quot;SCI believes the recent lawsuits were ill advised and ill conceived. They
pit hunter against hunter, resulting in unintended negative consequences and actions
which may ultimately affect our freedom to hunt. For nearly a hundred years, our
game species have been well managed by state agencies who utilize local and
professional game biologists and agents who are answerable to the local and state
residents. Now, as a result of the recent lawsuits, many aspects of game
management are in the hands of the federal courts and ultimately may be in the hands
of Federal Government bureaucracy. SCI strongly opposes the involvement of the
federal government in state and local game management. Therefore, SCI believes
that under the circumstances, federal legislative action negating the recent federal
court decision may be necessary. However, SCI strongly urges the states to be
mindful of the equities of nonresident hunters. Much of huntable land,
particularly in the west, is federal land that belongs to all citizens. Every
American should have a reasonable opportunity to hunt in states that have hunting.
Additionally, nonresident hunting remains and should remain an important part of
state fish and game department funding therefore SCI urges the states that have
generous quotas to maintain those quotas (for example, Colorado which provides 40%
of its quota to non-residents, and New Mexico which provides 22%), and other states
to adopt a quota for non-residents of not less than 15%."

I see you got to the posting of the email before me. I hope everyone gets this message.

Sounds fair to me!

Thanks for posting that, my dues are due and I was waffeling on sending it to them or another organization.

I only wish SCI were against poaching in Africa and would quit auctioning illegal African hunts.

Thanks SCI