I am a member & have every intention of staying one.
That said, there are things I don't like about it. Not enough to make me jump ship, just wish the powers that be would conduct themselves with integrity & actually provide the resources & backing of the international hunting community as they are suppose too.
I am neither an apologist nor a rock thrower. Just a member wanting to be able to be proud of what I am apart of.
Please feel free to comment as you see fit, just remember positive IMHO works better than negative for reform.

I am in the same boat that you are in.

To my way of thinking, the best they could do would be to change leadership methods.

I think that having members directly vote for executive leadership would be better than what we have. The fact that there is no transparency in how the leadership is elected is probably the biggest issue.

I have no problem with the chapter leadership electing board members, and having a general membership elected president, if there is need to give the chapters some sort of further control.

The ethics panel should either be elected by the members at large or randomly selected from the members at large (a la our jury pool) to remove the taint of the old boys network.

I kind of doubt that we will see this happen though, as those in power tend to refuse to give it up.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
I am a member & have every intention of staying one.
That said, there are things I don't like about it. Not enough to make me jump ship, just wish the powers that be would conduct themselves with integrity & actually provide the resources & backing of the international hunting community as they are suppose too.
I am neither an apologist nor a rock thrower. Just a member wanting to be able to be proud of what I am apart of.
Please feel free to comment as you see fit, just remember positive IMHO works better than negative for reform.

I have been a Life Member for many years.

But, I have been very disappointed in how SCI is run.

You mentioned the word "integrity" above.

Sadly, that is one of the qualities missing from those who have managed to climb the SCI ladder to the top.

I did not wa5ch the whole video, neither did I read the whole transcript of it.

A few pages told me all I had been suspecting for years.

SCI has degenerated to nothing more than an old boy club.

All the top management care about is themselves. And how to glorify each other.

The ONLY way forward is to get rid of every single one in the top management.

And replace them with individuals who could not care less what trophies they have in the book, or what awards they have been given, or what circle they belong to.

They also need to be a lot more transparent in how they spend our money.

Claiming to have paid X amount to Y cause is not good enough.

We need to see all the details.

SCI's claim "First For Hunters" might then be realized.

Because it sure isn't in their present state of sad affairs.

best thing i can think of is to open the election of Board members and officers to the general membership, like the NRA. publish a short bio of each candidate in a magazine issue 3 months before ballots are sent out. and please cheerleaders, don't use the expense excuse of such a move as a cop out to avoid it. $200k expense accounts for the president to flit about, the several hundred other thousands of dollars expensed by the EC/Board members, not to mention $1400 dinners in Geneva, multiple corporate credit cards. if curtailed, this will more than recover the cost of ANY election that makes the leadership accountable to the people who actually pay the freight. and just maybe, leave a good bit of change to put into hunter advocacy/conservation. chances of this happening, of course??- ZERO.....

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
best thing i can think of is to open the election of Board members and officers to the general membership, like the NRA. publish a short bio of each candidate in a magazine issue 3 months before ballots are sent out. and please cheerleaders, don't use the expense excuse of such a move as a cop out to avoid it. $200k expense accounts for the president to flit about, the several hundred other thousands of dollars expensed by the EC/Board members, not to mention $1400 dinners in Geneva, multiple corporate credit cards. if curtailed, this will more than recover the cost of ANY election that makes the leadership accountable to the people who actually pay the freight. and just maybe, leave a good bit of change to put into hunter advocacy/conservation. chances of this happening, of course??- ZERO.....

I like those ideas, let's add record book from now on is the species only not who shot it, and awards programs for only conservation of our sport. That might help thing for the future.

for those who say the record book is a valuable tool when researching the best area for certain species, the book could have area and outfitter included but not hunter. of course, the cash cow of inner/outer circles, diamond this platinum that, sheep/goats/cats/ bovines/deers/marsupials of the world, etc. would go away. at least the record book would be much smaller/portable. best of all- THE LEADERSHIP WOULD FINALLY BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MEMBERS WHO FUND THINGS!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
for those who say the record book is a valuable tool when researching the best area for certain species, the book could have area and outfitter included but not hunter. of course, the cash cow of inner/outer circles, diamond this platinum that, sheep/goats/cats/ bovines/deers/marsupials of the world, etc. would go away. at least the record book would be much smaller/portable. best of all- THE LEADERSHIP WOULD FINALLY BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MEMBERS WHO FUND THINGS!

What about the self-guided trophies? There are still lots of those.

Do you really want a record book that is smaller either??

Awards are not an integral part of the record book itself.

I think some of those awards for circles/slams/etc serve a purpose, but I think it should be simplified. Make things more like they traditionally were. Spiral 9 requires 1 of each of the 9 spiral horns, Tiny 10 requires 1of each of the basic 10. I would accept a slight change to the Big 5 because of the rhino situation.

My point is have some award available for what people are naturally going to have as hunting goals. Put a goal out there, and many are going to want to go after those. There were people trying to get the "Big 5" and probably the "Grand Slam of Sheep"(or Turkeys) before SCI existed. Sure there will be those like the SCI execs looking to one-up each other, but there are plenty of rank and file members who'd love to gets such awards, some who'd just like to see their name in the magazine and have the plaque/statue in their house but wouldn't even go to the awards banquet. That would be someone like me.

I like CIC award - bronze,silver, gold.
Self guided, guided. Wild/estates.
No more choice of weapons period
And, yes, let members vote...
Otherwise, it has become " Dead peckers club "

I was a member & measurer but saw the light and resigned many years ago.

I think SCI could be a huge force for the good of hunting but before they achieve that or even regain any significant degree of credibility, I think they need to make an awful lot of changes.

Firstly, they need to become open and transparent in ALL their dealings, especially their financial dealings & that should include publishing their full accounts in an easily understandable format like many other large organisations do.

They need to elect their leaders and representatives democratically where Chapters and individual members get the votes.

They need to restructure the convention set up and do away with ALL so called 'donations' so the exhibitor pays a set price for a set location at the show. Better/best locations should be more expensive than the not so good ones.

I'd also like to see the award system addressed so it's more related to real conservation efforts with less 'good ol boy' attitude.

I do think there should be some form of recognition to an individual taking all of the sheep, the pigs or the Big 5 etc but let's not tear the arse out of it because it's really a case of just having the dedication & the money to afford it rather than any particularly greater skill on the part of the hunter. - CIC style awards might not be a bad idea.

I'd guess they also need to r e-evaluate the running costs of the HQ because my guess is it costs a fortune and that money could be better spent elsewhere and in conservation & protecting hunter's rights.

They also need to support the overseas chapters considerably more than they currently do if they expect to have overseas Chapters.

I have been an SCI member for a number of years and expect to remain so. SCI has done a lot for hunters. I believe the POTENTIAL to do much more exists. I won't comment on the awards programs as I am not interested in same, for those who are, fine. IMO, the organization needs more TRANSPARANCY and ACCOUNTABILITY, on all levels: local chapters on up to the top.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
best thing i can think of is to open the election of Board members and officers to the general membership, like the NRA. publish a short bio of each candidate in a magazine issue 3 months before ballots are sent out. and please cheerleaders, don't use the expense excuse of such a move as a cop out to avoid it. $200k expense accounts for the president to flit about, the several hundred other thousands of dollars expensed by the EC/Board members, not to mention $1400 dinners in Geneva, multiple corporate credit cards. if curtailed, this will more than recover the cost of ANY election that makes the leadership accountable to the people who actually pay the freight. and just maybe, leave a good bit of change to put into hunter advocacy/conservation. chances of this happening, of course??- ZERO.....

I like that idea. It would be a good start. My fear is that the same old people would still get in. You see it in government all the time. The sheeple vote in the familar name or the incumbant.

if you wish to question the board about these issues please go to the board meeting that will be held during the convention. SCI like many organizations and the several professional organizations I belong to have critics as they all should. Issues are very similar when it comes to how money is spent and I am all for accountability.
Our local SCI Chapter does a lot of good for the local community from cleaning up campsites after hunting season, providing salt and mineral for big horn sheep, re-introducing antelope to Washington State, along with other projects along the education and humanitarian line.
It is easy to criticize it takes work when you volunteer.

I think they are an old boys club as clubs tend to become over the years. A purge and fresh start are needed for SCI to retain it's primary principles as were laid out in the beginning. A simple example is the degeneration of the magazine to where cigars, perfume and wines are current topics.These topics are not usually of interest to hunters, none that I have known in 50 years of hunting.It seems for the upper echelon that the whole thing has become a circle of people who put records and one upmanship over the actual hunting of game. Money is all that is required to get all the exotics and collect all the species,not talent. As for the record book I'm just not interested,never have been. If an animal I take is so large the PH can benefit from it being in the book, he can enter it.

Disband the current entity.

Reform or merge with Boone and Crockett/Rowland and Ward.

Put ethics back in place.

Do away with self aggrandizing awards that they give each other after they bought the "trophy".

If you think I am just spouting off, let me give an insight that I got after several thousand dollars spent trying to sort out the various "conservation" organizations.

I personally investigated/reviewed/studied the top 100 conservation organizations out there. This included The Audubon Society, The National Wildlife Federation, The Izaak Walton League, World Wildlife Fund, DU, Trout Unlimited, NRA, Defenders of Wildlife, The Bat Conservations Society, Quail Unlimited, NWTF, and on and on. I acquired and evaluated each entities balance sheet and compared it to the number of members they had, and what actual percentage of money was spent on the mission statement.

I learned that many of the organizations spent as little as 5% of their money on actual mission statement oriented projects. Very few spent more than 75% of the money on their mission. The biggest expense was for fund raising. The worst of the groups was the Sierra Club and a couple of pro-hunting groups.

Digging deeper I learned that several of the groups were headquartered out of the same building in Edgefield, South Carolina. I checked this further and found that the same people were running these different groups and drawing salaries from each. In other words, raising money for turkeys, or quail or smallmouth bass or stripped bass is big business.

The only group I investigated that was a huge hunting advocate was Boone and Crockett. I was impressed with them how they run their organization. I did not look at SCI, DSC or Rowland and Ward.

Following this investigation, I dropped all memberships except Boone and Crockett.

All of this to say, look at the mission of conservations group then look at where the money goes. This will tell you what to expect.
Further, if it is volunteer run to a large extent, such as DSC or Boone and Crockett, you will see more emphasis on the mission than on the money.

SCI started out well but is pure Hollywood crap at this point. The volunteers need to rise up and re-take it.

quote:

Do away with self aggrandizing awards that they give each other after they bought the "trophy".

If you do that you will kill a whole industry in South Africa

Not to mention all the hi-powered Wall Street crooks who spend millions to get themselves in the so called "Record Book"!

The only "record" these idiots have is being so vain!

Saeed and others:

If SCI isn't accomplishing what hunters think it should, why not form an alternative that could do better? Competition works!

"If SCI isn't accomplishing what hunters think it should, why not form an alternative that could do better? Competition works!"

I think that has been done. It is called Dallas Safari Club.

quote:

Originally posted by boliep:
"If SCI isn't accomplishing what hunters think it should, why not form an alternative that could do better? Competition works!"

I think that has been done. It is called Dallas Safari Club.

And Houston Safari Club and Boone & Crockett and Rowland and Ward....

It's all very well us saying what we think it should be but I'll bet nothing significant will change and that things will pretty much continue as before...... which is a bloody shame because they could be so very much more than they currently are.

The management at the top needs to be changed more often. Just like a dirty diaper and for the same reason. Also I agree that the record books are about areas and animals. I don't give jack about who achieves their inner circle.
I gave my money because I wanted a voice in legislative matters regarding conservation of game, not to fund some fatcat's trophy room orgasm.

Several years ago when the Humane Society of the US filed suit against National Wildlife Refuges to attempt to limit or stop new hunting programs, SCI provided legal services as a friend of the court supporting hunting programs. Nobody else did. I didn't know much about SCI, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend - and I was damn glad to have them in the trench with me!

So based on that, I sent in my money and joined. Or at least I tried to. Then I got a call from the President of the Oklahoma chapter saying I had to be a member of the state organization to be a member of the national organization. Huh.

I asked him to send me information, and I was told that unless I was serious, they wouldn't send me a brochure because they cost money to print. Huh.

I got the brochure in the mail and about that time I had some family issues (my Dad died) and I put things on hold. Mike didn't - I got 3 phone calls telling me I needed to get my dues in, that if I wasn't serious, I shouldn't have gotten a brochure. Huh.

I got around to sending in my dues, then watched with interest the everyday shenanigans - and finally decided enough was enough. Not a member any more. Noted with interest when the Oklahoma Chapter President got in hot water for wildlife violations. Huh.

Not going there again. Ever.

I have to agree with one thing.
All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.
Kinda like NRA.
We would have a lot more political clout for sure and that's what we need the most.
If we don't keep the politicos in check, we are in real trouble.
P.S.
Boone and Crockett is dinosaurus ( extinct in my book , Teddy is rolling in his grave ), Rolland Ward is trilobite and if we are not careful SCI will get there soon as well.
Money corrupts

quote:

All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.

I just don't see that happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Acer:
Several years ago when the Humane Society of the US filed suit against National Wildlife Refuges to attempt to limit or stop new hunting programs, SCI provided legal services as a friend of the court supporting hunting programs. Nobody else did. I didn't know much about SCI, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend - and I was damn glad to have them in the trench with me!

So based on that, I sent in my money and joined. Or at least I tried to. Then I got a call from the President of the Oklahoma chapter saying I had to be a member of the state organization to be a member of the national organization. Huh.

I asked him to send me information, and I was told that unless I was serious, they wouldn't send me a brochure because they cost money to print. Huh.

I got the brochure in the mail and about that time I had some family issues (my Dad died) and I put things on hold. Mike didn't - I got 3 phone calls telling me I needed to get my dues in, that if I wasn't serious, I shouldn't have gotten a brochure. Huh.

I got around to sending in my dues, then watched with interest the everyday shenanigans - and finally decided enough was enough. Not a member any more. Noted with interest when the Oklahoma Chapter President got in hot water for wildlife violations. Huh.

Not going there again. Ever.

I was a national member for a year or two before I was an OK Station member. I think Mr. Mistelske gave you a line of bull that worked, unlike the line of bull he must have given Some governmental organization about the leopard.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.

I just don't see that happening.

Same with a few of the churches. I am an "United Methodist", fat chance we could all agree on much. Seems the concept of the one and only Son of God requires a lot of denominations.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I have to agree with one thing.
All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.
Kinda like NRA.
We would have a lot more political clout for sure and that's what we need the most.
If we don't keep the politicos in check, we are in real trouble.
P.S.
Boone and Crockett is dinosaurus ( extinct in my book , Teddy is rolling in his grave ), Rolland Ward is trilobite and if we are not careful SCI will get there soon as well.
Money corrupts

Merge all into DSC then? And we lose the uniqueness of having a full volunteer run group.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I have to agree with one thing.
All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.
Kinda like NRA.
We would have a lot more political clout for sure and that's what we need the most.
If we don't keep the politicos in check, we are in real trouble.
P.S.
Boone and Crockett is dinosaurus ( extinct in my book , Teddy is rolling in his grave ), Rolland Ward is trilobite and if we are not careful SCI will get there soon as well.
Money corrupts

Merge all into DSC then? And we lose the uniqueness of having a full volunteer run group.

Does DSC not have employees and such (contractors, etc)?

quote:

Does DSC not have employees and such (contractors, etc)?

Matt
Not sure of the number of paid employees at DSC, but I'd wager it's less than 20, probably closer to 12.
Everyone else is a volunteer!
How about it Karl or Richard, can you inform us of the correct number of paid employees at DSC?

quote:

Originally posted by dande_jack:
I think they are an old boys club as clubs tend to become over the years. A purge and fresh start are needed for SCI to retain it's primary principles as were laid out in the beginning.

You have hit the nail on the head. Take a look at most sports organisations from small to large, they all start with good intentions and with people having good intentions but invariably all of them end up corrupted by power and money. Of course it gets worse the bigger the organisation is. Take a look at the world governing bodies for Formula 1, cricket, rugby union, rugby league, football, hockey, dancesport, boxing and most likely all of the other popular sporting codes you follow in the USA, everyone of them have their troubles with old boys mentality, power grabbing and of course nearly always money corruption is mixed in as well.
New organisations come along because of dissatisfaction with the old but very soon they invariably end up following suit as the same sort of people end up in the governing positions, those with the time and energy to put into it and then they don't want anyone else involved who may suggest different goals or sharing of that power.

We will never change the world and SCI is just one of many organisations with the same modi operandi that will never change now.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

Does DSC not have employees and such (contractors, etc)?

Matt
Not sure of the number of paid employees at DSC, but I'd wager it's less than 20, probably closer to 12.
Everyone else is a volunteer!
How about it Karl or Richard, can you inform us of the correct number of paid employees at DSC?

10, last time I counted.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.

I just don't see that happening.

I am pretty sure that DSC was founded due to differences in philosophy in the beginning...so agreed...not likely to happen.

Unless everyone just left SCI and joined DSC.

I'm a life member of SCI and I do like some of the things that they do. I think if you hunt, you should belong to SCI, if you own a gun, you should belong to the NRA. Do I agree with everything they do, hell no. That said SCI is a corporation and corporation largely only care about the bottom line. The convention is a monopoly and its who you know to be exhibiter and a new exhibitor cannot get in unless you are giving away a big hunt which may or not be on the up and up. I think it should be fair for everyone so you get new businesses in to the show instead of only having to look and book with the same old same old. After 1 day on the show floor, you feel that you have seen this all before, oh I did, last year.
Will they ever change, as long as the money is coming in, never.

quote:

The convention is a monopoly and its who you know to be exhibiter and a new exhibitor cannot get in unless you are giving away a big hunt which may or not be on the up and up.

Oakman:

Are you certain its only the newbies that have to give a big hunt away?

I was under the impression that if an exhibitor wanted a prime spot on the convention hall floor he had to make a substantial form of contribution and reason being why there have been repeated suggestions that prime spots should have a visible price tag - same as renting an apartment.

quote:

Unless everyone just left SCI and joined DSC.

Lane:

Everyone? ... so that the cancer be introduced and propagated?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

All the hunting groups would be smarter to merge into a one powerful group.

I just don't see that happening.

I am pretty sure that DSC was founded due to differences in philosophy in the beginning...so agreed...not likely to happen.

Unless everyone just left SCI and joined DSC.

great idea

This is of course hypothetical.

But, if SCI was to get dissolved, and its members are to join DSC, here is what I propose as a Life Member of both.

DSC welcomes ANY member of SCI, with the exception of anyone who has ever held a position in the management of SCI!

We don't want them to start their silly antics at DSC

sounds good to me. keep the riff raff out from the git go. anyone above the level of regional rep has to know what has been going on for years at SCI..... UNLESS THEY ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

The convention is a monopoly and its who you know to be exhibiter and a new exhibitor cannot get in unless you are giving away a big hunt which may or not be on the up and up.

Oakman:

Are you certain its only the newbies that have to give a big hunt away?

I was under the impression that if an exhibitor wanted a prime spot on the convention hall floor he had to make a substantial form of contribution and reason being why there have been repeated suggestions that prime spots should have a visible price tag - same as renting an apartment.

Well the actual situation has been exlained here at least half a dozen times - but no, that's OK - you just keep spouting the same BS ad nauseum. That will keep the slobbering anti-everything SCI mob happy.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

The convention is a monopoly and its who you know to be exhibiter and a new exhibitor cannot get in unless you are giving away a big hunt which may or not be on the up and up.

Oakman:

Are you certain its only the newbies that have to give a big hunt away?

I was under the impression that if an exhibitor wanted a prime spot on the convention hall floor he had to make a substantial form of contribution and reason being why there have been repeated suggestions that prime spots should have a visible price tag - same as renting an apartment.

Well the actual situation has been exlained here at least half a dozen times - but no, that's OK - you just keep spouting the same BS ad nauseum. That will keep the slobbering anti-everything SCI mob happy.

Matt,

Please explain to us what one needs to get a place at SCI show?

Isn't one REQUIRED to give either some product, service, or cash to be able to have a place?

Isn't it also true that depending on how much you have been blackmailed to "donate" where your place is?