quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

It WAS a bloody joke, but your obsession with SCI blinded you to any reasonable thoughts about it.

Did you honestly think they will let you do it?

If your answer is yes, then having any intelligent discussion with you regarding SCI is pointless!

They agreed for me to do it Saeed. At first the business people said no but I contacted some board executives, pleaded my case and they got me the permission to do it. Just a damn shame that you wont let your silly bias go long enough to allow it to happen.

What has any of this got to do with me??

Why did you not set it up then??

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Matt:

My question is serious and not intended to start a dispute. How does one vote ? I have been a member for many years and a life member probably at least 25 years. I do not recall being given the opportunity to vote. I want to vote if there is a way to do so.

Thank you.

You vote by nominating delegates from your local chapter. These delegates vote on behalf of their chapter. That is the way it is set-up.

We no longer have a local chapter. I guess that means I don't get to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Matt:

My question is serious and not intended to start a dispute. How does one vote ? I have been a member for many years and a life member probably at least 25 years. I do not recall being given the opportunity to vote. I want to vote if there is a way to do so.

Thank you.

You vote by nominating delegates from your local chapter. These delegates vote on behalf of their chapter. That is the way it is set-up.

We no longer have a local chapter. I guess that means I don't get to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

Many members here dont have access to a chapter. That was the main purpose of the proposed 'online' chapter Larry - so that we could all elect our own delegate, to vote and raise questions directly. I thought I was doing my best to change things for the better but it is very difficult with the amount of blind SCI hatred on here.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
I guess I will still get on a plane tomorrow and blindly fly to DC for Lobby Day with SCI.

They are without a doubt an imperfect organization (as is the NRA) but at this point I would rather participate in what is important to me, which is preserving our hunting rights and heritage, than to sit back and do nothing.

There are some on here that have fought the good fight with SCI and finally relented because they could not change the organization. I have the utmost respect for those guys and I may be one of them also eventually, although I hope not. However I suspect most of the SCI critics have not lifted a finger to effect any change in the organization. Had they tried maybe they guys I respect could have succeeded.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
These are some of the issues SCI is working now in DC:


SCI urges Congress to:

Make certain that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintains its commitment (April 23, 2015) not to enforce its regulation requiring the electronic registration of firearms by hunters who wish to travel abroad with their firearms, at least until CBP improves and/or revises the registration process;
Require the U.S. Department of State to withdraw the regulation (22 C.F.R. §123.17(c)) that requires hunters to electronically register their firearms in order to take those firearms out of the country for international hunting;
Introduce and adopt legislation that prohibits the U.S. Department of State from using regulations to create a de facto firearms registry of hunters who travel internationally.



SCI Supports S. 405, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015:

SCI supports the provisions of S. 405 that will, among other things, require
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) land managers to facilitate the use of federal lands for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting (Section 105);
BLM and FS planning documents to evaluate the effects of land and resource planning on hunting, fishing or recreational shooting opportunities (Section 105);
BLM and FS to report to Congress on significant closures of land to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting (Section 105);
BLM, FS, National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to identify areas that are open to hunting and fishing but for which access is prohibited or restricted (Section 202);
FWS to authorize the importation of polar bear trophies legally hunted in Canada prior to the listing of polar bears as “threatened” in 2008 and for which an import permit application was submitted to the FWS prior to May 15, 2008 (Section 103);
Federal agencies to report to Congress on awards paid by the federal government to litigants pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Section 108)



SCI Supports H.R. 697, the African Elephant Conservation and Legal Ivory Possession Act of 2015 – a Bill That Will Deprive the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Authority to Ban the Importation of African Elephants from CITES Appendix II Populations and Will Prohibit Unnecessary Limitations on Ivory Trade
SCI supports the African Elephant Conservation and Legal Ivory Possession Act of 2015, which will:

Prevent the FWS from banning the U.S. importation of legally sport-hunted elephants from populations listed on CITES Appendix II.
Prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from prohibiting the possession, sale, transfer or receipt of African elephant ivory that has been lawfully imported into the United States



SCI Supports Efforts Aimed at Removing the Wolves of the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming from the Endangered Species List:

SCI asks Congress to support efforts that recognize that the wolves of the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming do not qualify as “endangered” and do not require federal protection.


SCI Supports H.R. 528, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act
SCI supports the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act which will:

Require U.S. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials to facilitate opportunities and access on their lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and to evaluate in land and resource planning documents the impacts of proposed actions on such opportunities.
Require managers of federal lands to report to Congress on significant closures of lands to hunting, fishing and/or recreational shooting
Remedy several existing legislative gaps that, in past years, led to lengthy and unnecessary litigation, including –
The decade-long challenge to the National Wildlife Refuge System’s compliance with NEPA regarding the opening of refuge lands to hunting;
The challenge to the FWS’s authorization of water developments for bighorn sheep on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge;
The attack on the National Park Service’s (NPS) use of volunteer agents to assist with management of overpopulations of wildlife on NPS lands.



Maybe some people could even read a little more about these bills or referenced regulations and write either your Congressman or Senator (depending on if it is a House or Senate Bill) and express your support if so warranted. You do not even have to be an SCI member to do so, hell you can even hate SCI and still write your elected officials about these bills.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
I guess I will still get on a plane tomorrow and blindly fly to DC for Lobby Day with SCI.

They are without a doubt an imperfect organization (as is the NRA) but at this point I would rather participate in what is important to me, which is preserving our hunting rights and heritage, than to sit back and do nothing.

There are some on here that have fought the good fight with SCI and finally relented because they could not change the organization. I have the utmost respect for those guys and I may be one of them also eventually, although I hope not. However I suspect most of the SCI critics have not lifted a finger to effect any change in the organization. Had they tried maybe they guys I respect could have succeeded.

Mike,

Thanks for doing this again this year. Last year with you, Mr. Jines and Mr. Shores was informative and eye opening. I will continue to support SCI as I feel they are (hopefully) in a transition phase. They seem to be listening.

Saeed,

Most of your comments have in the past been right on the money. I would now encourage you to take a wait and see posture. I am hoping for and seeing signs of genuine change. At least lip service is being paid to it. They have the ability to effect the greatest amount of change in the hunting world.

They have a lobbying infrastructure in place.

They have relatively deep pockets.

They have well heeled members.

If they drop the self worship and self seeking awards and turn their focus outward who knows?

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
What would be the point of an online SCI chapter? I'm not knocking it, but isn't AR a facsimile of one? The local SCI chapters make money and contributions through banquets and monthly meetings. However, I'm not sure how much goes to national versus local causes. How would an online an online chapter make sense?

For example; I enjoy the annual banquet for the local SCI chapter and the monthly meetings that once occurred. Although DSC is obviously centered in Dallas, they do have certain occasional meetings in various areas of Texas to accommodate members in those areas. I'm just not so sure it makes sense in a virtual world beyond a forum. I suppose you could start a page on the Facebook restricted to those who provide proof of dues.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
No "one" organization will ever be able to unite "all" hunters, just won't happen. Take AR for example, a miniature look at the subject.

I won't use "hate" but it is most likely a reality in a majority of cases.

Folks on AR "dislike" the following: Rifle hunters dislike bow hunters and muzzle loader hunters; bow hunters dislike muzzle loader hunters and rifle hunters; some dislike "high fence" hunting, some love high fence hunting; some like long range hunting, some hate long range hunting; some dislike hunters who take game that doesn't meet "their" standards; some dislike whitetail hunters, others love them. I think you get my point. Probable several dozen examples expressed here on AR of this?

There is so much bias and discontent among our own, that bringing "everyone" under one umbrellas no matter what the group would be called, is simply never going to happen. So the "splinter" groups out there actually provide the coverage for most of us hunters to have some type of voice in the overall picture. So don't expect SCI or any other organization to accomplish this task.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
No "one" organization will ever be able to unite "all" hunters, just won't happen. Take AR for example, a miniature look at the subject.

I won't use "hate" but it is most likely a reality in a majority of cases.

Folks on AR "dislike" the following: Rifle hunters dislike bow hunters and muzzle loader hunters; bow hunters dislike muzzle loader hunters and rifle hunters; some dislike "high fence" hunting, some love high fence hunting; some like long range hunting, some hate long range hunting; some dislike hunters who take game that doesn't meet "their" standards; some dislike whitetail hunters, others love them. I think you get my point. Probable several dozen examples expressed here on AR of this?

There is so much bias and discontent among our own, that bringing "everyone" under one umbrellas no matter what the group would be called, is simply never going to happen. So the "splinter" groups out there actually provide the coverage for most of us hunters to have some type of voice in the overall picture. So don't expect SCI or any other organization to accomplish this task.

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

Disagree

Three Letters

NRA

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
At least the NRA does not spend any time, effort and money glorifying a very small section of their members, at the same time ignoring the rest of their members.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
At least the NRA does not spend any time, effort and money glorifying a very small section of their members, at the same time ignoring the rest of their members.

Hopefully they will drop that silly shit in the future Saeed.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
What would be the point of an online SCI chapter? I'm not knocking it, but isn't AR a facsimile of one? The local SCI chapters make money and contributions through banquets and monthly meetings. However, I'm not sure how much goes to national versus local causes. How would an online an online chapter make sense?

quote:

Originally posted by talentrec:
There's no doubt that SCI has it's issues. I think a lot of them come from the nature of volunteer organizations. Having been a past Chapter President, it's a ton of work. I probably spent 300-400 hours a year on it during my term. That kind of commitment had a significant effect on my own business. So why would anyone want to volunteer that much time?

I think people volunteer for one of these five reasons:

1. They truly care about the issue/cause.
2. They like the social aspect of it.
3. They want power.
4. They want the prestige/acknowledgment of being seen as a leader/volunteer
5. They want to use their position to further their own financial/business interests.

I would guess in any volunteer organization, the motivations of the volunteers are probably a equal split between these. I don't think SCI is any different. Given the very different motivations that bring people there, it's no surprise that most volunteer-led organizations have large amount of disfunction. You end up having to take the good with the bad and do the best you can.

While I'm also a member of DSC, I still think that SCI is our only viable advocate on an international level to protect hunting rights, at this time.

Personally, I'm very grateful to SCI's legal team for how they've assisted us in my home state the past few years. It was SCI's lawyers prevented a large portion of northern Minnesota from being declared Lynx habitat, which would have effectively ended dry land trapping of predators in that part of the state. Two years ago, SCI argued on behalf of our DNR regarding a challenge to the Minnesota wolf season brought on by an extremely well funded group called Howling for Wolves. Anna's arguments singlehandedly squashed their case when she showed that they didn't have standing to be bringing the case in the first place. If it wasn't for SCI, both of these most likely would have gone the other direction.

So while you have some people chasing Diamonds and Circles, others are willing to roll up their sleeves and protect hunting in a very real way, versus just pounding their chests on an internet form.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by talentrec:
There's no doubt that SCI has it's issues. I think a lot of them come from the nature of volunteer organizations. Having been a past Chapter President, it's a ton of work. I probably spent 300-400 hours a year on it during my term. That kind of commitment had a significant effect on my own business. So why would anyone want to volunteer that much time?

I think people volunteer for one of these five reasons:

1. They truly care about the issue/cause.
2. They like the social aspect of it.
3. They want power.
4. They want the prestige/acknowledgment of being seen as a leader/volunteer
5. They want to use their position to further their own financial/business interests.

I would guess in any volunteer organization, the motivations of the volunteers are probably a equal split between these. I don't think SCI is any different. Given the very different motivations that bring people there, it's no surprise that most volunteer-led organizations have large amount of disfunction. You end up having to take the good with the bad and do the best you can.

While I'm also a member of DSC, I still think that SCI is our only viable advocate on an international level to protect hunting rights, at this time.

Personally, I'm very grateful to SCI's legal team for how they've assisted us in my home state the past few years. It was SCI's lawyers prevented a large portion of northern Minnesota from being declared Lynx habitat, which would have effectively ended dry land trapping of predators in that part of the state. Two years ago, SCI argued on behalf of our DNR regarding a challenge to the Minnesota wolf season brought on by an extremely well funded group called Howling for Wolves. Anna's arguments singlehandedly squashed their case when she showed that they didn't have standing to be bringing the case in the first place. If it wasn't for SCI, both of these most likely would have gone the other direction.

So while you have some people chasing Diamonds and Circles, others are willing to roll up their sleeves and protect hunting in a very real way, versus just pounding their chests on an internet form.

You guys up there have lots more problems than SCI can fix. The first priority that you Minnesotans should embrace is changing your blue state politics.....electing Hussein twice????? Jesse Ventura???? Al Franken???? are you freaking kidding me ?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
What would be the point of an online SCI chapter? I'm not knocking it, but isn't AR a facsimile of one? The local SCI chapters make money and contributions through banquets and monthly meetings. However, I'm not sure how much goes to national versus local causes. How would an online an online chapter make sense?

A direct conduit for that 'facsimile' within SCI. SCI was keen to engage with the 'online' hunting community, in a structured way (ie. through actual members, not anonymous randoms). The Chapter structure is the way to do that.

Reading the comments above it is clear that that is not going to happen on AR, it will not be given a 'fair go'.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
After reading all this I hope and pray Alaska SCI's chapter will follow the lead of Dallas and drop out of SCI and form their own organization. I see nothing but benefits--most so of keeping all the the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised--keeping it all in AK.
If this ever happens, or if the idea is presented to the members for a vote, I would jump in in a New York minute. My writings, publishing, books, double rifles, etc., would be at the alter to ASC--Alaska Safari Club!
Of course, the loss of revenue would cause a major play on SCI's part and officers would visit and the AK chapter would gets lots of attention and pressure to remain.
So, how about it? A look into the possibility of an Alaska Safari Club! We are so far away we could become another Dallas. We have the knowledge, international hunters, money, time, skills, etc., to make a good go of it. Let's set our goals of one million dollars income a year and AK gets to keep it all! How about it, Mr. President?
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
After reading all this I hope and pray Alaska SCI's chapter will follow the lead of Dallas and drop out of SCI and form their own organization. I see nothing but benefits--most so of keeping all the the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised--keeping it all in AK.
If this ever happens, or if the idea is presented to the members for a vote, I would jump in in a New York minute. My writings, publishing, books, double rifles, etc., would be at the alter to ASC--Alaska Safari Club!
Of course, the loss of revenue would cause a major play on SCI's part and officers would visit and the AK chapter would gets lots of attention and pressure to remain.
So, how about it? A look into the possibility of an Alaska Safari Club! We are so far away we could become another Dallas. We have the knowledge, international hunters, money, time, skills, etc., to make a good go of it. Let's set our goals of one million dollars income a year and AK gets to keep it all! How about it, Mr. President?
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
How about it, Mr. President?
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

You have failed in your efforts, and now blame it on AR??

The only thing AR would do is save you paying to host it, nothing else!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

You have failed in your efforts, and now blame it on AR??

The only thing AR would do is save you paying to host it, nothing else!

Failed? Blame? Yes that is the attitude I am talking about.

It wasn't about hosting. I have the ability to host it myself.... but obviously AR is a large international community that could actually help make this work.