quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Personally I don't mind if SCI is offering credit cards, selling insurance or SCI emblazoned bikinis but offering a booking service for hunts and other activities is in direct competition with its members. If they set this up it will personally impact Wendell, Aaron, myself and anyone else offering legitimate booking services. To me this is lunacy. Imagine how that might effect a safari operator not on the SCI preferred list if SCI has its own booking agency.

Mark

Yes, you would of thought the uproar it generated, when they tried to go ahead with this originally, would have been enough for them to scratch that ill conceived idea off the list of "new ideas to generate money". The staffers/executive who came up with this concept must be completely out to lunch.

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds it. Surely any further attempts to implement a booking service would cause a huge backlash..... and deservedly so. I would hope that there are enough executive members with sufficient grey matter between the ears to prevent a suicidal move like that.

SCI has never had any respect for its general membership - except to get as much money out of them as they can.

They never listen to suggestions, they never answer questions.

They live in their own little world full of little circles of self glorification!

That is all SCI cares about right now.

Saeed:
We have butted heads in the past but I must state you are spot on in your evaluation of SCI. It is nothing more than an inner circle elitists who bask in their own egos. The general membership are worthless pions whose sole purpose is to pay dues and pay to get their names in the "book."

While you certainly have the money to be part of that group, I respect you have kept your integrity and stayed your own man while you speak the truth of SCI. My hat is off to you.

Now, for the other topics we disagree on, I will accept your admission of error at your convenience. LOL!
Cheers,
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Personally I don't mind if SCI is offering credit cards, selling insurance or SCI emblazoned bikinis but offering a booking service for hunts and other activities is in direct competition with its members. If they set this up it will personally impact Wendell, Aaron, myself and anyone else offering legitimate booking services. To me this is lunacy. Imagine how that might effect a safari operator not on the SCI preferred list if SCI has its own booking agency.

Mark

Yes, you would of thought the uproar it generated, when they tried to go ahead with this originally, would have been enough for them to scratch that ill conceived idea off the list of "new ideas to generate money". The staffers/executive who came up with this concept must be completely out to lunch.

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds it. Surely any further attempts to implement a booking service would cause a huge backlash..... and deservedly so. I would hope that there are enough executive members with sufficient grey matter between the ears to prevent a suicidal move like that.

SCI has never had any respect for its general membership - except to get as much money out of them as they can.

They never listen to suggestions, they never answer questions.

They live in their own little world full of little circles of self glorification!

That is all SCI cares about right now.

Saeed:
We have butted heads in the past but I must state you are spot on in your evaluation of SCI. It is nothing more than an inner circle elitists who bask in their own egos. The general membership are worthless pions whose sole purpose is to pay dues and pay to get their names in the "book."

While you certainly have the money to be part of that group, I respect you have kept your integrity and stayed your own man while you speak the truth of SCI. My hat is off to you.

Now, for the other topics we disagree on, I will accept your admission of error at your convenience. LOL!
Cheers,
Cal

Cal,

While in the past I too have shared your sentiments, I feel or at least that SCI is at a tipping point with regards to where it stands and what it stands for. They do have a lobby machine in place and the poll was a step in the right direction. At least they are asking the questions (some). What they do with the answers is what will determine where things go from here. Well that will be determined.

Jeff Sevor

Jeff:
Thanks and I agree SCI has some good points. I wish how they reached the end was done in methods that was open and fair to the members.
Cal

Last year I emailed the board about SCI Outdoors. I actually received a response from a member who is now President Elect. I have met him several times and we communicate on a regular basis. He assisted in the startup of the new chapter in the Lafayette area. He seems to be a sincere leader who want what is best for all stakeholders.

Hopefully there is a turn in SCI's actions and people's perception of SCI.

To say SCI never listens is not quite true. They certainly backed off SCI outdoors when the members voiced their concerns.

I know one board member quite well. There are a couple of others that I have met from time to time. All are great guys. Makes me wonder just how things got to where they are.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I know one board member quite well. There are a couple of others that I have met from time to time. All are great guys. Makes me wonder just how things got to where they are.

. . . paid, permanent staff.

Could be.

That and the truly rich just ain't like the rest of us in some ways.

Once you become a huge financial success, you start to believe that it was all hard work, and no luck was involved. Since you are that much better off, you know you know better than the hoi polloi.

Look at all the hollywood types.

The big guys in SCI are usually very wealthy, and evidently have a pretty good dose of "if it ain't invented here."

Some stay good folks, some can't handle it on a personal level.

Obviously, someone looks at the money that bookings generate and figure if they can capture 5%, it would be a huge windfall- forgetting that the convention would become a shadow of itself without the industry.

I am sure there are lots of hunters out there who resent the 10-15+% commissions, and they may well be the market that is driving this.

quote:

To say SCI never listens is not quite true. They certainly backed off SCI outdoors when the members voiced their concerns.

The question is who was the bloody idiot who thought of it in the first place??

And to add insult to injury, who are the idiots who have approved it??

I certainly hope there is a change in SCI management and their perception of what is good for hunting, but I am not holding my breath.

I will believe it when I see it!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I know one board member quite well. There are a couple of others that I have met from time to time. All are great guys. Makes me wonder just how things got to where they are.

. . . paid, permanent staff.

Without a new executive director things well likely change at a snails pace. Institutional memory in any organization is a bitch to overcome. Cushy little jobs...etc...

Elected leaders with no real teeth....

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I know one board member quite well. There are a couple of others that I have met from time to time. All are great guys. Makes me wonder just how things got to where they are.

. . . paid, permanent staff.

Without a new executive director things well likely change at a snails pace. Institutional memory in any organization is a bitch to overcome. Cushy little jobs...etc...

Elected leaders with no real teeth....

Jeff

That has been my experience with trade associations and I view SCI in the same light. Because trade associations are made up of many members, the professional staff of the organization is at some level not accountable to anyone. Lack of accountability leads to a lack of responsibility. So it becomes more of an issue of perpetuating their role than about skillfully and dramatically steering the organization. And the longer the organization's leadership is in place the harder it is to try and turn the ship.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

Saeed:
We have butted heads in the past but I must state you are spot on in your evaluation of SCI. It is nothing more than an inner circle elitists who bask in their own egos. The general membership are worthless pions whose sole purpose is to pay dues and pay to get their names in the "book."


Cal

This is my perception, exactly, as to who SCI is. I think they're a farce.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I know one board member quite well. There are a couple of others that I have met from time to time. All are great guys. Makes me wonder just how things got to where they are.

. . . paid, permanent staff.

Without a new executive director things well likely change at a snails pace. Institutional memory in any organization is a bitch to overcome. Cushy little jobs...etc...

Elected leaders with no real teeth....

Jeff

That has been my experience with trade associations and I view SCI in the same light. Because trade associations are made up of many members, the professional staff of the organization is at some level not accountable to anyone. Lack of accountability leads to a lack of responsibility. So it becomes more of an issue of perpetuating their role than about skillfully and dramatically steering the organization. And the longer the organization's leadership is in place the harder it is to try and turn the ship.

Mike:

It's been 16 years since I had any inside knowledge about SCI, but I doubt that the source of real power (and problems) of the club has changed at all.

In theory, directors of the various divisions (publications, membership, convention, etc.) will report to the CEO. However, they also report directly to the CEO and executive committee, a small group of men and women elected for one-year terms by a board of directors composed of about 200 representatives of SCI's various chapters. They also must report to the volunteers appointed by each year's president to serve on committees to "assist" the program directors.

Serving on committees is seen as a stepping stone to the executive committee and eventually a high office. With only a couple of exceptions, program committee members and chairmen have little expertise in the fields they advise in.

Woe be it to any program director to launch anything without approval of the CEO, executive committee, and his/her program committee.

Since I retired in 1999 there have been two purges of professional staff that I know of, with heads rolling merely at the whim of an incoming president.

Ideally, SCI's board of directors and executive committee should determine policy and direct the CEO to implement it. However, as I see it from afar, its professional staff is micromanaged by officers and executive committees whose faces and missions change with every election.

These faces have tremendous egos. After all, most are highly successful people and they believe they know more about the programs and everything else than the professionals their predecessors hired to run them.

I don't know if the SCI Outdoors fiasco originated at the staff level. If it did, which I doubt, you can bet money that it was approved by the executive committee before anything was done to move it forward.

As for "without a new executive director, things will likely change at a snail's place," think again. Since founder C.J. McElroy was fired, there have been lots of new executive directors. On average, these men (some qualified, some not) have held their posts only about three years before moving on or being replaced by a new regime.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Since I retired in 1999 there have been two purges of professional staff that I know of, with heads rolling merely at the whim of an incoming president.

Just like in any so called "banana republic!"

A crying shame really, as SCI can do so much good if they tried.

It's nothing new. NRA emails offering all sorts of crap drive me nuts. DSC does offer discounts to members, but they are relevant to what most of us might want (gun insurance, for example). I do get frustrated with outfitters emailing me directly because my email is listed in the roster, but I could've opted out and not listed my email. Like most emails, I look at the subject line and move on if not interested.

Most large organizations get hammered by companies wanting access to their membership roster. I don't know if the State Bar sells lists of contact information, or if marketers just go off the public info, but it's crazy how much BS is offered.

On another note, I do like how DSC interacts with us on AR through Richard Cheatham, Karl Evans, and others. As my handle may suggest, I might be slightly biased. However, we have a great local chapter with SCI North Texas.

It is my understanding DSC and HSC were once local SCI chapters. They didn't care for how the national leadership ran the organization or how the funds were allocated. Park Cities Quail did the same with Quail Unlimited. They've done great things in their short life (Boone Pickens helped quite a bit).

In the end, it's highly doubtful any SCI national executives would face the AR crowd keyboard to keyboard.

I also replied to the survey. As with the last two question... I highly doubt they could read or post them without blocking some of the language.

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
On another note, I do like how DSC interacts with us on AR through Richard Cheatham, Karl Evans, and others. As my handle may suggest, I might be slightly biased. However, we have a great local chapter with SCI North Texas.

It is my understanding DSC and HSC were once local SCI chapters. They didn't care for how the national leadership ran the organization or how the funds were allocated. Park Cities Quail did the same with Quail Unlimited. They've done great things in their short life (Boone Pickens helped quite a bit).

In the end, it's highly doubtful any SCI national executives would face the AR crowd keyboard to keyboard.

This just goes to prove a very important point.

AR has always been a very open forum.

DSC officers have always been open with their discussions here with us.

This is in stark contrast to anything from SCI.

DSC values its members.

SCI uses their members as a cash cow, nothing else!

Bill,

You would obviously be more familiar with the inner workings of SCI than I would. It has just been my experience that persons holding positions with limited terms are generally non-full time and unpaid. Hence they have real jobs that they spend most of their time attending to. As a consequence the paid executive staff ends up taking the laboring oar on most activities, as well they should. And the tone within the organization is generally set by them as well since the persons in the elected positions are going to come and go every year. Not unlike federal and state bureaucrats. The persons in the top floor offices may change based on the current administration but the life blood of the agency are the career bureaucrats. The type of arrangement you are describing would seem to me to be very unusual (think of a group like the NRA with it core leaders or DSC with Ben Carter). Maybe that explains the dysfunction in the organization. Who knows. But one thing is for sure, SCI is not the organization that it could and should be in advocating for hunter's rights and advancing conservation initiatives.

quote:

Maybe that explains the dysfunction in the organization.

You done broke da code, Mike.

Bill Quimby

isn't it about time to "hear" from the SCI apologists- and we all know very well who they are.....

Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

The only way we can get SCI to do something useful is to invent a some "circles" that actually be of benefit to us.

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
DSC does offer discounts to members, but they are relevant to what most of us might want (gun insurance, for example). I do get frustrated with outfitters emailing me directly because my email is listed in the roster, but I could've opted out and not listed my email. Like most emails, I look at the subject line and move on if not interested.

We are actively working on slowing, if not stopping altogether, the use of roster information by marketers (including outfitters). Let me know if there are any in particular that are frequent emailers...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

The only way we can get SCI to do something useful is to invent a some "circles" that actually be of benefit to us.

If that will work, I am game to try it.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

The only way we can get SCI to do something useful is to invent a some "circles" that actually be of benefit to us.

If that will work, I am game to try it.

There are certain qualifications to move up those "SCI Inner Circles"

Like being a crooked Wall Street Financier, and having a crooked South Africa PH who buys "trophies" from farms all over Southern Africa and move them to any place you wish so you can fly over and "hunt" them to glorify yourself among all the like minded "hunters" SCI likes to glorify

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

Well said, Mike.

The NRA does a wonderful job of protecting America's 80 million firearms owners but if we do the math we find that 75% of all gun owners do not hunt.

As long as the U.S. has only about 20 million hunters (including the millions who hunt only with bows and might not even own a gun), the NRA's primary focus will always be the Second Amendment.

Like it or not, SCI is our only international organization with the political clout, expertise, and funding needed to protect our hunting tradition worldwide.

DSC could eclipse SCI in that arena someday, but as you said, "it is not that strong national voice today."

Like you, I'm not ready yet to give up on SCI.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

Well said, Mike.

The NRA does a wonderful job of protecting America's 80 million firearms owners but if we do the math we find that 75% of all gun owners do not hunt.

As long as the U.S. has only about 20 million hunters (including the millions who hunt only with bows and might not even own a gun), the NRA's primary focus will always be the Second Amendment.

Like it or not, SCI is our only international organization with the political clout, expertise, and funding needed to protect our hunting tradition worldwide.

DSC could eclipse SCI in that arena someday, but as you said, "it is not that strong national voice today."

Like you, I'm not ready yet to give up on SCI.

Bill Quimby

We simply cannot afford to give up on them warts and all . . . there is no other national option at the present time. I think many of us feel that DSC could ultimately be that option but in the mean time the clock is ticking on the rights of hunters and sportsmen.

Having faith in SCI after all the silly things they have been up to, is like having a high power rifle, and one uses blanks to go hunting with.

So far all we can see is just hot air from them.

I am all ears . . . what's the alternative?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am all ears . . . what's the alternative?

Hi Mike:
In my humble opinion, the alternative is a mass exodus from SCI and move to DSC. And, I mean MASS in order to make it work. Vendors and attendees at the conventions, record book submissions, memberships, etc. The remaining elitists can blow sunshine up each other's butts in how great they are. In the January 2014 Safari magazine was an article "Nothing but Winners." That group needs to go it alone. Us average guys need to realize we don't need them BUT they do need us.
Cheers, mate.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am all ears . . . what's the alternative?

Hi Mike:
In my humble opinion, the alternative is a mass exodus from SCI and move to DSC. And, I mean MASS in order to make it work. Vendors and attendees at the conventions, record book submissions, memberships, etc. The remaining elitists can blow sunshine up each other's butts in how great they are. In the January 2014 Safari magazine was an article "Nothing but Winners." That group needs to go it alone. Us average guys need to realize we don't need them BUT they do need us.
Cheers, mate.
Cal

Cal, building an effective national organization and infrastructure is something that would take several years, that is not something that happens in weeks or months even with a mass exodus such as you describe. I agree, longer term maybe DSC is the answer. But that assumes that DSC wants to assume that role. DSC may be perfectly content to serve the role they currently serve. In the mean time, figuratively speaking, Rome is burning and the rights of hunters and sportsmen get eroded every week, every month.

Mike,

SCI needs a sort of revolution to change it into something useful for us as hunters.

They - and we - have allowed this bad rot to continue for so many years, with far too many cheerleaders standing against anyone who even remotely criticized SCI in the past.

Hey Mike and Cal:

Another alternative would be for DSC to return to the SCI umbrella and solve that organization's real and perceived problems from within.

SCI has an international (not just national) infrastructure and leadership, with 200 or so chapters and offices on four continents; a political wing with a PAC, offices, and lobbyists in D.C. and Canada; NGO status at CITES and other major international gatherings where decisions about wildlife matters are made; educational facilities and programs in multiple states and several countries; and an existing membership base about ten times larger than DSC.

With its 5,000 members in their pockets, however, DSC's leaders would be a force to be reckoned with on SCI's board of directors.

DSC and HSC originated when SCI chapters in those cities left the parent organization when the majority of SCI's chapters voted in the early 1980s to require every chapter to send 30% of the profits from their annual fund raisers to the club's international headquarters.

I have no idea what DSC nets from its conventions, but I would guess the overhead on its other programs that duplicate SCI's are more than 30%, leaving 70% for DSC to spend in other areas.

Why reinvent the wheel?

All this would come about in a perfect world where common sense prevails. Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen. SCI will continue to ignore DSC and its contributions, and DSC fans will continue to snipe at SCI ... and our community's dirty laundry will continue to be aired on internet forums.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Hey Mike and Cal:

Another alternative would be for DSC to return to the SCI umbrella and solve that organization's real and perceived problems from within.

SCI has an international (not just national) infrastructure and leadership, with 200 or so chapters and offices on four continents; a political wing with a PAC, offices, and lobbyists in D.C. and Canada; NGO status at CITES and other major international gatherings where decisions about wildlife matters are made; educational facilities and programs in multiple states and several countries; and an existing membership base about ten times larger than DSC.

With its 5,000 members in their pockets, however, DSC's leaders would be a force to be reckoned with on SCI's board of directors.

DSC and HSC originated when SCI chapters in those cities left the parent organization when the majority of SCI's chapters voted in the early 1980s to require every chapter to send 30% of the profits from their annual fund raisers to the club's international headquarters.

I have no idea what DSC nets from its conventions, but I would guess the overhead on its other programs that duplicate SCI's would be more than that 30%, leaving 70% for DSC to spend in other areas.

Why reinvent the wheel?

All this would come about in a perfect world where common sense would prevail. Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen. SCI will continue to ignore DSC and its contributions, and DSC fans will continue to snipe at SCI ... and all the dirty laundry in our community will continue to be aired on internet forums.

Bill Quimby

Bill:
You're a logical man and I can't disagree with anything you write. One thing I do know is a house, any house, can't stand divided.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Hey Mike and Cal:

Another alternative would be for DSC to return to the SCI umbrella and solve that organization's real and perceived problems from within.

SCI has an international (not just national) infrastructure and leadership, with 200 or so chapters and offices on four continents; a political wing with a PAC, offices, and lobbyists in D.C. and Canada; NGO status at CITES and other major international gatherings where decisions about wildlife matters are made; educational facilities and programs in multiple states and several countries; and an existing membership base about ten times larger than DSC.

With its 5,000 members in their pockets, however, DSC's leaders would be a force to be reckoned with on SCI's board of directors.

DSC and HSC originated when SCI chapters in those cities left the parent organization when the majority of SCI's chapters voted in the early 1980s to require every chapter to send 30% of the profits from their annual fund raisers to the club's international headquarters.

I have no idea what DSC nets from its conventions, but I would guess the overhead on its other programs that duplicate SCI's are more than 30%, leaving 70% for DSC to spend in other areas.

Why reinvent the wheel?

All this would come about in a perfect world where common sense prevails. Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen. SCI will continue to ignore DSC and its contributions, and DSC fans will continue to snipe at SCI ... and our community's dirty laundry will continue to be aired on internet forums.

Bill Quimby

Bill,

What you suggest is taking in consideration the fact that SCI top management are open to constructive suggestions, and are willing to change.

From what we have been seeing in the past years, this fact is not correct.

They seem to have gotten too far into a bloody mess, the only way out would be a complete re-organization.

Do you honestly think SCI management will ever do that??

We see all the great things individual chapters do, while headquarters makes one wonder if anyone with any common sense is left there!

Saeed:

You overlook that a large part of SCI's problems is that its management changes every year, and reorganization occurs with every election.

A new chapter with 5,000 members (and a significant 30% annual contribution) would be welcomed even though it would bring new ideas, revitalize the organization, and ultimately wag that big dog.

It will never happen though.

Bill Quimby

Saeed my friend, lots of folks here, mainly detractors of SCI, always bring up the "circles" thing. I know several hundred SCI members personally and none of them participate or even talk about the "circles" in SCI. Maybe Bill Q can contribute, but I wonder actually how many members of SCI actually participate to "great length" in this program? To me it seems this aspect of SCI gets blown way out of perspective, especially when some want to paint SCI with a "bad brush". This is as most folks know, just a voluntary program that one can choose to participate in or not. It in no way is the "guiding light" for ALL SCI members, believe me.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser
Sabatti "trash" Double Shooter

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

The only way we can get SCI to do something useful is to invent a some "circles" that actually be of benefit to us.

Guys,

I completely believe that if it were not for SCI that international hunting and particularly African hunting would not be the industry that it is. The SCI convention and everything around it is a powerful marketing tool that the operators need. All this bashing of SCI and continuing talk about Inner Circles and the elitist membership I'm afraid turns off new members because they have the wrong impression of who makes up SCI. I certainly don't consider myself an elitist, have no desire to win a Diamond Award and I think this is about the norm for SCI members. I've been a member for over 20 years and most of the SCI members I know don't even have an animals in the book. I think it is nice to have a reference to refer to so a hunter will know how his trophies stack up against what has been shot before and I think the majority of us would rather shoot big mature trophies than dinks. Actually entering them in the record book is kind of irrelevant to me but if folks want to do that why does anyone care?

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Saeed my friend, lots of folks here, mainly detractors of SCI, always bring up the "circles" thing. I know several hundred SCI members personally and none of them participate or even talk about the "circles" in SCI. Maybe Bill Q can contribute, but I wonder actually how many members of SCI actually participate to "great length" in this program? To me it seems this aspect of SCI gets blown way out of perspective, especially when some want to paint SCI with a "bad brush". This is as most folks know, just a voluntary program that one can choose to participate in or not. It in no way is the "guiding light" for ALL SCI members, believe me.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser
Sabatti "trash" Double Shooter

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not sure I am an apologist, but I sure wish SCI could become the organization we need for them to be. We are at a critical junction for the future of hunting and the absence of an effective advocacy voice for hunters and sportsmen at the national level is not a comforting thought. I will continue to support SCI, be a member of SCI, participate in Chapter activities and offer them feedback when I can like the survey. There is no better hope on the national level at the moment unless the NRA takes up the hunting banner. DSC may become that voice at some point but it is not that strong national voice today. Too much is at stake, in my view, to give up on SCI in the absence of a fall back plan.

The only way we can get SCI to do something useful is to invent a some "circles" that actually be of benefit to us.

Lay,

I am sue you are right, but why does SCI devote so much time and effort to these circles then??