Code they are exempt under, virtually all of which have absolutely nothing to do with hunting or Africa. For example, certain small insurance companies are exempt under section 501c15. They use the same form as SCI.

3-If you will look at part 11, you will note that approx $11.734 million of SCI's total expenditures of appx $15.384 went for program services.

4-If you look at part 111, you will see an analysis of these program expenditures. Further if you will read statement 8 attached to the return, you will get a reasonably detailed description of these programs.

For example, they spent $3.029 million on conservation. I would urge you to read those descriptions.

5-No one is getting a big salary from SCI. Total officer compensation was only about $300,000.

6-The convention is WILDLY profitable to SCI.

I hope this helps you all.

Sorry, Larry you are spot on. The only thing I would like to clarify is not for profit does not mean the organization can not have a profit it means the profits are not for private use and must be used for the public good.

DOJ you are correct. The term not-for-profit does NOT mean that an organization can't make a profit. It basically means that those profits, if any , can't inure to the benefit of an individual for their own purposes. Those profits must be used for exempt purposes.

Further, a not-for profit can in fact pay income tax if it has "unrelated business taxable income" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

Larry,

Thank you for your comment.

I really did not want to look at this tax return, as you rightly mentioned it is only done to satisfy the government.

However, I tried to find any details of what SCI actually spends in Africa, and came back with nothing.

If anyone has a link to whatever SCI does pend in Africa, I would love to see it.

As you have said, the convention IS very profitable for SCI, and I do not see anything wrong with that.

But, again, we are continuously told how much SCI does for African hunting, and the only example I have seen so far is $6,260.

I am assuming a lot of this profit they make at the convention is due to all the "donations" they get, and much of it is from African outfitters and PHs.

Wouldn't it be nice to see how much of that actually filters down to Africa?

Die Ou Jagter,

Why are you saying that my questions are stupid?

Disregard that I am a Life member of SCI, and have been for over 20 years.

Let us just say I am a hunter who hears that SCI is doing so much for African hunting.

Every single African PH I have spoken to about this is also in the dark of what SCI gives back to Africa for all the money they actually extort by their demands for "donations".

Suggestions were made that I go to the SCI website, and I would find all the information I desire.

I did, and found nothing that would answer my questions.

So as long as SCI claims that they are doing so much for African hunting, and still refuse to give us details, we will still be wondering what they are hiding.

Non so blind as those that won't see.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Non so blind as those that won't see.

Well, as you are the all seeing genius, please point us to the right link so WE can see too.

So far what I have seen being spent is a miserly $6,260 on anti-poaching.